• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Dictionaries no NOT contain factual information

Dictionaries do NOT contain factual information

  • TRUE: Dictionaries do NOT contain factual information

    Votes: 7 20.6%

  • FALSE: Sure they do.

    Votes: 27 79.4%
  • Total voters
    34
Words have meanings that are fairly absolute. However, one must always remember that the meaning of a word is dependent on the context of what is being discussed and on words around it.
 
CaptainCourtesy said:
Words have meanings that are fairly absolute. However, one must always remember that the meaning of a word is dependent on the context of what is being discussed and on words around it.
Click to expand...

There is a denotation and a connotation
 
Chuz Life said:
Looks like an interesting poll question.

Dictionaries do NOT contain factual information

A: True

B: False
Click to expand...

If you mean factual information as in factual definitions of words then dictionaries do contain facts.
 
.... Using the dictionary to validate pro-life positions is getting quite old.
 
There are TWO kinds of dictionaries.

Descriptive - simply follows the meanings that are in use by speakers of the language
Prescriptive - tries to be an authority on what words should mean.

As for "factual" that word means information that is in the nature of a fact. It doesn't mean true or false. A fact can be false.
 
Hatuey said:
.... Using the dictionary to validate pro-life positions is getting quite old.
Click to expand...


Hatuey said:
."How dare you use a dictionary to prove facts."
Click to expand...

There I fixed it for you.

Besides how many times has an abortionist reminded a pro-lifer that abortion is not murder since it is legal or that murder is a legal technical term?
 
jamesrage said:
There I fixed it for you.

Besides how many times has an abortionist reminded a pro-lifer that abortion is not murder since it is legal or that murder is a legal technical term?
Click to expand...

Wow are you really this deficient in logic? If we are having a discussion and you say 'abortion is murder' and I explain to you the legal definitions for both and how they differ - THUS SHOWING THAT WHEN USED IN THE SAME CONTEXT, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME - how are the situations REMOTELY comparable to you using whatever definition matches your understanding of what a birth is? You know what? Why don't you pick up a dictionary and tell us all how birth and conception are the same thing?
 
Hatuey said:
Wow are you really this deficient in logic? If we are having a discussion and you say 'abortion is murder' and I explain to you the legal definitions for both and how they differ - THUS SHOWING THAT WHEN USED IN THE SAME CONTEXT, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME - how are the situations REMOTELY comparable to you using whatever definition matches your understanding of what a birth is? You know what? Why don't you pick up a dictionary and tell us all how birth and conception are the same thing?
Click to expand...

Using definitions to prove abortion is not murder somehow different than using definitions to prove a fetus is a baby or child? In other words how you going wine about someone using a dictionary to prove their position when you do the same thing?
 
Is that what this thread is about? Abortion?

No, you can't go settling abortion debates with a dictionary. A common dictionary isn't a legal or philisophical dictionary. The whole point of an abortion debate is that people disagree about the definition of a word - in other words, nobody has agreed on the meaning in that context, including people who write dictionaries.

Arguing by dictionary is completely absurd.
 
misterman said:
Is that what this thread is about? Abortion?

No, you can't go settling abortion debates with a dictionary. A common dictionary isn't a legal or philisophical dictionary. The whole point of an abortion debate is that people disagree about the definition of a word - in other words, nobody has agreed on the meaning in that context, including people who write dictionaries.

Arguing by dictionary is completely absurd.
Click to expand...

I was under the impression that the whole point of an abortion debate is debating abortion, not whether or not Dictionary.com or Websters dictionary is wrong or right.
 
jamesrage said:
I was under the impression that the whole point of an abortion debate is debating abortion, not whether or not Dictionary.com or Websters dictionary is wrong or right.
Click to expand...

Me too. Unfortunately, some people think dictionary writers sat down and decided whether abortion was right or wrong and put it in the dictionary.

Settling debates with dictionaries rarely works past 3rd grade.
 
molten_dragon said:
I stand by what I said. For a dictionary to be useful, the definitions within it must reflect current usage of words. While those usages might be agreed on by large groups of people, they're still subjective.

However, I will concede that the definitions of some words seem to be pretty much fixed, and don't seem to change over time.
Click to expand...

Your claim was;

molten_dragon said:
,... Dictionaries do NOT contain factual information. They contain subjective definitions of words that can (and do) change over time.
Click to expand...

Do you still hold this view?
 
misterman said:
Me too. Unfortunately, some people think dictionary writers sat down and decided whether abortion was right or wrong and put it in the dictionary.

Settling debates with dictionaries rarely works past 3rd grade.
Click to expand...

However if you are going to claim what something means then a dictionary is the perfect source.
 
jamesrage said:
However if you are going to claim what something means then a dictionary is the perfect source.
Click to expand...

Well, not always. Not when discussing legal terms, for instance. And certainly not when you're trying to use words in place of logical arguments, such as "a fetus is human, therefore a fetus is a human." Bad, bad logic.
 
misterman said:
Well, not always. Not when discussing legal terms, for instance. And certainly not when you're trying to use words in place of logical arguments, such as "a fetus is human, therefore a fetus is a human." Bad, bad logic.
Click to expand...

How is that bad logic?
 
The only reason I can think of why anyone would argue with a dictionary is that they like to make up definitions for words as they go along.

That's what the dictionary says 'liberal" means?



No, no, that's wrong. Liberal means anyone who disagrees with my point of view.

Obama is a Marxist, I tell you,.. what's that? That's what the dictionary says? Well, the dictionary is wrong, I tell you, wrong!
 
misterman said:
Well, not always. Not when discussing legal terms, for instance. And certainly not when you're trying to use words in place of logical arguments, such as "a fetus is human, therefore a fetus is a human." Bad, bad logic.
Click to expand...

jamesrage said:
How is that bad logic?
Click to expand...

CaptainCourtesy said:
Circular reasoning logical fallacy.
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning (aka begging the question)

Examples of Begging the Question

  1. Bill: "God must exist."
    Jill: "How do you know."
    Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
    Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
    Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
  2. "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
  3. "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
  4. Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
    Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
    Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
    Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
:rofl :rofl :rofl

Saying (claiming) that a human fetus is human therefore a human fetus is A human is not circular logic by any of the examples given here.

"a (human)fetus is human, therefore a (human) fetus is a human." is a statement of biological fact precisely because a fetus is an organism in of and unto itself.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Circular reasoning (aka begging the question)

Examples of Begging the Question

  1. Bill: "God must exist."
    Jill: "How do you know."
    Bill: "Because the Bible says so."
    Jill: "Why should I believe the Bible?"
    Bill: "Because the Bible was written by God."
  2. "If such actions were not illegal, then they would not be prohibited by the law."
  3. "The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God."
  4. Interviewer: "Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference."
    Bill: "Jill can give me a good reference."
    Interviewer: "Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?"
    Bill: "Certainly. I can vouch for her."
:rofl :rofl :rofl

Saying (claiming) that a human fetus is human therefore a human fetus is A human is not circular logic by any of the examples given here.

"a (human)fetus is human, therefore a (human) fetus is a human." is a statement of biological fact precisely because a fetus is an organism in of and unto itself.
Click to expand...

Misread the comment. I thought it said a fetus is human, therefore a fetus is human. From the correct reading of the comment, it is logical.
 
earthworm said:
Civility a must??

An effective ban should also be a must!
Click to expand...

lol... thats been my title for like a year now... he was just mocking me.

and got a thanks.
 
jamesrage said:
Using definitions to prove abortion is not murder somehow different than using definitions to prove a fetus is a baby or child? In other words how you going wine about someone using a dictionary to prove their position when you do the same thing?
Click to expand...

Did you read my post? Here I'll explain it in simpler terms:

1. You say 'abortion is murder'

I explain to you the difference between 'abortion' and 'murder' and thus why they are not the same within the context of our laws.

2. You say 'abortion is murder' again

You proceed to explain this by picking out whichever definitions of a dictionary - Merriam-Webster's in Chuz's case - best fit your agenda without much care for - gasp - CONTEXT.

Do you not get this yet? You're taking words from different contexts to mean the same thing when they clearly don't. I am placing them within the same context (you know - their legal definition?) and explaining why they are not the same. Example, you say - 'Woman-X is a free bird' - I say 'Woman-X is free spirited' - While both bird and free spirited could be interpreted under some definitions of the dictionary to be the same thing, A WOMAN IS NOT A ****ING BIRD AT THE END OF THE DAY.
 
Last edited:
I challenge anyone to prove a dictionary wrong.
 
American said:
I challenge anyone to prove a dictionary wrong.
Click to expand...

This is a pointless challenge within the scope of the discussion here, since it presumes a dictionary is factual in order to work. If the dictionary isn't factual, you can't prove it either right OR wrong.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom