I wrote the following after discussions with several individuals blew my mind for their strange lack of concern for clearly defined premises and definitions.

This is something which should go without saying:

Words have definitions, and actual meanings.

Just because I say a pony is a “cow,” does not make the pony an actual cow.

”This is not a pipe.”

We can argue, if you choose to call what is biologically a “cow” a “pony,” and then we will have semantic troubles.

The whole time, though, the reality of what a cow and pony actually are, has not changed, regardless of the terms we use to describe and denote them.

How much easier it would be, though, to define our terms at the outset of the discussion, and use that as the foundation for debate?

This is a car.

You can tell me, for example, that “Voluntaryism” means X, Y, or Z.

There is a standard and commonly accepted linguistic definition for the philosophy, with fairly clear parameters.

If you insist it must include other qualifiers, or is actually something totally different, then you have not changed anything about the thing the other party is actually attempting to speak of, but are simply seeking to create a special use case, or to assign the term to something entirely different, altogether.

This can be a great thing, too! Don’t get me wrong. Language evolves, and if you change it, and the market of meaning picks it up, good on ya!

You will find it difficult to be understood and communicate, however, if you do not understand and seek to accomodate—even in the interest of destroying—certain linguistic conventions.

So if you wish to call a cow a “pony,” go ahead. But is it really such a surprise when you are not understood?

~KafkA

!

---

Graham Smith is a Voluntaryist activist, creator, and peaceful parent residing in Niigata City, Japan. Graham runs the "Voluntary Japan" online initiative with a presence here on Steem, as well as DLive and Twitter. (Hit me up so I can stop talking about myself in the third person!)