sc94597 said:
Unfortunately language is not always logical, and consequently can not be formed solely from axioms and deduction. Many words, such as toy, have multiple connotations and meanings. One such meaning is something from which an adult finds amusement. This is substantiated by the standardized collection of definitions we call dictionaries. You started a semantic debate, and it is only proper to address a dictionary to substantiate the point that toy in this context, is a proper use of the word. What you posted wasn't any better than posting a dictionary definition. You defined multiple terms in the form of a dichotomous key, without any source to substantiate the usage of the widespread word "toy" fitting your standards and only your standards. Because language is not deductively contained, we must use induction (observe how a word is used by poeple) to resolve definitions. As for the webster's definition, like I said, words have multiple definitions: this was one of them, something that an adult buys or uses for enjoyment or entertainment |
And by that definition a pair of shoes, a DVD, or an ice cream would qualify as a toy so long as an adult buys them and intends to enjoy them in any capacity. Any student of language would know that a dictionary definition is woefully inadequate in any meaningful or in depth discussion, and quoting a dictionary is no more valid that saying "Bob said so". Dictionaries are written by commitee anyway, and we all know how useless that is, one only needs to look at world governments to see a prime example. It's argumentum ad populum at it's worst, as not only is it popular opinion of the commitee, with compromises destroying all accuracy and integrity of the text, but it's unaccountable at that, as no-one knows who's actually deciding on these definitions. Now, in the context of what we're discussing, the psychology of play, these words carry specific meaning, just like how "dirt" has no meaning in the field of forensic science, but means something to a layperson. It's incredible how little of these detailed meanings make it into the dictionary.
In the discusson present, a toy is something that is played with in deconstructive or constructive play in which there is no structure, goal, or pre-determined purpose. You know that definition is correct, I know that definition is correct; and we both know it without the need of a "source" to quote too. You can argue semantics if you like, but if someone pointed to a table with a 6 inch plastic train, a travel set of monopoly, and a copy of 'Dark Souls' for PS3, on it and said, "Could you pass Daves toy", you'd pick up the train and you know you would, you'd not stop and ask "which one" would you? Any honest person would admit this much; this is because we all know, on a subconcious level what people mean when they say "toy".
Honestly, I've always considered semantic arguments like this to be a sign of intellectual dishonesty, there's no way to disprove what either is saying but deep down we both know who's right, and the reluctance to admit that only makes people seem petty and childish, so I'd rather not push this argument any further because I don't see anyone having the humility to capitulate, (especially on the internet).
One of the big annoyances for me here, especially when it comes to this misuse of the word "toy", is it's used derogatorily, in order to undermine and demine the medium of video games, and the people who play them. It's a god damn insult in other words, so why anyone would choose to perpetuate it seems senseless to me. This is why it's worth correcting, after all, I believe video games to be an artistic medium with just as much legitimacy as film, music, or any classic art. Would you also call a music CD a "toy"? No you wouldn't, and if you say you would, we both know you're lying just to be trite so don't bother.
Essay Pro