Pleeb

[Game] Last one to post wins!

Recommended Posts

the controversy has nothing to do with the anatomical structure of a horse and everything to do with the semantics of what counts as a leg, but it is a bit more interesting than a normal semantic argument

 

the thing that started the debate (names have been changed to protect the innocent) (I am paraphrasing this, btw):

interlocutor: Bre, if you call a tail a leg, how many legs does a horse have?

me: 5

interlocutor: no, they have 4 legs. calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg

me: yeah it does, that is just how words work

[the argument goes on]

 

if I was smarter about it I would have asked "then what does make a leg a leg?", which probably would have allowed me to convey my point a bit more elegantly, mais c'est la vie

Edited by Breloomancer

I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, JGC said:

I just told her I dressed up as L three years in a row.

Made me smile, even though you're obviously not talking about my L


CM - 30th April 1997 - Host of the system

Desmond - 21st April 2014

L - 5th May 2014

Nevira - 14th December 2014

Misa - 5th December 2015

Roska - 22nd July 2019

Danyla - 13th July 2020

Progress report  Art thread  Ask us anything lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my mind, a word's meaning is generally shaped as much by other people's interpretations as it is by the speaker's intentions.  I understand a leg as it is generally defined, as a weight-bearing structure on either an animal or inanimate object.  The word "limb" already exists to account for body parts that aren't the head and torso of a creature, so there's already a term that can refer to both legs and tails.  So I can accept that a horse could have five legs under your definition, but not under mine or under what is generally accepted.

 

There are some cases where altering the accepted meaning of a word in one's own usage can be helpful.  In the case of the way we distinguish social intro/extraversion and cognitive intro/version, embracing a different definition in place of the more generally accepted but less accurate meaning helps us see reality in a more accurate light.  Saying that Ghostly is socially introverted just describes a preference she's developed, but not how she developed it or what motivates her to be the way she is.  However, knowing she has a cognitive bias that places a higher priority on information from external sources, we can see how her behavioral tendencies have formed or continue to form.  Her socially introverted tendencies are an expression of her need to absorb information, the fears she's developed when she's experienced another's disappointment or annoyance, and other traits that developed as her cognitive processes interacted with the environments she's been exposed to.  There's also other behaviors of hers, and also ours, that we can analyze because we know our cognitive preferences.  Because the definitions we use to describe these haven't entered common usage, this can be difficult to explain to others, but it is helpful to us in aiding our own understanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Reiji said:

So I can accept that a horse could have five legs under your definition, but not under mine or under what is generally accepted.

well that was basically my point anyways. one thing that I said a few times over the course of that argument is "it may only have 4 legs to you, but it has 5 legs to me, because I call a tail a leg". of course you could always argue that I shouldn't call a tail a leg, but if I didn't call a tail a leg then that would be out of the bounds of this discussion, because this is about if I called a tail a leg, so I can't change my definition of a leg for the purpose of the hypothetical. but really what I was mainly arguing against was the idea that calling something something doesn't make it that thing


I have a tulpa named Miela who I love very much.

 

 
"People put quotes in their signatures, right?"

-Me

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Ranger said:

You mean 2018'ers/2020'ers? I think most of the 2019 crowd doesn't use the forum outside of progress reports or the forum at all.

  

Well, the 2014'ers I mentioned were like 50% from 2012. I just call people by their heydays, which for most 2018-registered members is more like 2019 because they were more well established then. Though I'm a 2014'er, because I caught on fast and posted a heckin' lot in 2014. 2014 also had what feels like the most productive, hardcore discussion of tulpamancy. 2019 is probably where all the LOTPW crew's most posts were


Hi! I'm Lumi, host of Reisen, Tewi, Flandre and Lucilyn.

Everyone deserves to love and be loved. It's human nature.

My tulpas and I have a Q&A thread, which was the first (and largest) of its kind. Feel free to ask us stuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.