Quote from: Miniar on November 08, 2011, 03:21:27 AM
See, here's the thing. Words actually have a meaning, a definition if you will.
If you say one thing and mean something completely different then you're using the word incorrectly.
For example, if I say blue, but mean black, then you would be correct to to point out that what I've described as blue is not blue.
In different context, the same word can have different meaning. Therefore, one rely on the meaning, but not on the words. That is, before one write anything, first there must have a meaning (a valid rationale to oppose something), only then one begin using words to describe the meaning. But the literalist person who rely on the word and not the meaning, will begin with a word of choice according to their common sense of winning an argument and then associate that word with other words, words always have some common associations which may or may not related to the context being discussed. In this case you did not possess your own rationale (meaning), but simply associate the words such as bias, prejudice with non-objectivity which is a common association, and I simply point out that the association is invalid in previous example. I'm able to do that simply because I have the meaning with me from the very beginning, but you don't, the whole exercise is in vain as separate people here did not start argue with a valid rationale, but it is just there wishing to oppose something said, that is without having a sound foundation (of meaning / reasoning) to begin with.
Quote
Words have meaning, without meaning words are pointless.
Wrong, word is simply word, meaning is meaning, thus word != meaning. Words are pointers (inference) of meaning, in order to point, a combination of words and sentences are needed to reinforce a meaning stated. Meaning is not just a reference to an object, but include the reason. Thus it is more than simple gathering of words with their common associations, worse is someone who is basing argument on cut and paste words of others, or of statistical data (of affirmation or negation of associated words).
Quote
It's a bit of an oxymoron to suggest that I'm hung up on the words and not the meaning because I'm pointing out that the way you are using your words is in opposition with the meaning of the words.
Again words have no direct relevence to meaning, so I'm communicate meaning using whatever style of words I prefer, if someone fail to apprehend or confused, then they may have to exam their method, whether it is necessary to be rigidly attached to words and their common usage, while shutting themselves up to perceiving the meaning another person trying to communicate using uncommon style which may actually serve deeper understanding than otherwise.
Quote
Whether or not something can or can not be objective doesn't change the meaning of the word objective nor the meaning of the word subjective.
Except that you got it wrong, there is no such thing as objective according to empirical evidence which itself is universal. Science (humanity, socialogy, political science) still rely on objective data, as it believe the average of the mass opinion is more accurate than individual, minor opinion. But if the mass opinion is not empirical evidence, then it is of no use, but if individual, subjective perception is having empirical evidence, than nothing can refute it (thus universal).
It is due to common usage of the term 'objective', that the term is still being use as an example to demonstrate subjective perception is actually the basis of such objectivity, but for a person who understand the mechanism of empirical evidence, there does not necessitate the mentioning of objectivity.
Quote
If you need to redefine words to support your claims then perhaps your claims aren't strong enough to hold water to start with.
I'm communicating a meaning that is apparently alien to you, it is the reason I still use the term that you are familiar, but it doesn't mean you can then grasp the meaning by understanding the words as it is meant to you, yet despite the pointing out of you being rigid on words, here you still show a wish to be rigid to your pre-defined words and oppose any attempt to redefine words. By equating such attempt as having a claim which is false, you merely prove being defensive.
