Of superpowers and dictionaries -- 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: 15:10:10 03/26/03 Wed
Author: Perceptor II
Subject: Of superpowers and dictionaries
In reply to: FawnDoo 's message, "No, it is not a dumb thing to argue about" on 10:20:30 03/25/03 Tue

We're debating over the meaning of a word. A pretty important word - and since when could you just disregard the meaning of words in the dictionary in favour of your own definition?

That's not what we're doing. Goktimus made an "appeal to authority" by citing the definition given by Dictionary.com. That's fine, but to suggest that a dictionary (not the dictionary, a dictionary) says such and such and that's that is a classic logical fallacy. The validity of Dictionary.com's definition can very well be called into question.

Dictionaries do not create a language's vocabulary; they document an already existing vocabulary. A group of experts studies the way words are used and if the word is used in a certain way often enough then that definition is recorded. Words like clicker, surf and geek are words that have included new definitions recently. The new, positive definition of geek is one that I have yet to see in a mainstream dictionary, but that doesn't mean that definition exists.

Seriously though - definitions can't just be ignored when they're inconvenient. I know this is a minor thing to argue about but by God I will argue it. Words define the world we live in - you can't just switch them on and off when you like.

I'm not ignoring the definition. I'm saying that the definition submitted by Dictionary.com is inaccurate. Merriem-Webster's definition is more accurate, though I would modify it to say "allies and satellites", as France and Germany probably would object to being called America's satellites. Britain, Canada and Australia know their place, though (j/k! Couldn't resist! :p).

The most common usage of the term "superpower" indicates a very high threshold for gaining that status. That threshold is higher than for the term "world power", which is used for a country whose military or economic power or political influence is sufficient to have effects on the entire world.

In order to become a superpower, another nation would have to exert political influence in such a way as to lead a rival alliance to challenge the United States. I don't believe Japan is capable of wielding that sort of influence. China could potentially do so, and reach superpower status. The European Union could collectively reach superpower status, but right now it isn't united enough to do so, and there are still questions as to if it will ever be able to do so.

I'm not saying that the United States will stay the world's only superpower for all time. That's ridiculous. However, right now there is no other superpower, just a couple of wannabes.

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