RocketGirl: Animator

[RocketGirl]

If we may dig ourselves out of semantics for a moment, I honestly cannot see what actual issue is being debated here.

Semantics.

My issue, concerning the term 'belief', has as far as I can tell been resolved, although quite why the definition of belief I put forward - from dictionary.com, no less - is irrelevant I do not understand.

Well, let's put it this way...what you seem to be saying is, "There are multiple definitions of this word, one that you have explicitly stated is the one you're using in your argument and which supports the position you've taken quite well, and the one I prefer which does not support your case nearly as well...let's use mine instead."

[nickspoon]

My issue, concerning the term 'belief', has as far as I can tell been resolved, although quite why the definition of belief I put forward - from dictionary.com, no less - is irrelevant I do not understand.

Well, let's put it this way...what you seem to be saying is, "There are multiple definitions of this word, one that you have explicitly stated is the one you're using in your argument and which supports the position you've taken quite well, and the one I prefer which does not support your case nearly as well...let's use mine instead."

That is not what I am saying at all. I challenged, originally, your assertion that one does not require belief in order to ascribe value to empirical evidence. At this point I defined belief as 'something that is believed', without connotations of lacking rigorous proof. Your definition of belief, in this instance, is different to mine but nonetheless perfectly valid, and I accept that empiricism does not require belief in that sense. However, as my definition of belief is also valid, there is an ambiguity, which you do not seem prepared to accept.

As I say, it is simply semantics, and I am not arguing against you in that belief as you define it is not required for acceptance of empirical truths, nor am I trying to somehow manipulate the definition of belief to undermine your case.

[RocketGirl]

Your definition of belief, in this instance, is different to mine but nonetheless perfectly valid, and I accept that empiricism does not require belief in that sense. However, as my definition of belief is also valid, there is an ambiguity, which you do not seem prepared to accept.

...because it was my assertion that proof negates belief, and the kind of belief I am referring to is quite specific.
To then argue that I'm wrong by virtue of there being another definition of the word belief, one I have explicitly stated that I do not adhere to, seems, to me, to be disingenuous.

As I say, it is simply semantics, and I am not arguing against you in that belief as you define it is not required for acceptance of empirical truths, nor am I trying to somehow manipulate the definition of belief to undermine your case.

Then...I don't see the point in bringing it up, honestly. I mean, I've made my position pretty clear; arguing semantics seems like splitting hairs, contrarian. I don't grok the point of throwing a different definition of 'belief' out there in this circumstance.

[nickspoon]

...because it was my assertion that proof negates belief, and the kind of belief I am referring to is quite specific.

What you are essentially saying here is that proof negates belief where belief is defined as acceptance in the absence of proof, which of course I am (as I have said all along) happy to accept.

To then argue that I'm wrong by virtue of there being another definition of the word belief, one I have explicitly stated that I do not adhere to, seems, to me, to be disingenuous.

I have at no point argued that you were wrong, according to this definition of belief, simply that your position was (but no longer is, a point which you have not failed to stress) ambiguous. That is all.

Then...I don't see the point in bringing it up, honestly. I mean, I've made my position pretty clear; arguing semantics seems like splitting hairs, contrarian. I don't grok the point of throwing a different definition of 'belief' out there in this circumstance.

When I brought it up this was not the case; now, however, we are arguing about nothing.

[RocketGirl]

...now, however, we are arguing about nothing.

Then...can we stop? Or at least find something of substance to argue about?

[nickspoon]

Then...can we stop? Or at least find something of substance to argue about?

I was planning on stopping, myself

What was this thread about? Animation or something?

[Ibun]

Y'all bitches are bitches. Take THAT.

[Dr. Sticks]

I don't see how being called a jerk is really all that upsetting tbh

[RocketGirl]

What was this thread about? Animation or something?

Oh, yeah...I totally kick ass as an animator an' stuff. *strut*

I don't see how being called a jerk is really all that upsetting tbh

Well, it IS a personal attack; someone with less self-control than I could have turned this into a flamewar over it. I've seen threads--even entire boards--ignite over far less.