3 ms·

> I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest What is "dishonest"? It's a word. That's all; just a word. The meaning it has is based solely on the conte

> I don't think exploiting loopholes is dishonest What is "dishonest"? It's a word. That's all; just a word. The meaning it has is based solely on the context in which you use it. There is not an ontological reality for the meanings of words. It means what you want it to mean. We could argue what is and what is not dishonest. We could go back to the etymology of the word. We could see how it came to be. We could see how most people have used it. We could argue what meaning would be least surprising for most people. But in the end, when you utter the word "dishonest", you have a meaning in mind and, for you, the word has that meaning. In fact, this is just the same as every other game you play. It's just a loophole. It's an advantage you can hold over others. You spoke. It is your meaning. I can misinterpret what you said, but it is forever my fault for not understanding your meaning. I can argue until the cows come home that I don't think it should mean what you want it to mean, but it's useless because the sentence you spoke is meaningless unless it has the meaning you intended it to have. Most of your post is a tautology - I do not think it is "wrong" because I do not define "wrong" as being this. Discussion is not necessary. > but I'm sure some would disagree And this is where life gets interesting. "Some would disagree". Isn't that how games are supposed to be played? With others? Isn't the goal of a game to enhance everyone's well being, not just one "winner". Aren't the rules there to coax the maximum possible extraction of fun for all involved? Wouldn't be an extreme debasement of this concept if we abused the intent of the rules simply because we could? You can do what you want, but don't be surprised if I have more fun than you even if I don't "win" ;-)

bryanrasmussen 7y ago
>There is not an ontological reality for the meanings of words. It means what you want it to mean. Obviously there is a possible range of meaning for a word for a culture at any point in time, but there is in the end a limit to what the word dishonest can mean in our present context. This is why I do not expect to get served a cheddar and jalapeno omelet when I walk into a funeral home and order a dishonest.
- mikekchar 7y ago
  What I was perhaps clumsily saying is that no matter what argument I make to say that I think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, there will be an argument based on a different definition of the word that will refute my argument. Any min-maxer worth their salt will surely use that approach and so no meaningful dialog is possible on that front.

bryanrasmussen 7y ago

>There is not an ontological reality for the meanings of words. It means what you want it to mean. Obviously there is a possible range of meaning for a word for a culture at any point in time, but there is in the end a limit to what the word dishonest can mean in our present context. This is why I do not expect to get served a cheddar and jalapeno omelet when I walk into a funeral home and order a dishonest.

mikekchar 7y ago
What I was perhaps clumsily saying is that no matter what argument I make to say that I think exploiting loopholes is dishonest, there will be an argument based on a different definition of the word that will refute my argument. Any min-maxer worth their salt will surely use that approach and so no meaningful dialog is possible on that front.