I'll tell you, there's nothing people hate more than a semantic argument. There's nothing people hate more than investing precious time and effort to-and-froing back and forth for ages at a fevered pitch, getting more and more convinced that the other person can't possibly be right - only to find out suddenly that they were arguing over nothing the whole time. Or to be more precise, that they had no argument at all; each of them was arguing a line that did not at any point intersect with the other's. They were each basing their argument upon a different, legitimate sense of a disputed word or phrase.
That's worse than a tie, really. Nobody can stomach that. The wasted effort. It's like you're all sweaty and winded, halfway through a hard-fought football game when suddenly you notice the other guy's been playing soccer the whole time. Both people are like, "bullshit! Semantics!!"
Actually, usually, only one person can be like that. Because at the point where they both suddenly realize the whole thing was a waste of time - that they had no actual argument - one person has to take the responsibility of pointing it out, and then the other person has to level the accusation: "bullshit! Semantics!!" Both people technically lose the argument (because it was a total waste of time) but there can be different points awarded depending on how clever the "point-out-the-retroactively-obvious" guy can come across, versus how indignant the "self-righteous-and-not-weaseling-around" guy can come across.
But really, folks: let's get together on this. Semantics is not a trick, to get out of a lost argument unscathed. You want to tell me that you could spend even a couple minutes arguing with somebody, and then they could suddenly try to switch the meaning on you, claim that they've been arguing something else? Is that going to work? On you? Really?
If that works on you, wouldn't you have to be a MORON?
That would have to be pathetic. Anyone who can accuse someone of semantics - as if it's a trick - is just admitting that they're either stupid or they weren't paying attention. Because if it WAS a trick, and if you WERE paying attention, you could call them on it easily, using practically every point they tried to make! Anyone who tried that trick with me past the third rejoinder of the argument, I'd already have ample points of their own making upon which to skewer them - any one of which would be sufficient to pin them precisely down to the meaning they were trying to employ.
It's just a matter of paying attention. 90% of the time, when an argument goes on and on and then is finally exposed as merely a semantic disagreement, the participants simply were not paying attention. If it's an honest semantic disagreement, each participant should then be able to look down the other's whole line of reasoning and admit "oh, okay - yeah, that is consistent with what you were saying." It is going to be pretty butt-evident (in retrospect, at least). And to anyone who wants to claim that the semantic angle is a sham, if there's the slightest bit of basis to their claim, then the means for them to back it up are going to be just as evident.
Better to be alert, to listen, to sniff out the underlying semantic disagreement early. Don't just charge in blindly, scenting victory! Make sure you're both on the same field first. If you take a moment to make sure you understand the terms, half the time you find there's no argument left to argue. Much better to find that out at the start of the argument, don't you think? Rather than an hour later, with everybody feeling all hot and growly, hoodwinked and abused.
Semantics is the study of meaning, and without meaning, argument is as impossible as agreement. There can be no fruitful argument without shared, undisputed first principles. If two disputants don't agree on the fundamental meaning of a key term in their dispute, they won't agree on any point further down the line. It follows.
Take it from me: paying attention to semantics is more than worth the effort. People who pay attention to semantics save themselves all of those frustrating, idiotic, time wasting "only semantic" arguments. They save themselves by clearing up the semantic difficulty up-front.
Plus, if you find yourself on the losing end of a long, pitched argument, and you get the sense that the opponent hasn't really been paying attention to what you were saying, you can often use semantics as a sneaky trick to get out of it unscathed!
No, I'm kidding. That's not right. As I've already discussed!
That's worse than a tie, really. Nobody can stomach that. The wasted effort. It's like you're all sweaty and winded, halfway through a hard-fought football game when suddenly you notice the other guy's been playing soccer the whole time. Both people are like, "bullshit! Semantics!!"
Actually, usually, only one person can be like that. Because at the point where they both suddenly realize the whole thing was a waste of time - that they had no actual argument - one person has to take the responsibility of pointing it out, and then the other person has to level the accusation: "bullshit! Semantics!!" Both people technically lose the argument (because it was a total waste of time) but there can be different points awarded depending on how clever the "point-out-the-retroactively-obvious" guy can come across, versus how indignant the "self-righteous-and-not-weaseling-around" guy can come across.
But really, folks: let's get together on this. Semantics is not a trick, to get out of a lost argument unscathed. You want to tell me that you could spend even a couple minutes arguing with somebody, and then they could suddenly try to switch the meaning on you, claim that they've been arguing something else? Is that going to work? On you? Really?
If that works on you, wouldn't you have to be a MORON?
That would have to be pathetic. Anyone who can accuse someone of semantics - as if it's a trick - is just admitting that they're either stupid or they weren't paying attention. Because if it WAS a trick, and if you WERE paying attention, you could call them on it easily, using practically every point they tried to make! Anyone who tried that trick with me past the third rejoinder of the argument, I'd already have ample points of their own making upon which to skewer them - any one of which would be sufficient to pin them precisely down to the meaning they were trying to employ.
It's just a matter of paying attention. 90% of the time, when an argument goes on and on and then is finally exposed as merely a semantic disagreement, the participants simply were not paying attention. If it's an honest semantic disagreement, each participant should then be able to look down the other's whole line of reasoning and admit "oh, okay - yeah, that is consistent with what you were saying." It is going to be pretty butt-evident (in retrospect, at least). And to anyone who wants to claim that the semantic angle is a sham, if there's the slightest bit of basis to their claim, then the means for them to back it up are going to be just as evident.
Better to be alert, to listen, to sniff out the underlying semantic disagreement early. Don't just charge in blindly, scenting victory! Make sure you're both on the same field first. If you take a moment to make sure you understand the terms, half the time you find there's no argument left to argue. Much better to find that out at the start of the argument, don't you think? Rather than an hour later, with everybody feeling all hot and growly, hoodwinked and abused.
Semantics is the study of meaning, and without meaning, argument is as impossible as agreement. There can be no fruitful argument without shared, undisputed first principles. If two disputants don't agree on the fundamental meaning of a key term in their dispute, they won't agree on any point further down the line. It follows.
Take it from me: paying attention to semantics is more than worth the effort. People who pay attention to semantics save themselves all of those frustrating, idiotic, time wasting "only semantic" arguments. They save themselves by clearing up the semantic difficulty up-front.
Plus, if you find yourself on the losing end of a long, pitched argument, and you get the sense that the opponent hasn't really been paying attention to what you were saying, you can often use semantics as a sneaky trick to get out of it unscathed!
No, I'm kidding. That's not right. As I've already discussed!
Comments
Hey, you'll appreciate this, I think...
Several years back, I made the HUGE mistake of pointing out a mistake on a school bulletin board to the wrong person. The board read as follows: Have you herd whose in our class? It was kinda obvious that herd was meant to be funny...little cows were on the board with the kids' names on them. No, it was actually something else...The rational was the book they used spelled "whose" that way!!! I was arguing semantics! Duh....I thought I was arguing grammar.
Well, sheep I can see...if it's a Christian school, sheep is an accepted metaphor.
Was this a Hindu school?
...there is a certain bovine mentality now that you mention it!!
Paper??? What kind of tricky word is that?? recently, I had PRING! I LOVED THAT! The present tense of prong, right? ;)