What is the point of GM's notes?

[Fenris-77]

Perhaps we should use the actual definition of equivocation if it's going to play such a large role in the thread? Just a thought. Your description actually matches my definition pretty well, as it captures the active obfuscation. Are you claiming that anyone in this thread has actively obscured the meaning of, for example, fiction, in our discussion? Someone needs to be actively obscuring meaning or you're using the wrong word, something that several posters have suggested to you multiple times. So which is it? Are we (or is someone else) actively attempting to conceal or mislead, or are you mistaken about the meaning of the word? You need to pick one.

Edit: Your examples mean the same as mine (especially the fancy top one that uses the kill shot word LOGIC, so there's no out there.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Equivocation is where you try to obfuscate meaning intentionally

To be clear: I do think this has happened on prior threads around the term The Fiction. And I think it will arise in the future if this term were adopted by the gaming community at large. But I don't believe intentionality is required for there to be equivocation, there just needs to be a conclusion that doesn't logically follow because one premise uses one meaning, and another uses a different meaning.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Perhaps we should use the actual definition of equivocation if it's going to play such a large role in the thread? Just a thought. Your description actually matches my definition pretty well, as it captures the active obfuscation. Are you claiming that anyone in this thread has actively obscured the meaning of, for example, fiction, in our discussion? Someone needs to be actively obscuring meaning or you're using the wrong word, something that several posters have suggested to you multiple times. So which is it? Are we (or is someone else) actively attempting to conceal or mislead, or are you mistaken about the meaning of the word? You need to pick one.

I am using the definition of equivocation in logic as I understand it (which is the meaning I was invoking). I was not using it in a sense that intention was a factor.

 

[Fenris-77]

I am using the definition of equivocation in logic as I understand it (which is the meaning I was invoking). I was not using it in a sense that intention was a factor.

Your understanding is incorrect. Obviously, manifestly, incorrect. So pick one, is someone lying on purpose about the meaning, or are you wrong about people equivocating? I'm not going to let squirm away this time, and I don't really care that your understanding is missing a key component of the actual definition. You've been throwing that word around like a bloody flail, so you need to own up to being wrong about it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Edit: Your examples mean the same as mine (especially the fancy top one that uses the kill shot word LOGIC, so there's no out there.

I am not sure what you are referring to but I think it is clear the examples and definitions I offered don't require the inetionatlity you are saying is required of equivocation.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Your understanding is incorrect.

I really don't think it is. All that matters is the logic, not the intention. You can commit equivocation with intention, but the same exact argument can be made without intention. It doesn't matter what your intention was, what matters is the logic of the argument isn't sound because meaning of a key word has shifted during its course. Here is a standard example:

The end of life is death.
Happiness is the end of life.
So, death is happiness.

This argument is an example of equivocation whether the person uttering it is attempting to obscure the truth or merely stumbling into a bad argument without realizing it. Now that said, I think there usually is some kind of intention at work. But it doesn't have to be there

 

[Fenris-77]

I am not sure what you are referring to but I think it is clear the examples and definitions I offered don't require the inetionatlity you are saying is required of equivocation.

The definition of equivocation requires that intentionality. That's what I'm referring to - the definition of the word. It's not my problem that you don't know what it actually means. You've been very keen on the word, so I assumed you actually knew what it meant. Maybe just take the hint that you made a mistake instead of continuing to double down on obvious shenanigans. Up to you.

 

[Fenris-77]

I really don't think it is. All that matters is the logic, not the intention. You can commit equivocation with intention, but the same exact argument can be made without intention. It doesn't matter what your intention was, what matters is the logic of the argument isn't sound because meaning of a key word has shifted during its course.

What matters is the definition of the word, in plain English. Not your obfuscation, or poetry, or anything else. Just the definition, which you were wrong about and refuse to own up to. Nothing has shifted, or changed, you just used a word you didn't understand fully.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not going to let squirm away this time, and I don't really care that your understanding is missing a key component of the actual definition. You've been throwing that word around like a bloody flail, so you need to own up to being wrong about it.

I am not going to be your punching bag Fenris, sorry. I am not a worm and I am not going to sit here passively while you try to humiliate me. If you want to converse with me, please be polite and treat me like a real person. Not some villain you have in your head. You and I have had enough friendly exchanged to be able to treat each other like people. I happen to think I am right in my usage of the term. You don't think so. Fair enough. We can disagree on that. I am not claiming to be super brilliant or always 100 percent right about everything. But I am also pretty convinced I am correct here. What matters is, whether my use of terminology is right or wrong, what I am pointing to is a problem in the word fiction (whether people are intentionally using it to shift on meaning or unintentionally: and to be clear, in previous threads I think this has happened, but I can only guess at intentions---sometimes I think its intentional, sometimes I think it is just a thing people slide into).

 

[Bedrockgames]

The definition of equivocation requires that intentionality. That's what I'm referring to - the definition of the word. It's not my problem that you don't know what it actually means. You've been very keen on the word, so I assumed you actually knew what it meant. Maybe just take the hint that you made a mistake instead of continuing to double down on obvious shenanigans. Up to you.

I just offered two definitions from philosophical dictionaries that do not require intentionality. And here is the wikipedia entry (also not requiring any intentionality):

In logic, equivocation ('calling two different things by the same name') is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses within an argument.[1][2]

It is a type of ambiguity that stems from a phrase having two or more distinct meanings, not from the grammar or structure of the sentence.[1]