This is a serious thread (in the GD forum...well, I couldn't think of where else it should go) dedicated to all of my Thrasymachuses out there (most recently, and most poignantly, Fliption). It has been said (throughout my long time here) that I am argumentative, not open to any agreement, and too semantically inclined. I wish to address this, if only to have a thread I can refer my critics to, and thus avoid side-tracking threads. Being argumentative and against agreement is how it may seem, but I'm really just being Skeptical, in the original use of the term. The Pyrrhonean Skeptic had a counter statement for every statement. To this they added epoche (suspension of judgement), and that was their method. My method is very much like that. However, contrary to popular opinion, I do come to agreement, and I don't counter every statement. In short: if there were no flaws in your statement, I'd have nothing to counter; as it is, I would appreciate it if my counters were addressed directly. As to semantics, well, I really admire the philosophy of Wittgenstein. As per the Philosophical Investigations, philosophy's "problems" can be solved by ceasing to use empty terms (which have evolved through complex histories, as I've been trying to explain in my recent threads, but are not less empty), and addressing all philosophical difficulties as problems of the language-game being used. That I sometimes nit-pick about a word, or feign ignorance with regard to a word's meaning is simply a way of fleshing out how well my opponent understands the words that make up the language-game s/he's playing. That my opponent very often cannot define a term to anything like a sufficient extent (which needn't be perfect or exhaustive, merely useful (i.e., you shouldn't need to erect an entire paradigm, so that your word can gain meaning therein)). Any posts (in any thread) that relate to my method of discussion will henceforth be responded to by a simple reference to this thread.