Semantics

Ford Perfect   Mon Sep 21, 2009 2:20 pm GMT
Often when there is a disagreement, the people concerned with 'agree to disagree'. One of the ways of 'agreeing to disagree' is to say: Look, we are just arguing about 'Semantics' - the meaning of words.

Sometimes the disputing parties will agree that the only the only winners in this case will be the lawyers if it ever comes to court. (A favourite expression of lawyers is: 'See you in court', which they know will be prohibitively expensive for the ordinary person.)

For example: there was a legal case in the UK in which a dispute arose over whether a 'Turnip' from Sweden, was a 'Swede', or whether it was a 'Turnip'. Although this might sound like a trivial argument over the meaning of words - semantics - it was important because a farmer had bought 'Turnips' from Sweden, expecting them to be 'Swedes'.

So, the legal case arose over a misunderstanding of the meaning of the words used. This is why in English law, in any contract, the principal words are defined as part of the agreement.



"Aristophanes criticizes the sophists as hair-splitting wordsmiths."


Often lawyers appear to be hair splitting for no other reason than to increase their fees. Lawyers should be representing their clients’ best interests.
Guest   Mon Sep 21, 2009 8:59 pm GMT
<<Look, we are just arguing about 'Semantics' - the meaning of words.>>

Why "just semantics"? Arguing about the meaning of words is the essence of any debate.
Uriel   Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:25 pm GMT
I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS




I ENJOY SUCKING COCKS
Guest   Thu Oct 01, 2009 3:35 pm GMT
Who doesn't?