Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5454443" data-attributes="member: 15538">What if the bakery replaced the pudding with marshmallow fluff, because it's light and fluffy and not so heavy and creamy? Is it still a Boston cream pie? The analogy holds pretty well; I just didn't see any reason to extend it into tangents, as you insist on doing.You can claim all you like it's &quot;silly&quot; to argue over definitions, but in that case there is a whole of silliness out there, from copyright law to child custody to Passover dietary laws to birthright citizenship to... well, playing D&amp;D. It would be a pretty sorry game if we couldn't agree if a given character were a fighter or not. Let's be totally be clear. You are claiming that words do not have definitions at all. I really wonder how you reconcile that with posting on a message board, considering that nothing you type will signify anything at all except what I choose to read into it. The whole subjective/objective thing is a trap: language isn't evidential. Read some Wittgenstein, some Chomsky, then come back if you think you're ready to argue a radical subjectivist viewpoint. If you want to take the position that D&amp;D is anything someone calls D&amp;D, you're going to have a real problem if you can find two people who don't agree on what is and isn't. Simply because two people can't agree on a definition doesn't mean they couldn't use one. There are one or more useful definitions of D&amp;D for any given conversation.When someone says, &quot;4e isn't D&amp;D to me,&quot; they are telling you something important. You may or may not be able to persuade them to believe otherwise, but you can't make them, and you certainly can't prove they are wrong. If enough people say it, the working definition of D&amp;D falls into contention.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="pawsplay, post: 5454443, member: 15538"] What if the bakery replaced the pudding with marshmallow fluff, because it's light and fluffy and not so heavy and creamy? Is it still a Boston cream pie? The analogy holds pretty well; I just didn't see any reason to extend it into tangents, as you insist on doing. You can claim all you like it's "silly" to argue over definitions, but in that case there is a whole of silliness out there, from copyright law to child custody to Passover dietary laws to birthright citizenship to... well, playing D&D. It would be a pretty sorry game if we couldn't agree if a given character were a fighter or not. Let's be totally be clear. You are claiming that words do not have definitions at all. I really wonder how you reconcile that with posting on a message board, considering that nothing you type will signify anything at all except what I choose to read into it. The whole subjective/objective thing is a trap: language isn't evidential. Read some Wittgenstein, some Chomsky, then come back if you think you're ready to argue a radical subjectivist viewpoint. If you want to take the position that D&D is anything someone calls D&D, you're going to have a real problem if you can find two people who don't agree on what is and isn't. Simply because two people can't agree on a definition doesn't mean they couldn't use one. There are one or more useful definitions of D&D for any given conversation. When someone says, "4e isn't D&D to me," they are telling you something important. You may or may not be able to persuade them to believe otherwise, but you can't make them, and you certainly can't prove they are wrong. If enough people say it, the working definition of D&D falls into contention. [/QUOTE]

Verification