Quote Originally Posted by Del Murder View Post
Arguments of semantics usually bring things to a screeching halt, though. Can't spend all day defining every term you use because then you end up in the 'depends on what your definition of "is" is' situation.
Even though I'm a wordophile, and agree in principle with what rydrum is saying, I have to agree with the gangsta here. In large part because a word's denotation is only the start of what a word really means, and the larger part of the meaning is often very relative. Thus, operationally defining something to the agreement of both sides of an argument is impossible. At least in contexts like this one.

In fact, a large portion of what Raist is doing here (or will be doing) [is] defining sexism (its connotation), by discussing it in a particular context. Our operational definitions develop through conversations and arguments that we have, not by fruitlessly arguing definitions before we even begin.


It's roots deep.