But he wasn't saying to ignore the definition. -- FawnDoo's Cavalcade of Whimsy

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 20:34:23 03/25/03 Tue
Author: Motocron
Subject: But he wasn't saying to ignore the definition.
In reply to: FawnDoo 's message, "No, it is not a dumb thing to argue about" on 10:20:30 03/25/03 Tue

He was saying that a given definition could be interpreted many different ways by different people. Like he said, "extremely powerful nation" could be taken to mean different things. It could mean a strong military to one person or a strong economy to another. So a superpower to you might not be a superpower to me. I don't believe classifying a nation as a superpower does anything for it though. Do they get extra points for being called a superpower? I mean, that's like trying to classify music. Was Limp Bizkit "pop" or "rock"? That depends on the person and it doesn't really matter anyway. Music is music. A nation is a nation. Remember, a person wrote that dictionary. It's not set in stone(that would take a while wouldn't it? :) ). If I wrote a dictionary that doesn't mean my definition would be better than Webster's, though it might be different and that's okay. Though I'm sure they used the most widely accepted definition it is still arguable. So why argue?

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Of superpowers and dictionaries -- Perceptor II, 15:10:10 03/26/03 Wed