• Nat (she/they)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    19 hours ago

    I’m sure you could come up with a self consistent definition, but who says it would be “correct” (whatever that means)? If I define chair as an atom with 1 proton in the nucleus, that’s a pretty clear definition with little room for edge cases, but it’s also completely absurd.

    You could also define “woman” by listing out everyone you feel counts as a woman, and that would technically be self consistent, but again, that’d be absurd. It’s all completely arbitrary, so why should I or anyone else care about that definition? Same goes for any hypothetical 20 page definition.

    • Robust Mirror@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      19 hours ago

      That’s exactly my point? Why is the definition being asked for if, as you say, it doesn’t matter and you don’t care. They’re being asked to fulfil a task which, even if fulfilled, will be ignored. That to me is a bad argument.

      • Nat (she/they)@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        11 hours ago

        I can’t speak for the person you were responding to, but I would do that as a first-hand demonstration of the flaws of their thinking. I could just say “you’re wrong and here’s why”, but I think it’s a lot more persuasive if I get them to go down that path and figure it out themselves.