Free MMORPG Forums

Eferos

Your view on what is a correct definition of a word is in one sense conservative since you are implying that you don't accept new definitions of old words as correct. From what I've experienced, I am confident that many people disagree with your view and accept, under certain conditions, new definitions of words as correct; specially if they are in a renowned dictionary. This is amusing since it requires the opponent or yourself to point out whether a definition of word is correct in the sense that is merely officially accepted by society or also correct in the sense that is was the original meaning of the word.

I also find it amusing that in a discussion between someone that applies your view on what is a correct definition of a word and someone that applies the other presented view, there would be plenty of situations where one could say "that definition is not correct" and the other one would say "that definition is correct" without any of them providing a false statement. Both statements could be correct in their own frame of axioms; however one frame would be far more commonly used than the other one.

Which reminds me: do you see the original definition in the original language as the correct one, or do you see the "original" definition in English as the correct one?

Show where the fallacy in following argument exists:
Suppose that following definition from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/land is correct:
"7. a part of the surface of the earth marked off by natural or political boundaries or the like; a region or country: They came from many lands."
To who does a country belong to? If you ask people I am assuming that many will agree that it belongs to those with citizenship in that country. In other words: I am assuming many people will agree with the statement that people with citizenship can call that country "their country". It logically follows that if they can call the country "their country" they can call the land, belonging to "their country", "their land".

If you agree with that there is no fallacy, what happens if we lower the requirements to 3 months instead of the few years which are praxis? What happens if we skip the time requirements? Why were the time requirements there in the first place? To ensure loyalty and assimilation? I believe that the whole point of citizenship is to be a form of acceptance to the extent where the citizens legally accept the immigrant as one of their own.

Since you are saying that you can accept definitions despite not considering them to be correct, I ask you to build on a definition of land that you choose (don't forget the source), in such way that the conclusion is that only indigenous people or people born on the land, have the right to call it "their land". Once you've done that, we can compare your upbuilding with the one I did earlier in this post.

Norrin Radd

Here's the quick capsule info-blast; if this is our "thing" now, or specifically your thing with me, we're going to need to fix a little part of your demeanour. Firstly, do not sit there saying that I have a problem with accepted definitions; I don't. I never have and I never will.

"Gay" is defined as homosexual and happy. I accept both. You don't understand an accepted definition is different from a literal definition. This is the problem. It's accepted and more commonly used definition, that being homosexuality, is in the dictionary for recorded purposes. It's so that someone can look up a meaning of a word in a literal and cultural context (The latter, only if it's used enough) and figure out how to appropriately use it.

It doesn't make them both equally correct.

You're the one with the lapse in understanding.

I don't care about "many people". Many people can agree on things and have me agree with them, or they can agree and have me disagree. "Many people" does not mean "Fact".

If many people consider land "their country" because they have citizenship, they're wrong. I could go get Spanish citizenship now, but it'll never be my country. I'm not a Spaniard.

Ever heard the phrase: "This is my world, you just live in it."? Same deal. Spain is the country of the Spanish people.

For the love of Jehovah...

Look, I don't mind having a healthy debate with someone on here who won't run off and whine if they get bored. I am refreshed to find someone who doesn't find typing and reading to be a chore, so thank you.

However, this does not mean I am not getting tired of having to repeat myself due to your constant misunderstanding or willful ignorance regarding my points.

I ACCEPT the way in which people call a place "Their land", what do you not get? I've said this all along. It's just not correct.

I accept how Jake might have felt right calling Pandora his land, or how the Na'vi were maybe ok with that. It doesn't change the fact that it isn't. It's theirs, he just lives on it.

I've already given you my source. To call something YOUR country or YOUR land, you must be indigenous. That's not incorrect, it is correct. I'm not saying that accepted definitions (Such as Jake's one) are bad, they're just wrong.

It's not his land, but he's more than welcome to think it is.

Eferos

I must have missed the link while reading then. Will search for it later on, before giving a more complete response.

Norrin Radd

As long as you actually make relevant points, fine.

Otherwise, this is a waste of time. You've yet to counter me. Your argument essentially stems from: "I disagree".

endrien

Favorite movie as well. It was a long movie, but it didn't seem long like lord of the rings etc did and I enjoyed every minute of it.

__________________

AngeL_OF_Death

Sounds good.Cant wait to see it.

The next movie im planning to see is "The Book Of Eli".Denzel in an apocalyptic world with the only bible left in existence and everyone trying to kill him for it.But little do they know hes one bad *** ninja/assasin or watever the hell he is.(Dont know if the book is the bible.But from the trailer its looks like it)

__________________