The definiton of words

[none]

I've heard the most primitive languages use pops and clicks

 

[Juma]

I've heard the most primitive languages use pops and clicks

Primitive? What do you mean by that?

 

[DBT]

...
Another strategy is to not admit faith is belief without evidence and to say that faith without evidence is blind faith, not sure if that is readily classified as a dodge
I explain empiricism is faith based on evidence and faith is a belief with out evidence, but he continually makes the shift that he doesn't have blind faith never admitting faith is belief without evidence
He'll admit blind faith is faith without evidence but never address faith, as if it is different
I would like to know how to reasonably address this nonsense but ultimately definitions could be arbitrary
Not sure how to proceeded, not sure how to frame this behavior to assess it pragmatically

I think faith also depends on evidence, even faith in God. But in this case the main type of evidence comes from the faith one has in their family and community.

If there is evidence, there is no need for faith. Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence.

As for 'faith' in relation to family, friends, etc, it is trust either built or destroyed through experience rather than faith. To equivocate faith and trust is deceptive. They are two different concepts.

 

[Speakpigeon]

Words come from MMM.

MMM MM MM.

that was the first thing said by intelligent humans.

MM MMMM M.

Then they added MM MM MMM, which meant dodge those snakes. Then MMM MMMM MM MM, which meant keep the snakes away from the baby.

M MM MMM.

MMM was used as a song. Hey there are mammoths over there, please don't let them trample the baby = MM M MMMM M MMMM M M. Then they worked other natural sounds and pitch changes into the MMM's, to express more complex stuff like "don't swing that burning stick near the babies" aka MMMM agh mmm mm ahhh MMM ugh ugh. singing did become the origin of words, not the other way around. No doubt about it.

MM MMM MM M MMM?
EB

 

[Speakpigeon]

I've heard the most primitive languages use pops and clicks

Primitive? What do you mean by that?

Definitions of primitive
1. of or belonging to the first or beginning; original
2. characteristic of an early state, esp in being crude or uncivilized: a primitive dwelling.
3. (Anthropology & Ethnology) anthropol denoting or relating to a preliterate and nonindustrial social system​

Don't mention it.
EB

 

[Juma]

Primitive? What do you mean by that?

Definitions of primitive
1. of or belonging to the first or beginning; original
2. characteristic of an early state, esp in being crude or uncivilized: a primitive dwelling.
3. (Anthropology & Ethnology) anthropol denoting or relating to a preliterate and nonindustrial social system​

Don't mention it.
EB

Mention what? I asked which meaning he used. You certainly did not help.

 

[none]

I've heard the most primitive languages use pops and clicks

Primitive? What do you mean by that?

good call maybe old is the better term
I don't know much about it, im working off a memory on a 60 minutes article maybe 15 20 years ago
the folks talked with clicks pops and whistles and they might have been in east or south africa
they were primitive folk carrying spears and hunting porcupines if I recall correctly

 

[Treedbear]

I think faith also depends on evidence, even faith in God. But in this case the main type of evidence comes from the faith one has in their family and community.

If there is evidence, there is no need for faith. Faith is a belief held without the support of evidence.

As for 'faith' in relation to family, friends, etc, it is trust either built or destroyed through experience rather than faith. To equivocate faith and trust is deceptive. They are two different concepts.

We speak of a person's faith that God exists even though the only evidence they might have is the trust in their community of family and friends. The testimony they receive serves as a form of evidence as long as it is trustworthy.

Trust itself is based on faith in one's own ability to judge another person's character, and that their beliefs are being represented honorably and truthfully. If they were to lose that trust it would be because either they doubted their own judgement or because their trust was betrayed by some form of hypocrisy or deception.

I have a hard time imagining anyone having blind faith, i.e.; belief with zero evidence. DBT... blind faith, just like free will, doesn't exist. It's a gross distortion meant to confuse the issue.

 

[DBT]

We speak of a person's faith that God exists even though the only evidence they might have is the trust in their community of family and friends. The testimony they receive serves as a form of evidence as long as it is trustworthy.

That does not faith a belief justified by verifiable evidence. Testimony alone is not reliable...the individual may be sincere but mistaken.

Trust itself is based on faith in one's own ability to judge another person's character, and that their beliefs are being represented honorably and truthfully. If they were to lose that trust it would be because either they doubted their own judgement or because their trust was betrayed by some form of hypocrisy or deception.

No it's not. One's ability to judge character is put to the test each and every time that person interacts with you, hence both your ability and the trust you place in that person is being objectively tested.

To call everything a matter of 'faith' which, unlike trust built or destroyed by objective actions, being a belief held without evidence, becomes the fallacy of equivocation.

I have a hard time imagining anyone having blind faith, i.e.; belief with zero evidence. DBT... blind faith, just like free will, doesn't exist. It's a gross distortion meant to confuse the issue.

Faith, by the given definition, is blind. Not to be confused with trust or justified confidence or provisional belief.

 

[Juma]

Primitive? What do you mean by that?

good call maybe old is the better term
I don't know much about it, im working off a memory on a 60 minutes article maybe 15 20 years ago
the folks talked with clicks pops and whistles and they might have been in east or south africa
they were primitive folk carrying spears and hunting porcupines if I recall correctly

Google Xhosa. They talk isiXhosa which comtains three different click sounds.

I dont think they would approve of you describing them as a primitive folk...

 

[bilby]

good call maybe old is the better term
I don't know much about it, im working off a memory on a 60 minutes article maybe 15 20 years ago
the folks talked with clicks pops and whistles and they might have been in east or south africa
they were primitive folk carrying spears and hunting porcupines if I recall correctly

Google Xhosa. They talk isiXhosa which comtains three different click sounds.

I dont think they would approve of you describing them as a primitive folk...

What are they going to do, get their airforce to nuke him?

 

[DBT]

Google Xhosa. They talk isiXhosa which comtains three different click sounds.

I dont think they would approve of you describing them as a primitive folk...

What are they going to do, get their airforce to nuke him?

They can use their clicking to disrupt echo location and radar on enemy jets and warships.

 

[Sarpedon]

There is also a whistling language in the Azores. (or was it the Canaries? I don't remember) It supplements a spoken language and is well suited for long distance communication over rough terrain. The idea that certain languages are primitive is stupid. All languages are adapted to the needs of the users, or own no more or less than any other. I think Language chauvinism is more common and as stupid as racial chauvinism.

Words are merely noises we grunt at each other in an attempt to communicate. Their meanings are conventions, no more or less significant than clothing fashions. Any argument that hinges on what a word 'really' means is useless. There is no backflow between language and reality, only what we accomplish through action that might be influenced by words.

 

[Speakpigeon]

The idea that certain languages are primitive is stupid.

I think not.

Definitions of primitive
1. of or belonging to the first or beginning; original
2. characteristic of an early state, esp in being crude or uncivilized: a primitive dwelling.
3. (Anthropology & Ethnology) anthropol denoting or relating to a preliterate and nonindustrial social system

EB

 

[Sarpedon]

You are seriously arguing that it isn't stupid using a definition?

Did you read what I said about definitions of words and what I think of them and people who use them in arguments as if they were something other than arbitrary conventions?

By all means, argue that it isn't stupid, but use something other than semantics.

The so called 'primitive' language has evolved over time, just as yours has, and for the same amount of time, or maybe longer. To call their language 'primitive' and imply that it is worse than yours simply because the people who use it don't own refrigerators is chauvinism.

The fact is that linguists don't know why some languages are more complex than others. Some people living in 'primitive' conditions produce very complex languages. Some people in advanced societies have relatively simple languages. Words express ideas. Many people have trouble looking behind the wall of words to the meaning and ideas beyond. They prefer to accept definitions and categories and leave it at that.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

You are seriously arguing that it isn't stupid using a definition?

Did you read what I said about definitions of words and what I think of them and people who use them in arguments as if they were something other than arbitrary conventions?

By all means, argue that it isn't stupid, but use something other than semantics.

The so called 'primitive' language has evolved over time, just as yours has, and for the same amount of time, or maybe longer. To call their language 'primitive' and imply that it is worse than yours simply because the people who use it don't own refrigerators is chauvinism.

The fact is that linguists don't know why some languages are more complex than others. Some people living in 'primitive' conditions produce very complex languages. Some people in advanced societies have relatively simple languages. Words express ideas. Many people have trouble looking behind the wall of words to the meaning and ideas beyond. They prefer to accept definitions and categories and leave it at that.

This should be required study as part of critical thinking. It continually surprises me how people objectify words, those grunts and sounds we make and scribble onto objects, and then treat those words as if they are actually something real, like they came first.

The fact that we have different languages and that one object out there has dozens, hundreds, thousands of different sounds and scribbles to describe it ought to give a person a hint, not to mention that one word in any language can refer to many different objects or conditions. And we haven't even mentioned idioms.

 

[Juma]

Google Xhosa. They talk isiXhosa which comtains three different click sounds.

I dont think they would approve of you describing them as a primitive folk...

What are they going to do, get their airforce to nuke him?

No. Having the airforce kill you (by drones) is the mark of a really primitive folk...

What I ment is that is bad manners to call a folk primitive in that way. (But not if they kill you by using drones)

 

[Speakpigeon]

You are seriously arguing that it isn't stupid using a definition?

Did you read what I said about definitions of words and what I think of them and people who use them in arguments as if they were something other than arbitrary conventions?

By all means, argue that it isn't stupid, but use something other than semantics.

The so called 'primitive' language has evolved over time, just as yours has, and for the same amount of time, or maybe longer. To call their language 'primitive' and imply that it is worse than yours simply because the people who use it don't own refrigerators is chauvinism.

The fact is that linguists don't know why some languages are more complex than others. Some people living in 'primitive' conditions produce very complex languages. Some people in advanced societies have relatively simple languages. Words express ideas. Many people have trouble looking behind the wall of words to the meaning and ideas beyond. They prefer to accept definitions and categories and leave it at that.

Surely it is what someone means using a particular word in a particular context that can be said to be stupid or not. Now, we cannot know what somebody meant other than by considering the definitions of the words he used and the context of the particular occurrence. We also cannot know the many situations in which people choose to talk of a "primitive language". Thus, to make the blanket claim that it is stupid to use the word "primitive" to qualify a language without making this qualificaton dependent on the context of use and the applicable definitions of the word "primitive" is definitely stupid.

Of course, you should have understood that by yourself and you should have understood why I posted the definition of "primitive". But you didn't and you didn't, so there's a pattern there.
EB

 

[Angry Floof]

That's what's known as the Palin fallacy.

 

[Speakpigeon]

That's what's known as the Palin fallacy.

Here it is:

2008 CBS Interview with Katie Couric – Foreign Policy

Couric: You've cited Alaska's proximity to Russia as part of your foreign policy experience. What did you mean by that?

Sarah Palin: That Alaska has a very narrow maritime border between a foreign country, Russia, and, on our other side, the land-boundary that we have with Canada. It's funny that a comment like that was kinda made to … I don't know, you know … reporters.

Couric: Mocked?

Palin: Yeah, mocked, I guess that's the word, yeah.

Couric: Well, explain to me why that enhances your foreign-policy credentials.

Palin: Well, it certainly does, because our, our next-door neighbors are foreign countries, there in the state that I am the executive of. And there…

Couric: Have you ever been involved in any negotiations, for example, with the Russians?

Palin: We have trade missions back and forth, we do. It's very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia. As Putin rears his head and comes into the air space of the United States of America, where do they go? It's Alaska. It's just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure that an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, they are right next to our state.

EB