EVE General Discussion

I tend to agree, but there are also pvp people with that weird mindset...

Yikes. You're assuming that there is a singular, correct, universally agreed upon, scientific definition for the term. In my experience, language is very fuzzy and heavily dependent on context, personal opinions, viewpoints, emotions, implied meanings, etc.. You yourself encountered that in one of your previous posts in this thread.

In the real world, for example, Agile Development exists because defining software requirements accurately is so hard to do.

Not assuming. I agree with you that there are subjectively determined definitions depending on context, but there is always a central definition that applies, objectively. For example, (and don't mistake this for turning this into a political discussion please, this is merely an example) a democrat might define a republican as the scum of the earth, a republican might define a republican as a hero to america, but a republican is simply and objectively defined as someone that votes republican (this, of course, being the most basic definition of the word - I am aware that it is probably a little more complex than that).

I agree with you that there are subjective iterations of word definitions, but all terminology has an origin and an original definition that can be dug out of the slew of intertextuality. I've encountered "fuzzy language" many times before this thread - it is why I made this thread, to weed out the fuzzy and produce some clarity. So far, I've made considerable progress, and I could actually come close to produce a verifiable and objectively agreeable definition for the pejorative term "carebear", I'm just waiting on a few more opinions before I do so. But as I was saying - I encounter this "fuzzy language" all the time - it's a part of my profession, having to "interpret" the meanings of various works of literature, art, philosophy, and even science itself. I'm not a stranger to semiotics, not at all, so please don't be confused that I'm trying to state definitely that there can only be one definition of the word.

But what you responded to - I think you missed the point. You cannot define a group of people, even subjectively, by explaining why you hate them, because this only defines why you hate them. Once more, I don't care why you hate them, I want you to tell me what you think it is that defines them.

You're assuming that there must always be an objective well-thoughtout and reasonable explanation on why a hateful derogatory label is used on someone else or other class of people. And history has proven that this isn't always the case. People will be people. You don't need an objective and clearly thoughtout reason to hate, demean, or ridicule others.

Then why didn't you just try a dictionary?

Carebear
n.
a nice person who is against violence and disputes. (Especially in the domain of computer games. From the name of a set of lovable children's characters.) : These carebears don't want us to play the really good games!

You're asking a question to something you seem to already have an answer to.

A nerve, did I strike?

all y'alls are bears

gummy bears are delicious

black bears are the most dangerous bear of all

polar bears are weak oh man we're dying off because of global warming, harden the f up

I keep getting accused of this, but as I've pointed out, it tends to be coming from people that just don't like the word. I don't care for it myself, I'm only trying to narrow down who it applies to. You should read through the thread, you might find it enlightening. But your accusation lacks enlightenment for the moment, as you are ignoring the points where I've accepted logical shifts in the definition from a term that applies to a group of people to a term that applies to an attitude. I am not trolling here.

Dictionary
noun, plural dic·tion·ar·ies.
1.
a book, optical disc, mobile device, or online lexical resource (such as Dictionary.com) containing a selection of the words of a language, giving information about their meanings, pronunciations, etymologies, inflected forms, derived forms, etc., expressed in either the same or another language; lexicon; glossary.

It's pretty obviously a dictionary.

I had a look at the printed Oxford and there's a glaring omission in the 'dictionary' entry - it only mentions printed dictionaries. At best this is an oversight which is unchangable for an entire year due to their use of outdated technologies. At worst, this is a deliberate attempt not to inform their readers of the competition. So much for academic integrity! This website, however, does list printed dictionaries. They need to remain unbaised, of course. If they lost readers, they'd lose the advertising revenue they need to operate! I see no reason to use outdated, slow and clumsy methods of looking up the meaning of words. And you yourself mentioned the lack of a definition of the word 'carebear' in this clearly biased, incomplete and poorly managed Oxford dictionary. The choice of who to trust is obvious to me.

So. Why do you ask people for a definition and then refuse those they offer?


You're not interested in open source? Why did you start a topic asking people to give their opinions on a definition instead of writing to a university? That website isn't editable by anyone, by the way. Which you'd know if you looked at it. Which you didn't.