{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
Edited by Odahviing:
5/8/2013 2:41:55 AM
20
How to argue against this statement?
So I was in an argument about a week ago about how I can't say that this tree is a tree, because someone else could call it a giraffe, and if I were to say, no, it's a tree, they could say no I think it's a giraffe because I've grown up with perceiving that as a giraffe, and been taught that the word to describe this thing is giraffe. Now while this is obviously stupid, I realized you can't even argue against it. How can I say that this photo is in fact a photo? According to him, it could be a cantaloupe and I couldn't say it isn't, because he perceives it as a cantaloupe/has grown up thinking it's a cantaloupe. Then my friend started jumping in trying to say that I by saying that no, it's not a cantaloupe, it's in fact a photo, that I'm trying to disprove the Theory of Relativity. Now, maybe it's just me, but I'm pretty sure that the Theory of Relativity deals with space-time and the speed of light and the principle of relativity, not perception and what you perceive, so he's completely wrong.
The whole argument ended when I got frustrated because I couldn't argue against their claims. Like, it ended with him saying, how do you know that these words on the wall aren't Spanish? I said because they are English words and they don't exist in the Spanish language. He then states, well what if I've been taught that English is called Spanish and Spanish is called English, and that I think those words are in the Spanish language? I mean, you can't argue against that, or at least I couldn't think of something.
Also, he started saying that I couldn't prove that he couldn't see infrared, though obviously I can't. I tried to state that it's up to the person stating something like that to prove it, and then he said, why is it? He said it wasn't up to him to prove anything. I said that's how arguments work or something like that, but that's not a good argument for why.
-
It sounds like you should stop trying to engage him in conversation.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Arbiter 739: 5/9/2013 4:42:58 AMThe reason why language and math works is because [b]A=A[/b] and [b]1=1[/b]. All parties have to assume that this is true or it doesn't work. Now if your friend was talking about a completely different language he could be right ("tree" in russian is "дерево") but this is exactly why dictionaries exist. The phrase "The proof is the burden of the accuser." (or something) comes to mind. He's making baseless claims.
-
1 ReplyEdited by Funkbrotha10: 5/9/2013 4:19:55 AM7 billion people call it a tree. its a tree. [quote]He then states, well what if I've been taught that English is called Spanish and Spanish is called English, and that I think those words are in the Spanish language? I mean, you can't argue against that, or at least I couldn't think of something.[/quote] whoever you are arguing with is, simply put. Retarded. and saying things just for the purpose of saying things.
-
or try this lol You: "You can't prove that you are right" Him: "You can't prove that I am wrong" You: "Well then that settles it. Gridlock. such a shame I was rather enjoying this debate.
-
7 Replies[quote]So I was in an argument about a week ago about how I can't say that this tree is a tree, because someone else could call it a giraffe, and if I were to say, no, it's a tree, they could say no I think it's a giraffe because I've grown up with perceiving that as a giraffe, and been taught that the word to describe this thing is giraffe. Now while this is obviously stupid, I realized you can't even argue against it.[/quote] Yes you can. The definition of what something is, is decided by popular opinion. A tree is a tree because trillions of people, past and present, have looked at it and said "That's a tree" and told their children and friends "That's a tree." The definition of what something is then falls against these norms cemented over hundreds of thousands of years. A person can call a tree a giraffe but they would be wrong because their definition does not match the norm.
-
[quote]he started saying that I couldn't prove that he couldn't see infrared[/quote] You're friends are asinine.
-
Edited by Frasier Crane: 5/9/2013 3:48:37 AMBecause the English language isn't subjective. The objective, universal word for a tree is tree, not giraffe. Your friend can call it whatever he wants but all he's doing is using incorrect vocabulary.
-
Yeah, he's just a stupid asshole. Ignore him and get on with your life.
-
2 RepliesYour friends are a bunch of edgy philosopher's aren't they. I bet they sit in their rooms thinking about how deep they are because they wonder whether the red they see is the same red as other people see.
-
7 Replies... Because he's not arguing what he thinks he's arguing. He still perceives the exact same thing as you. He's just calling it something else. Now, if he were on LSD and genuinely thought that a tree was a giraffe, then he can make an argument that he legitimately sees a giraffe. As it stands though, sounds like he's trying to sound smart by looking like a dumbass. My Xbox is white. Saying, 'No it isn't white. It is blanco,' does not mean it isn't white just because you're using a different word.
-
doublethink, brah
-
He's just changing the name. The object remains the same, no matter what. I remember a pretty interesting chapter during my philosophy class a few years ago, about our perception of objects and what importance a name holds.
-
It's the same as arguing against someone who says 1+2=2 because they grew up thinking the addition sign is the multiplication sign. They aren't wrong then, under that logic, but the worldwide acceptance is that 1+2=3. It's all dependent on context. If hypothetically this situation did exist you would have to define what context you were arguing. Of course each of you would be right in your own context, but what takes precedence over the other? The more universal one would be the one which is more 'right' than the other. Essentially you are both arguing the same thing, and could never be fully 'solved' as there is no solution.
-
I guess it's similar to speaking a different language. In English, we say 'Hello' and in Spanish they say "Hola".
-
1 ReplyHe's partially running an Appeal to Ignorance fallacy. Just because you can't disprove something doesn't mean its proven.
-
3 RepliesThe theory of relativity is based ENTIRELY on perception.
-
2 RepliesA name is put to an object. If the object was named something else, then it would still be that object, but with a different name. All you have to say is that the tree is a tree because we both speak the English language and that specific object falls under the definition of a tree. If you look up a giraffe, you'll get a mammal, not a tree.
-
"What’s in a name? that which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet;"
-
All he is doing is changing the name of the object. He can't claim that the actual physical makeup of a tree is suddenly a giraffe.
-
Sweet, thanks for the help.
