should we ban any discussion of Semantics on JC??

[BillyTheMountain]

should we ban any discussion of Semantics on JC??

People spend a LOT of time discussing semantics. Just so eveyone knows what we're talking about, Semantics (From Wikipedia) (from the Greek semantikos, or "significant meaning," derived from sema, sign) is the study of meaning, in some sense of that term. It should not be confused with the general semantics of Alfred Korzybski, a somewhat different discipline. Semantics is often opposed to syntax, in which case the former pertains to what something means while the latter pertains to the formal structure/patterns in which something is expressed (for example written or spoken).

Semantics is distinguished from ontology (study of existence) in being about the use of a word more than the nature of the entity referenced by the word. This is reflected in the argument, "That's only semantics," when someone tries to draw conclusions about what is true about the world based on what is true about a word.

Several more particular senses of the word can be identified, if you would care to add those to the banning.....

Billy

[Mikefule]

It really depends on what you mean by "semantics".

[phlegm]

Originally Posted by Mikefule

It really depends on what you mean by "semantics".

Dang! You beat me!

[Mikefule]

Sorry, couldn't resist being first with the traditional semantics joke.

But you try to define semantics in your opening post, by refering to a dictionary! Then you try to distinguish it from ontology. How semantic is that?

Semantics for its own sake is a sterile (but sometimes enjoyable) theatre for arguments. More important is the deliberate or accidental use of lexical ambiguity: the subtle change in meaning as an argument develops. (Also, the basis of many puns and jokes.)

When people shift the meaning of a word as their argument develops, this needs to be pointed out, and this is a legitimate place for semantic analysis.

Exaggerated example to illustrate the process:
(1) God is the force that created the universe.
(2) The universe exists.
(3) Therefore, God exists.
(4) Therefore, we should do what it says in the Bible.

In (1) God is only vaguely defined as a "force". There is no suggestion of omnipotence, benevolence, omnipresence, or any association with Christianity, Islam or any other creed.

In (3) there is an implication that "God" means pretty much what the Christian consensus view of God might be.

In (4) the assumption is that God is exactly as described in the Bible.

Without commenting on (4) in detail, it is clear from this semantic analysis that the word "God" changes in meaning throughout the four stage argument. It is reasonable to point this out, and this is in my view a legitimate place for semantics.

[tomblackwood]

Originally Posted by Mikefule

But you try to define semantics in your opening post, by refering to a dictionary!

Let's not make the mistake of calling Wikipedia a dictionary.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by tomblackwood

Let's not make the mistake of calling Wikipedia a dictionary.

True. It's an encyclopedia, and a flawed one at that. What do you think, Tom? Do they have it right on semantics?

Originally Posted by this end up

gilby and gild are the same person?

They are never seen together in the same place, and they think all the same things....

Originally Posted by mscalisi

Oh Billy Billy Billy. Whatever are we to do. I'm now offically bored with this argument on semantics.

Am I to infer from your post that you are a follower in the teachings of the son of the unicorn?

I don't know how to respond to that. You can find GILd/GILby's chest tattoo of the unicorns easily enough, in one of the "religious" [whatever THAT means] threads.

Billy

[Gilby]

No, you have the right to be as confusing as you want... free speech brother.

As for taking a small part of a sentence and changing the meaning of what was said by someone else, that should be banned.

[maestro8]

Originally Posted by Gilby

what was said by someone else, that should be banned.

What, free speech in one sentence and outright censorship in the next? What do you care what was said by someone else? Let alone, how can you care so much as to ban them?!?

[Gilby]

Originally Posted by maestro8

What, free speech in one sentence and outright censorship in the next? What do you care what was said by someone else? Let alone, how can you care so much as to ban them?!?

Must... find... ban... button... anyone got a flashlight?

[mscalisi]

No, LETS discuss semantics.

For example, BTM(G) once said that athiests have a relationship with god.

What could that mean?
Could an athiest make that statment?

What could we infer about the religous status of a person who would make that statment and what it implies about their opinion on the validity of athiesm.

In other words, Could one could twist semantics in such a way as to deliberately show their disdain for anothers belief system? What would Jesus say about that?


;-) <---obligitory wink to show I intend no ill-will by this statement.

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by mscalisi

No, LETS discuss semantics.

For example, BTM(G) once said that athiests have a relationship with god.

What could that mean?
Could an athiest make that statment?

What could we infer about the religous status of a person who would make that statment and what it implies about their opinion on the validity of athiesm.

In other words, Could one could twist semantics in such a way as to deliberately show their disdain for anothers belief system? What would Jesus say about that?

;-) <---obligitory wink to show I intend no ill-will by this statement.

Jesus has spoken. He said BTMG is correct and above distain, and the rest of you are forgiven!

Who am I to argue?

[cathwood]

Originally Posted by maestro8

What, free speech in one sentence and outright censorship in the next? What do you care what was said by someone else? Let alone, how can you care so much as to ban them?!?

There speaks someone who hasn't had the BTM treatment.

Cathy

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Gilby

All speech I disagree with, should be banned.

It seems like the threadjackers got here already!!

Billy

[BillyTheMountain]

Originally Posted by Seager

I thought we banned semantic discussions?

Originally Posted by Gilby

Billy tried, and failed.

Oh Webmaster Gilby: Incorrect on both counts.

Everyone else: Obviously, 800 votes against the ban, and 200 votes supporting the ban, means we have a clear victory. People actually LIKE semantics!!! Me too.