Boyi comments on How to Not Lose an Argument - Less Wrong

109 Post author: Yvain 19 March 2009 01:07AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (409)
Tags: argument

Comments (409)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 03:53:19PM -2 points [-]

??? Um no read sentence # 2.

Comment author: ArisKatsaris 15 December 2011 03:58:42PM *  0 points [-]

Please respond to these following two question, if you want me to understand the point of disagreement:

  • Do you understand/agree that I'm saying "offensive content" is a superset of "vulgar content"?
  • Therefore do you understand/agree that when I say something contains offensive content, I may be saying that it contains vulgar content, but I may also be saying it contains non-vulgar content that's offensive to particular moral standards?
Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 03:58:37PM 0 points [-]

First, bowdlerizing has always implied removing content, not adding offensive content. Second, the word has evolved over time to mean any removal of content that changes the "moral/emotional" impact of the work, not simply removal of vulgarity.

Comment author: Boyi 15 December 2011 04:20:30PM 0 points [-]

I do not say it means adding content. It means to remove offensive content. Offensive content that is morally base is considered vulgar.

Comment author: TimS 15 December 2011 04:23:42PM 0 points [-]

All they see is you/people like you calling a part of them "vulgar." I don't believe I've done this
It is harder and/or worse to get people to part with these beliefs than to adopt a bowdlerized version of them".

Don't use words if you do not know what they mean.

The two statements you quoted are not inconsistent because a bowdlerized theory is not calling the original theory vulgar, in current usage. Based on the change in meaning that I identified.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit