It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
It wasn't any sort of an official vote. Pluto may be on its way to becoming a planet again at the next official vote, but right now it is not classified as a planet.
Pluto is a planet. Language is subjective. Words are given meaning by the people who use them. People perceive the word planet as applying to various celestial bodies, including Pluto. The 'scientific definition' of a few scientists does not outweigh the perception of the majority because whether or not Pluto is defined as a planet is a matter of language, not of science.
Sh4dowPluto is a planet. Language is subjective. Words are given meaning by the people who use them. People perceive the word planet as applying to various celestial bodies, including Pluto. The 'scientific definition' of a few scientists does not outweigh the perception of the majority because whether or not Pluto is defined as a planet is a matter of language, not of science.
No, language in NOT subjective, while it may poses some ambiguous qualities, it is by and large OBJECTIVE. As for the rest of your argument I'll simply ask you to look up the bandwagon fallacy and take your petty squabbling over semantics elsewhere! I say good day SIR!
for those of you that don't know Pluto is actually just a giant ice ball orbiting around the Sun the entire argument is if you have Pluto as a planet there's a bunch of other ice balls you have to count as well. at the end of the day it doesn't matter, calling something a planet or not doesn't change it, still Orbitz around the Sun.
Craw_DaddyNo, language in NOT subjective, while it may poses some ambiguous qualities, it is by and large OBJECTIVE. As for the rest of your argument I'll simply ask you to look up the bandwagon fallacy and take your petty squabbling over semantics elsewhere! I say good day SIR!
No, language is INTER-SUBJECTIVE. The "objects" of spoken language have no meaning in and of themselves, they only gain meaning in reference to the language-games we employ them in.
UtardNo, language is INTER-SUBJECTIVE. The "objects" of spoken language have no meaning in and of themselves, they only gain meaning in reference to the language-games we employ them in.
haha this is coming from way out of left field but... I can just picture you explaining what you just wrote to one of your paleolithic ancestors. Afterward they would run off excitedly only to later be eaten by a saber tooth tiger because, instead of realizing the very serious and entirely conceptual(at least until the tiger was physically mauling them) threat that the tiger posed, they instead chose to interpret said saber tooth as a cute little bunny and tried to go up and pet it. And in a beautiful display of irony, you and all of your pseudo-intellectual nonsense would be erased from time and I wouldn't have to go through the process of writing this convoluted and long-winded response.
Craw_Daddyhaha this is coming from way out of left field but... I can just picture you explaining what you just wrote to one of your paleolithic ancestors. Afterward they would run off excitedly only to later be eaten by a saber tooth tiger because, instead of realizing the very serious and entirely conceptual(at least until the tiger was physically mauling them) threat that the tiger posed, they instead chose to interpret said saber tooth as a cute little bunny and tried to go up and pet it. And in a beautiful display of irony, you and all of your pseudo-intellectual nonsense would be erased from time and I wouldn't have to go through the process of writing this convoluted and long-winded response.
But it was both convoluted and long-winded, and you did indeed write it.
Craw_Daddyhaha this is coming from way out of left field but... I can just picture you explaining what you just wrote to one of your paleolithic ancestors. Afterward they would run off excitedly only to later be eaten by a saber tooth tiger because, instead of realizing the very serious and entirely conceptual(at least until the tiger was physically mauling them) threat that the tiger posed, they instead chose to interpret said saber tooth as a cute little bunny and tried to go up and pet it. And in a beautiful display of irony, you and all of your pseudo-intellectual nonsense would be erased from time and I wouldn't have to go through the process of writing this convoluted and long-winded response.
Wow. If you a single thing about what my post was saying you'd realize how dumb you sound right now. Just because the meaning of words is subjectively determined doesn't mean there isn't a wrong way to interpret propositions.
Craw_DaddyNo, language in NOT subjective, while it may poses some ambiguous qualities, it is by and large OBJECTIVE. As for the rest of your argument I'll simply ask you to look up the bandwagon fallacy and take your petty squabbling over semantics elsewhere! I say good day SIR!
Not sure if you're joking or if you actually don't know what objective and subjective mean...
>bandwagon fallacy
That refers to taking a stance on the grounds that a lot of other people take that stance, correct? If I am correct, then my claim has nothing whatsoever to do with a 'bandwagon fallacy'. I reached the conclusion myself and did not base it on beliefs or claims of anyone but myself.
Sh4dowNot sure if you're joking or if you actually don't know what objective and subjective mean...
>bandwagon fallacy
That refers to taking a stance on the grounds that a lot of other people take that stance, correct? If I am correct, then my claim has nothing whatsoever to do with a 'bandwagon fallacy'. I reached the conclusion myself and did not base it on beliefs or claims of anyone but myself.
hahaha dude you are fucking dense as fuck! you did exactly the opposite! the only reason you came to the conclusion that Pluto should be considered a planet is because a bunch of other dense fucks like your self came to the same conclusion for the same shitty reasons. And I quote "The 'scientific definition' of a few scientists does not outweigh the perception of the majority". That could seriously be used as a textbook example for the bandwagon fallacy.
also... if spoken language were not objective, like if the words themselves were not objects that kept their same meaning regardless of what dimwits like you thought they should mean then language couldn't exist. The very fact that you're able to comprehend what I've written to you, despite us never meeting in person and agreeing upon what the words I've written to you mean is testament to this.
Craw_Daddyhahaha dude you are fucking dense as fuck! you did exactly the opposite! the only reason you came to the conclusion that Pluto should be considered a planet is because a bunch of other dense fucks like your self came to the same conclusion for the same shitty reasons. And I quote "The 'scientific definition' of a few scientists does not outweigh the perception of the majority". That could seriously be used as a textbook example for the bandwagon fallacy.
also... if spoken language were not objective, like if the words themselves were not objects that kept their same meaning regardless of what dimwits like you thought they should mean then language couldn't exist. The very fact that you're able to comprehend what I've written to you, despite us never meeting in person and agreeing upon what the words I've written to you mean is testament to this.
UtardJust because the meaning of words is subjectively determined doesn't mean there isn't a wrong way to interpret propositions.
No, actually it does... by definition, if something is subjective then it does not exhibit deterministic properties and therefore there is no correct or incorrect way of interpreting it. I would say it's common sense that there is a correct and incorrect way to use and interpret words and so it's safe to assume that they are not subjective. And if they're not subjective then what are they? OBJECTIVE
Craw_DaddyNo, actually it does... by definition, if something is subjective then it does not exhibit deterministic properties and therefore there is no correct or incorrect way of interpreting it. I would say it's common sense that there is a correct and incorrect way to use and interpret words and so it's safe to assume that they are not subjective. And if they're not subjective then what are they? OBJECTIVE
God you're stupid. The meanings of our words are intersubjectively-determined, meaning that as individual subjects we've agreed on what we will consider to be a correct interpretation of the "objects" of our language, which are in-themselves meaningless strings of perceptible signs. That's why, for example, when I say to another skier that I "found tranny" they know what I intend to mean by that phrase, whereas if I said it to a non-skier they would think I had just gotten back from a gay bar or something. If, on the other hand, no group of people had ever assigned a meaning to that phrase, then if I uttered it it would be totally meaningless.
