Words are not as important as the message.

Who said anything about modification? I think you'll find that modification is not possible without control and actually fits with control as I am using it here.

Influence: The capacity to have an effect on the character, development, or behavior of someone or something, or the effect itself. Also fitting with my use of control in this case.

 

Only if you are using control wrongly.

Control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.



Affecting, is not control. Affecting ALL options, is control.

When I say something to you; you can respond to it any which way you choose. Therefore, I do not have control over you.
I am merely influencing you, modifying your options, by prompting a response.

 

So, you agree with me, then?

 

Silly Duck. You could replace AFFECT with CONTROL or INFLUENCE in this case easily.

 

Only if you are using control wrongly.

Control: to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command.



Affecting, is not control. Affecting ALL options, is control.

When I say something to you; you can respond to it any which way you choose. Therefore, I do not have control over you.
I am merely influencing you, modifying your options, by prompting a response.

 

You are describing ABSOLUTE control or ABSOLUTE influence. When you have affected something, you have exerted control over it. Whether you mean to or not.

 

I think you misunderstood- i meant challenging YOURSELF with the words you read and hear from OTHERS, not your own words

 

Thereby controlling my behaviour?

You say I can respond any way I choose... This is true. I could not respond at all, in which case your attempt at making me respond (your attempt to control my behaviour) has failed.

 

So, using other people's language to control your own behaviour?

So their language has succeeded in controlling your behaviour.

Really, guys, this is a very simple concept and an extremely common one. I can't understand why you have a problem with it.

 

lol messages can control and be used dangerous too- I'm just curious, where does your philosophy go with this? I'm not being sarcastic but is it basically just misanthropic?

 

Communication is a fragile and sensitive thing, and depends on both the sender AND reciever.
Be it the oral or writen languague the tone and/or delivery can be misintepreted
I've always gone with the philosophy that Actions, speak louder than words and can be judged accordingly on behaviour and not just belief that ...

 

No, Very SELECTIVELY- taking bits and pieces of ideology and creating your entirely new mosaic that has no niche

 

Certainly not, again I think my use of "control" and "behaviour" are being misunderstood. Like you said, language can be used to inspire people. You can be inspired to do and be good as well as bad by other people's language.

All through our lives our behaviour has been shaped by the language of others. A lover says "I love you" to either receive the same in response as a demostration of affection or possibly to calm down a person in a bad situation. Both of these are manipulations of behaviour.

It really is that simple, there is no good or evil in the words in my statement, just an observation of what is. I am in fact echoing the words of a linguist, probably several linguists.

When you read or hear something great you might say "that has changed my life" or "I'm never going to look at the world in the same way", which means your behaviour has been modified by that particular use of language. Your behaviour has been, maybe only in a small way, maybe in a bigger way, controlled by what you have read or heard.

If a child could not express itself through any medium, how would it ever tell its mother when it was hungry or bored? When it needed washing or help with something? Without language, the child has no tool to control the mother's behaviour so that it is provided for.

 

sorry, double post

 

That is the definition of control.

No. Read the definition again.

Because you aren't using it correctly.

 

Since there's no such thing as partial control in the world of Duck...
Let's just agree to disagree, shall we?

 

You said control. "Partial control" is a misnomer; as control is to dominate, or command.
"to exercise restraint or direction over; dominate; command." RandomHouse Dictionary
"to command, direct, or rule" Collins English Dictionary
"to exercise restraining or directing influence over : regulate" Merriam-Webster

All of these are absolute.
And while dictionaries do not control our usage, they show the usage which has been agreed upon.

Furthermore, this whole argument proves the importance of words. You have been using your own definition this whole time. Really, that is all that we have been arguing over.

 

When you say argue, do you mean we've been trying to control each others' behaviour in regards to the issue? Don't answer that, I mean it in jest.

Does a pilot control a plane?

 

Depends.

A pilot controls a plane's navigation through the air; when it's functioning properly. Ultimately, extreme weather, mechanical conditions, or human error could override that.

What truly controls a plane is physics.

Just as mother nature is what controls each of us.

I can be picky with words; just as the machinist can.

I can't truly blame him for getting technical on me -- I just expected a more friendly conversation. And I probably wouldn't have gotten technical on you if I had understood what you meant, originally. (Usually I don't, but I probably do sometimes =P)

 

Ah, the wonders of semantics.

Some people say that a pilot flies a plane. Now that's just absurd, if you apply a certain kind of logic in the meaning of the term. Most of us know what they mean, though.

I think the title of the thread is correct, I think we have just proven it to be correct with our exchange.