BurgerPunk comments on fixed cyberghost's "meme"

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

What is the moral justification for your answer?

parent

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 4 points 2 years ago (1 child)

It's actually axiomatic. I can't really prove or justify why one should be good or bad, or why they should be good or bad to one another. But that good is good and to be strived for is the staring point of the philosophy.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 15 points 2 years ago (1 child)

This is an appeal to the one true scotsman fallacy

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Look up axioms. You'll see they are the staring points of logical arguments.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Why do you get to define axioms to exclude my definition?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I don't define axioms. It is the general definition commonly used, as recorded (but not decided) by the dictionary. Do you in fact have a different definition?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 11 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Words have the meaning we give them, not always just the original meaning

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

Exactly. And the general meaning is the one I just gave.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 12 points 2 years ago* (1 child)

But general definition is not stable it changes. You're just saying this in a way to negate my definition. Why do you get to define it?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

The majority/community defines it has hasn't changed it yet.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 10 points 2 years ago (1 child)

So you're trying to say words have actual meanings?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

They have the actual meaning that the majority or community gives them. But that isn't necessarily static. But you've shown no evidence that it's changed in this case. That's what I've always been saying.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 8 points 2 years ago (1 child)

So words have settled meanings when you say they do?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

What do you mean settled? Do words meaning change? Absolutely. Quick examples from Google are awesome, egregious, awful, terrific, smeart->smart, nice, wicked, presently, etc

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

I mean you feel confindent saying that a word has a meaning that is agreed upon

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] JohnDClay@sh.itjust.works 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

Yes? Sometimes multiple in the case of homophones.

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

hideshow 2 child comments

[–] BurgerPunk@hexbear.net 9 points 2 years ago*

So if someone told you that you were using a word or words incorrectly, because the agreed upon usage of that term was decided, you would accept it and wouldn't pedantically argue that point instead?

permalink

fedilink

source

parent

lemmy:	0.19.20
mlmym (mschae):	26.3.4