Posted by alexandra_k on November 29, 2010, at 2:39:54
According to Merriam Webster Online (Bob's preferred source):
Civil:
- Adequate in courtesy and politeness
- Established by laws(I think they are the senses that he takes to be relevant. I also think the idea is that the laws be those relevant for 'courtesy and politeness' rather than being arbitrary)
Uncivil:
- Not civilized
- Lacking in courtesy
- Not conducive to civil harmony or welfareNow the following two questions arise:
1) Is Bob's definition (and his rules) of civility / incivility in line with the above - or does he mean something different when he talks about civility / incivility at Babble?
(e.g., does saying sh*t without an asterisk violate courtesy and politeness? is it lacking in courtesy and unconducive to civil harmony or welfare - or merely a violation of Bob's rule? In other words, is it uncivil or merely uncivil*?)
2) Are the posts that Bob judges to be civil / uncivil really displaying the characteristics that Merriam Webster says are relevant?
(as in the above example)
I think that it is important (vitally) to keep this clear in the discussion. I propose the terms 'civil*' to signify one is talking about civility-according-to-Bob and 'uncivil*' to signify that one is talking about incivility-according-to-Bob rather than the unstarred versions with their standard meaning.
Why?
Because equivocation doesn't do anybody (except Bob in this particular context) any favors at all.
Equivocation (wiki):
Equivocation is the use in a syllogism (a logical chain of reasoning) of a term several times, but giving the term a different meaning each time. For example:
A feather is light.
What is light cannot be dark.
Therefore, a feather cannot be dark.In this use of equivocation, the word "light" is first used as the opposite of "heavy", but then used as a synonym of "bright" (the fallacy usually becomes obvious as soon as one tries to translate this argument into another language). Because the "middle term" of this syllogism is not one term, but two separate ones masquerading as one (all feathers are indeed "not heavy", but it is not true that all feathers are "bright")...
Of course I don't suppose this suggestion will be implemented. But, really, I'm skeptical about any suggestions being implemented (except for Bob's of course - but then they aren't really suggestions are they)
Bob... The great equivocator...
1) to use equivocal language especially with intent to deceive
2) to avoid committing oneself in what one saysAnd calling him an equivocator is to equivocate with respect to both inciivility and incivility*. How... Amusing... Or something...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:971709
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20101014/msgs/971709.html