Words are not as important as the message.

And I think the exact opposite. Because you used the wrong word, I originally misunderstood you, and we had a gigantic argument, spurred by the misunderstanding.

So unless the correct words are used; the message is pointless.

 

But to me it was the right word. That's how it was stated originally when I first heard it and I understood it - at least I thought I did, so that's how I replicate it. You did understand what I said, we couldn't have argued otherwise. It was just your understanding of it. So the words being important that you speak of means that what the words mean to you is what's important. Ergo it is the message which is the most important.

 

But the message wasn't passed clearly.

It became two different messages; and the communication was faulty.

If one person was speaking French and another Chinese; the message would be irrelevant because their words do not match.

 

I passed it clearly but you didn't receive it clearly. It is not always the fault of the sender of the message. I fail to see how it became two messages. To me, it was always one message. To you, it was always one message. You made no attempt to clarify the message by questioning me, showing that you understood it. Disagreement does not equal misunderstanding.

The message wouldn't become irrelevant, just lost. We have far more languages than those written indictionaries. Pointing, miming, even touch. All of these can be used to convey the same messages as words can.

 

You weren't using the proper definition; how is that my fault? I fail to see how it became two messages.

The disagreement was based upon misunderstanding. Because if you said 'influence', I would have agreed; but you said 'control', which isn't the case; and it seems you actually meant 'influence.'
You had one message; I had a different message (based on my understanding)
Like if you ever played telephone in grade school, and the message comes out different on the other end.

None are effective as language, which is why we developed it. And there are also cultural barriers to gestures.
Thumbs up means "fuck you" in some cultures.

 

I wasn't using your definition. With my definition it made perfect sense. Influence and control, to me, can share meaning in a certain connotation. Either can be used in the statement I made.

It was the same message with 2 perceived meanings. There was still only one message that we were arguing over. If we had perceived the message meaning the same thing, it is still two different perceptions, they are just identical. Two perceptions does not mean two messages, just as two perspectives do not make two pictures.

You are using the word telephone incorrectly, what you mean is "Chinese whispers", telephone and chinese whispers are two completely different things. Do you see how absurd that sounds? It takes very little for me to understand the message of that sentence, even though I did not understand what you meant by "playing telephone". In that instance, I am placing the words as more important than the message.

There are also cultural barriers to the same language. If somebody described you as "wicked" then how would you feel? Like someone was condemning you for being evil or complimenting you for being good at something? It depends if you feel the words or the message is more important, the message could be approval or of condemnation, perhaps whether or not the person is smiling will be what tells you what the message is.

 

The definition. The agreed upon definition in the English language; as shown by numerous dictionaries.
I could tell you that you are a horrible faggot. Then I could say, well my definition of 'horrible' is 'strong', and my definition of 'faggot' is 'debater'. But that's absolutely asinine.

Let's not debate on too many tangents at once. I will just say that this also, is a matter of perspective, and once again, ours do not agree.

But that is only in the instance that the words leave enough of an impression for you to deduce the message.

In our case earlier; your choice of words led me to believe you had a completely different meaning.

So my words were clear enough (though not precise) for your understanding; whereas your words were too vague for my understanding.

One message lasted imprecise wording; the other message was garbled because the words were not strong (or accurate) enough.

That's context. It has nothing to do with whether word or message is more important.
Context could also be given by the words and sentences surrounding the statement. Or by the circumstances the statement is given in.

And we've both said that words are not the only form of language

 

NO - you said that. I was simply responding to what you said in your post directly above mine. You said, (and, I quote you):
"Language is just a tool to control the behaviour of others."

You know quite well what my response was to your statement. You are gifted with higher-than-average intelligence, and there's no doubt in my mind that you know what I said.

 

You bet! Simply by your choice of the use of the word "control", the implication is clearly negative.

This is a classic example of what I meant when I said, "Words mean things." For; what does your use of the word "control" imply, anyway?
Let's take a look at what the word "control" means:

Definition: "Control" - "To exercise restraint or direction over; the act or power to dominate, regulate, or command. To exert authority over, by a means of regulation, restraint, direction, manipulation, or rule. The act, power, or situation of being under the domination, command, or rule of another. To manage, govern, reign over."
(Source: World English Dictionary)

Now, I don't know about you, but if someone attempted to exercise authority, restraint, or direction over me - through the use of power, regulation, rule, manipulation, or domination ..... I venture to say that I would perceive that action negatively; because it ain't nothin' good!

 

... the words are not as important as actions. was the idea. Therefore, who judges; mind fcuk time.:sunny: