3 ms·
Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s a
by brookst 2y ago
Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s all just semantics.
We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.
- TeMPOraL 2y agoYeah, but then some of us might mount a spirited argument along the third dimension - (honest / lying). In my experience, most of the "semantic arguments" you mention happen in context of someone wanting to sell you something (whether a product or a belief) - so while it's never binary, the borders get fuzzier the further you go towards "lying" on that third axis.
- mannykannot 2y agoSo one must choose between seeing every issue as a stark dichotomy, or never doing so?
- stronglikedan 2y agoSome people think sustaining debates by splitting hairs indefinitely is productive, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.
- robertlagrant 2y agoYou're doing the same thing, but instead of invention/innovation you're saying how productive something is. That is also a sliding scale.
- brookst 2y agoI am choosing to believe you were smiling and enjoying the humor in that question.