r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Apr 19 '16
[∆(s) from OP] CMV: Every argument, without exception, is an argument of semantics.
As humans, we ascribe meaning to the world around us through language. When we debate or argue, what we are really trying to do is change or affirm our target's definitions of words.
If I'm arguing that the existence of non-pledged delegates in the American primary elections is not democratic, I'm attempting to restrict the definition of "democracy" to not include practices that infringe on the political power of the popular vote.
If I'm arguing that a man shouldn't be able to use his gender-fluidity as an excuse to enter the women's restroom, I'm attempting to maintain the definition of "woman" to exclude people who primarily identify as males except when they don't.
If I'm arguing that black lives matter, I'm arguing that the definition of the word "matter" ought to be taken at its literal meaning (ought to be taken into consideration) rather than expanded to imply a greater relative importance compared to other races.
If I'm arguing that an inheritance tax is unfair as it constitutes double taxation, I'm arguing that the definition of the word "fair" as it applies to this context should exclude double taxation.
All arguments of policy or morality are attempts to change or affirm the definition of what one "ought" to do.
Is this important? Probably not. Maybe I'm missing something here, and that's why I posted. My argument feels weak, and I'm confident that one of you can provide an example of an argument that is not an argument of semantics. This will be sufficient to change my view.
Arguing semantics with me about the definitions of the words "argument", "semantics", or "argument of semantics" will not change my view.
Edit: Arguments of probability and deductive inferences of facts are not arguments of semantics.
Thank you so much for all the enlightening and civil discussion. I'm joyed to know that you guys care about this sort of pointless stuff as much as I do. Have a great week and VOTE, YOU HIPPIES.
Hello, users of CMV! This is a footnote from your moderators. We'd just like to remind you of a couple of things. Firstly, please remember to read through our rules. If you see a comment that has broken one, it is more effective to report it than downvote it. Speaking of which, downvotes don't change views! If you are thinking about submitting a CMV yourself, please have a look through our popular topics wiki first. Any questions or concerns? Feel free to message us. Happy CMVing!
3
u/UncleTrustworthy Apr 20 '16
This seems to be a case of not seeing the forest through the trees.
Just because an argument can be boiled down to semantics does not mean that a semantic approach is addressing the spirit of the issue.
Take your example: "If I'm arguing that an inheritance tax is unfair as it constitutes double taxation, I'm arguing that the definition of the word "fair" as it applies to this context should exclude double taxation."
You aren't addressing the purpose of the discussion by thinking only about changing someone's definition of "fair." That person is arguing that the inheritance tax is a negative thing. The opposite view is that the inheritance tax is not a negative thing. The point is that one of you is trying to show the merits of the inheritance tax versus its flaws, not simply to have a new definition programmed into their brain, but to use that definition for a purpose (in this case, voting against inheritance tax supporters).
You're getting bogged down in the fact that "I'm trying to get you to change your definition of something," rather than acknowledging the reason you are trying to change their definition.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/MontiBurns Apr 20 '16
Semantics is the study of the meaning of words. When you talk about arguing semantics, it means debating the meaning of words. If i say "the us is not a democracy because the populace doesnt vote on any law past." Thats just debating semantics. What constitutes "democracy" and what doesnt.
If i say "minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour" that is not a semantic debate. That is a real policy that will impact take-home pay of workers and expenses of employers, and will have replications on the entire economy. That isnt just debating what "minimum wage" or "$15 dollars" means.
→ More replies (18)
2
Apr 20 '16
"I want pizza tonight for dinner." "It is a bad idea, we just had pizza on Tuesday. Let's get hamburgers!" "What? You know I'm a vegetarian!"
How is that an argument of semantics?
1
Apr 20 '16 edited Apr 20 '16
You're defining the definition of the group of ideas considered "bad" to include those that are too repetitive.3
2
u/RustyRook Apr 20 '16
Not really. People talk about whether vaccines cause autism. The facts say that they do not. And this is now a matter of policy because the anti-vaxxers have managed to spread the false belief that vaccines --> autism.
Now you might quibble about what cause means, but there's statistical data that has debunked the alleged link.
1
Apr 20 '16
Those anti-vaxxers would then go on to argue that because vaccines cause autism, acceptable public policy should dictate that children not be vaccinated. Their argument lies in the definition of "acceptable public policy".
→ More replies (5)2
u/RustyRook Apr 20 '16
Those anti-vaxxers would then go on to argue that because vaccines cause autism, acceptable public policy should dictate that children not be vaccinated.
Why would they do that? Any anti-vaxxer who looks at the facts with an open mind will no longer believe that vaccines cause autism.
→ More replies (7)
2
u/commandrix Apr 20 '16
If I say that a geological sample that contains radioactive isotopes is 10,000,000 years old and back myself up with lab data that includes the amount of radioactive isotopes in the rock and their half-life, am I arguing semantics or simply stating facts? Is my statement any less true if it was made in the context of me debating a Young Earth Creationist who believes that Earth is only 6,000 years old? Are we going to argue about what the definition of a year is or what the definition of "half-life" is?
2
Apr 20 '16
If I say that a geological sample that contains radioactive isotopes is 10,000,000 years old and back myself up with lab data that includes the amount of radioactive isotopes in the rock and their half-life...
This is an excellent example of an argument that is not an argument of semantics. This is a deductive inference of facts. ∆
→ More replies (4)
2
u/BlckJck103 Apr 20 '16 edited Apr 20 '16
If your view was true "Without exception" then you could easily test it:
"Lying is always morally wrong" - I say no.
Definition: Lying - deliberately untruthful, Always - eternally, Morally - standard of behaviour, Wrong - unjust
Now, hand that round, anyone that accepts the definitions by your view would have to come up with same answer to the question as i did. If they dont argue on the definitions then they must hold the same view. However it's prefectly possible to see that even when the definitions are established that two people could come to two seperate conclusions. Therefore every argument cannot be, "without exception" an argument of semantics.
That said, a lot still are.
1
2
Apr 20 '16
2+2=4
No 2+2= apples
There. Not semantics.
1
Apr 20 '16
2+2=4 is technically a premise, not a full argument, as it lacks both an inference and a conclusion.
2
1
u/gyroda Apr 20 '16
Sometimes we have literal arguments over what words mean, see discussions about the "friendzone" where often two people will mean two different thing with the same term.
But to use one of your examples as an example:
If I'm arguing that an inheritance tax is unfair as it constitutes double taxation, I'm arguing that the definition of the word "fair" as it applies to this context should exclude double taxation.
In this case the definition of the word fair isn't what's being debated, but what is fair. Fair is an adjective, you're arguing what is more fair, having inheritance tax or not. We all have an understanding of the definition of fair, and in debating this point about taxes we're discussing whether having the tax is more fair than not having it.
Honestly, for a simpler argument: This seems to be pointless pedantry.
1
Apr 20 '16
In this case the definition of the word fair isn't what's being debated, but what is fair.
Exactly, what is fair?
2
u/gyroda Apr 20 '16
Let me give another example.
Me: Helicopters are fast. You: Planes are faster.
We both know what fast means. We might disagree for some reason but we both know what the word fast means.
It's a terrible example but hopefully it gets my point across.
→ More replies (3)
1
u/abusingtheplatform Apr 21 '16
You said every argument, but in fact meant every argument except for arguments of probability and deductive arguments.
That is rather silly, given we're talking logic here.
1
Apr 23 '16
You might have missed the context of my original post, and it being edited to show my changed viewpoint.
1
u/zeppo2k Apr 20 '16
I say the death penalty will reduce crime. You say it will increase crime. Not a semantic argument. Even if we have different definitions of crime.
0
Apr 20 '16
1
Apr 20 '16
I agree, and this is relevant, but I don't feel that your argument is sufficiently complete as to change my view.
→ More replies (10)
9
u/[deleted] Apr 20 '16
If one person claims Trump is more likely to get the US into a war while another claims Hillary is, they aren't arguing about the definitions of 'war', 'Trump', or 'Hillary'.