Villian or hero?

[Batcher]

ZOMG. Same question to you then - if the government had a department dealing with square circles, would that mean that there can be such a thing as a square circle?

You're still talking nonsense. They have a department dealing with it because it exists. Can you post the link for the department of square circles?

[doodab]

ZOMG. Same question to you then - if the government had a department dealing with square circles, would that mean that there can be such a thing as a square circle?

You seem to have problems using language.

It ought to be obvious that the point of language is to facilitate communication. In the case of the phrase "intellectual property" this is a label that enables people to refer to something quite specific that most definitely exists. You may object to it being labelled "property" on some pedantic grounds but that simply fails to acknowledge that language and it's use evolve, and it's the evolution of language that's required for a phrase to come into general use. Formation of a government department might cause that (i.e. if their jargon becomes widely adopted) but it's more likely that they are following a wider trend, as has happened in the case of intellectual property.

As to whether there could be such a thing as a square circle, you're using the phrase as a synonym for something impossible, which can clearly exist in concept if not in reality. So that answers the question in the affirmative doesn't it, although I'd say it's unlikely to catch on.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You're still talking nonsense. They have a department dealing with it because it exists. Can you post the link for the department of square circles?

So your answer to my question was 'yes' then?

[SpontaneousOrder]

You seem to have problems using language.

... for something impossible, which can clearly exist as a concept if not in reality.

Ok. You are the ultimate ****tard, or ubertroll. Surely noone can be that insanely dense.

[doodab]

Ok. You are the ultimate ****tard, or ubertroll. Surely noone can be that insanely dense.

So you are saying the concept of impossible doesn't exist?

I think you've got a ******* cheek calling me a troll when you happily redefine the meaning of everyday words willy nilly to suit your barmy arguments. In fact, I think you're too stupid and up your own arsehole to bother with anymore so I'm going to give it a miss from now on.

[SpontaneousOrder]

So you are saying the concept of impossible doesn't exist?

I think you've got a ******* cheek calling me a troll when you happily redefine the meaning of everyday words willy nilly to suit your barmy arguments. In fact, I think you're too stupid and up your own arsehole to bother with anymore so I'm going to give it a miss from now on.

No. The concept of impossibility can exist. The concept of a square circle cannot. The concept of a truthful lie cannot. The concept of an all-seeing blindness cannot.

I've never met such a vile cesspool of nihilism.

[Batcher]

So your answer to my question was 'yes' then?

No.

[doodab]

No. The concept of impossibility can exist. The concept of a square circle cannot.

The phrase can exist, you coined it so you can't deny that, and impossible or self contradictory concepts can indeed exist and be manipulated by the human mind. If they couldn't it would be impossible to argue that they were impossible or contradictory. Only last week you yourself posted a question about an omniscient omnipotent being, while arguing that such a being was impossible. The square circle you've invented is simply a less subtle and more obviously ridiculous example of the same thing, if the concept didn't exist, then it couldn't be thought ridiculous.

My taking the phrase to refer to something impossible in general rather than the concept of a square circle is what is known as "metaphor" BTW. Like I said, you seem to struggle with the subtleties of language.

[SpontaneousOrder]

Like I said, you seem to struggle with the subtleties of language.

You seem to live in your own reality which is defined by arbitrary language choices.
Reality begets language, but you can't reverse the two without a dose of self-deception.
You cannot reasonably (read logically) claim property needn't be scarce because people have adopted the use of the word 'property' with respect to non-scarce things, and THEN accuse me of struggling with language.
By your own definition language isn't something that can be subjected to the rigours of 'correct/incorrect' valuations.

[doodab]

You seem to live in your own reality which is defined by arbitrary language choices.

They are no more arbitrary than yours. The big difference is that my reality is somewhat closer to everyone else's than yours is.

I never claimed that property needn't be scarce because people have adopted the use of the word 'property' with respect to non-scarce things. I pointed out that it has NEVER referred to the scarcity of things and you were simply distorting the meaning of the word.

You need to get yourself a special book called a "dictionary". It will help you understand what words actually mean and save you making up your own misguided definitions for them.