Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Raven Crowking" data-source="post: 5105959" data-attributes="member: 18280">Absolutely not.It is an attempt to make sure that what's at stake in the conversation isn't lost.Show me all the people clamouring that the word has no meaning, who also are not opposed to the meaning, and you will have made your point.Instead, we have only people who, apparently, think the word has no meaning, and who are also opposed to the meaning.&nbsp; That's a major contradiction, and one that has come up before.&nbsp; &quot;Pokemount&quot; comes readily to mind as a term that brought up the exact same arguments.&nbsp; &quot;Fluff&quot; is another one.&nbsp; I was on the &quot;That term has no real meaning&quot; side of the &quot;fluff vs. crunch&quot; debate, and I can tell you with 20/20 hindsight that I was foolish (at best) to claim &quot;fluff&quot; had no meaning while being opposed to what people meant by &quot;fluff&quot;.If &quot;X means nothing&quot; then X cannot be insulting.&nbsp; If &quot;X is insulting&quot;, then X cannot be meaningless.&nbsp; Therefore, what is actually communicated by the argument &quot;X means nothing and is insulting, so it should not be used&quot; can be neither &quot;X means nothing&quot; or &quot;X is insulting&quot;, which are mutually exclusive.So what is left?&quot;X should not be used&quot;.&quot;X is insulting and meaningless&quot; just exists to justify the conclusion (&quot;X should not be used&quot;), which is itself unsupported by any rational imperative.&nbsp; The end goal is to limit what can be discussed, as well as how it can be discussed (whether or not the speaker is fully aware of this goal, or has rationalized it in some way).&nbsp; In fact, this is exactly what is described as &quot;Newspeak&quot; in George Orwell's 1984, using almost exactly the same tactics and reasoning.I can quote, if you require it.Not a one.Re:&nbsp; Vancian magic.&nbsp; It is a property of OD&amp;D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e.&nbsp; One might say it is a defining property of what many people mean when they say D&amp;D.&nbsp; How is it possible that something could be D&amp;D without Vancian magic?You seek absolute meaning for terms where absolute meaning not only doesn't exist, but where absolute meaning cannot exist.&nbsp; And, as there is no absolute meaning, you declare the term meaningless.In this sense, all language is meaningless.&nbsp; There is no absolute meaning for any term.&nbsp; All meanings are subjective; language is not built of concrete.&nbsp; It changes, grows, and evolves as people strive to convey ideas.&nbsp; Words are used to mean things they did not previously mean, and when the common usage differs from the dictionary usage (which is the closest thing to a &quot;concrete&quot; meaning we have), it is the dictionary that changes.In Shakespearean English, &quot;prevent&quot; meant &quot;to go before&quot;.&nbsp; That is not a very common usage now.&nbsp; There are, literally, thousands of like examples, because language grows and evolves.&nbsp; Part of that evolution is groping toward meaning.&nbsp; Indeed, all language is (to one degree or another) groping toward meaning.Failure to accept that is a failure to understand what language is.RC</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Raven Crowking, post: 5105959, member: 18280"] Absolutely not. It is an attempt to make sure that what's at stake in the conversation isn't lost. Show me all the people clamouring that the word has no meaning, [I][B]who also are not opposed to the meaning[/B][/I], and you will have made your point. Instead, we have only people who, apparently, think the word has no meaning, and who are [I][B]also opposed to the meaning[/B][/I]. That's a major contradiction, and one that has come up before. "Pokemount" comes readily to mind as a term that brought up the [I][B]exact same arguments[/B][/I]. "Fluff" is another one. I was on the "That term has no real meaning" side of the "fluff vs. crunch" debate, and I can tell you with 20/20 hindsight that I was foolish (at best) to claim "fluff" had no meaning [B][I]while being opposed to what people meant by "fluff"[/I][/B]. If "X means nothing" then X cannot be insulting. If "X is insulting", then X cannot be meaningless. Therefore, what is actually communicated by the argument "X means nothing and is insulting, so it should not be used" can be neither "X means nothing" or "X is insulting", which are mutually exclusive. So what is left? "X should not be used". "X is insulting and meaningless" just exists to justify the conclusion ("X should not be used"), which is itself unsupported by any rational imperative. The end goal is to limit what can be discussed, as well as how it can be discussed (whether or not the speaker is fully aware of this goal, or has rationalized it in some way). In fact, this is exactly what is described as "Newspeak" in George Orwell's [I][B]1984[/B][/I], using almost exactly the same tactics and reasoning. I can quote, if you require it. Not a one. Re: Vancian magic. It is a property of OD&D, 1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e. One might say it is a defining property of what many people mean when they say D&D. How is it possible that something could be D&D without Vancian magic? You seek absolute meaning for terms where absolute meaning not only doesn't exist, but where absolute meaning cannot exist. And, as there is no absolute meaning, you declare the term meaningless. In this sense, all language is meaningless. There is no absolute meaning for any term. All meanings are subjective; language is not built of concrete. It changes, grows, and evolves as people strive to convey ideas. Words are used to mean things they did not previously mean, and when the common usage differs from the dictionary usage (which is the closest thing to a "concrete" meaning we have), it is the dictionary that changes. In Shakespearean English, "prevent" meant "to go before". That is not a very common usage now. There are, literally, thousands of like examples, because language grows and evolves. Part of that evolution is groping toward meaning. Indeed, all language is (to one degree or another) groping toward meaning. Failure to accept that is a failure to understand what language is. RC [/QUOTE]

Verification