FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
No, let's set it to grass.
Bank Run... Gold and Silver Up
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
No, let's set it to grass.
Nope, neither.
Your argument IS only about semantics, i.e., the definition of couterfeit.
And... I did not state that your argument is wrong because you are an intellectual pussy. I stated that your argument demonstrates that you are an intellectual pussy. In the above, I have not even asserted that your argument is worng, in fact I said, technically, you might have a point. A very stupid one.
Your argument IS only about semantics, i.e., the definition of couterfeit.
And... I did not state that your argument is wrong because you are an intellectual pussy. I stated that your argument demonstrates that you are an intellectual pussy. In the above, I have not even asserted that your argument is worng, in fact I said, technically, you might have a point. A very stupid one.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
Ahem . . . .
If you ever find yourself in an argument that's NOT about semantics, you know you're wasting your time. Also that of other people, which is probably more to the point.
Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: si-'man-tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : [SIZE=-1]SEMIOTIC[/SIZE] (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2 : [SIZE=-1]GENERAL SEMANTICS[/SIZE]
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings
-- emphasis added.
(Pet peeve alert!)
If you ever find yourself in an argument that's NOT about semantics, you know you're wasting your time. Also that of other people, which is probably more to the point.
Main Entry: se·man·tics
Pronunciation: si-'man-tiks
Function: noun plural but singular or plural in construction
1 : the study of meanings: a : the historical and psychological study and the classification of changes in the signification of words or forms viewed as factors in linguistic development b (1) : [SIZE=-1]SEMIOTIC[/SIZE] (2) : a branch of semiotic dealing with the relations between signs and what they refer to and including theories of denotation, extension, naming, and truth
2 : [SIZE=-1]GENERAL SEMANTICS[/SIZE]
3 a : the meaning or relationship of meanings of a sign or set of signs; especially : connotative meaning b : the language used (as in advertising or political propaganda) to achieve a desired effect on an audience especially through the use of words with novel or dual meanings
-- emphasis added.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
An argument which is about nothing but the trivial meaning and connatation of the words used is a stupid argument. Both people probably attached different connatations to the word, and one party found objection to a certain connatation that it was used with, and are just arguing because they refuse to admit that neither one of them is necessarily wrong. Sadly, this is what 90% of arguments are. It's literally an argument of nothing.
And now we're arguing semantics again, Ornot.
And now we're arguing semantics again, Ornot.
It's not a strawman cause I did not claim you were arguing against the gold standard. wtfru even talking about? LOL, your claim of a strawman is a strawman.
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
The whole "you're problem with it" in a conversation about the gold standard does apply that you're accusing me of having a problem with the gold standard. wtfru even talkin' 'bout, willis?
ib1yysguy
Junior Member
It's retarded to call all US currency counterfeit. That's just common sense.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I'd call it a sensationalistic point. But he was exagerating anyway. I think both of you can deduce what he meant by it.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Let's set our national currency to my left toenail. It's always completely constant in it's value of nothing.
OrnotBitwise
Watermelon
WM, there is nothing in this world more important than meaning. I'm talking about the meaning of words, not their dictionary definitions: that's what semantics is.
People abuse the word "semantic" because they don't understand what it really means. Which is pretty funny, in a cynical way.
More generally -- and, arguably, more to the point -- words are, at best, an imperfect form of communication. Take AssCrap for example. He keeps prattling on endlessly about "globalization" as if we all know exactly what that is. Well, we don't. His definition of the word "globalization" happens to be rather different from mine. He's too dimwitted and excitable to address this problem rationally but that doesn't mean it's not an important step to take.
So you are trying to make the argument that gold is arbitrary and valueless. I suggest you look into why it became money.
So now we are going to have a semantic argument about what is a semantic argument? Ahhh, no thanks.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Yes, exactly. They are imperfect communication. I just think that it's useless to argue about vague facts like how perfectly we believed you used your words, and just get down to the obvious meat of the argument.
No, sorry. I was clearly referring to your problem with my use of the word counterfeit.
Really, I don't get you here ornot. ib1 is wasting time focusing on whether his definition is the same as mine. Why? He knew what I meant by it and frankly his pretense that is an absurd use is ridiculous in itself.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You're use of the word "counterfeit" was overy sensationalistic in my opinion, RS.
I believe what you meant was that it's soley driven by government force. Which isn't true at all. There's no legal authority anywhere compelling the use of our money system. It's used because it has the trust of the people in it's stability, and it is a very stable system. Just because the government created it and helped establish it doesn't reduce it's legitimacy.
I believe what you meant was that it's soley driven by government force. Which isn't true at all. There's no legal authority anywhere compelling the use of our money system. It's used because it has the trust of the people in it's stability, and it is a very stable system. Just because the government created it and helped establish it doesn't reduce it's legitimacy.