Good character names are running out, huh?

And again, this is far too absolutist a stance to take. If your position is that the term "original" is suspect because it relies so much on subjectivism, then that instantly nullifies the merit to having such words as "like" and "fun" which, by their very nature, defy any objective definitions. Trying to paint the world in objective definition is, by default, a futile effort because the only tools of observation we actually have - our senses - are themselves subjective on the one hand, and subject to the interpretation of our minds, which are even more subjective in turn.

There's a part to this argument that - and please don't hold it against me for saying this - really irritates me. It's the notion that any statement made without a variant of "in my opinion" or "to the best of my knowledge" appended is invariably an absolute. And it's not. It's not what most people mean when they say, and it's ugly to append an endlessly looping descriptor to the end of which statement, to boot. In fact, one should assume that a statement even stated in absolutes is, ultimately, still a subjective evaluation and best guess approximation.

And that's actually ignoring the meaning of the term "original." This is not a value judgement, it is merely a term to describe the first of a kind and origin of a concept. Given that precedent for original items goes both ways and depicts both terrible examples where time improved it greatly, as well as masterpieces which were never replicated, I don't think you really should be inferring moral judgement into something being "original." Yes, "some people" will try to use it as a value judgement, but that argument can extend to infinity, because there is absolutely nothing that "some people" won't do.

As with most uses of language, one should never bog down into fine semantics at the cost of ignoring context, because it's never a question of what we SAY, it's a question of what we MEAN.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

When you do not know a thing, to allow that you do not know it - this is knowledge.
- Confucius

So, if someone says something horrible to someone else, but didn't MEAN to, or didn't THINK it was all that bad, the appropriate response would be?

Ah, see, the problem is that the very term "original" is objective by nature. Ergo it does not by its nature defy any objective definition. Yet it is often disused subjectively. To say something is original in that fashion is like saying absolutely that it is the first of its kind, when what is more likely is that the viewer was previously unfamiliar with the item in question.

I rarely hold opinions against people. I assume we're all friends here, or at least acquaintances who can't punch each other. And I've made similar statements to yours before. However, when I make that argument it is in defense of clearly subjective statements. Saying something is "fun" or "good" is clearly subjective. Saying something is "original" or "red" is less so.

This, too, is generally my position. I personally prefer a pragmatic approach to discerning meaning. But some things muddy the waters, I feel. We have a near-miss of opinion here, I'd say.

The appropriate response would be:

"Wait, so are you saying that <fill in the blanks>? Really?"

If the response is "Yeah, I am!" then, by all means, punch him in the mouth. But in pretty much every case I've ever asked that, and I ask this almost every time I see something I suspect is really bad, the response has been "Wait, what? No! What I meant was <fill in the blanks>!"

I realise that I don't always practise what I preach, but that's still, in my eyes, the best approach.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

The point is, no-one has encyclopaedic knowledge of all the world's history to know when something was first created, and even those that do still get it wrong because it turns out "new" inventions were invented and forgotten thousands of years ago. And even then, there is far too much we just don't know. That's why I said it's too absolutist to approach things that way. We don't know. And unless we bend reality in some fashion, we never will. And even if "we" do, the individual still won't. What that basically means is that we shouldn't use the term "original" outside of strictly scientific, fact-founded statements, and that just ain't gonna' happen. Not even in strictly scientific circles, who tend to devise their own terminology anyway.

Basically, you shouldn't define the term "original" as something purely objective, because that's not how people use it. Certainly you can hold them to task to the dictionary meaning of the word (I guess, I haven't checked), but that's just bogging things down into semantics, specifically when you know what they're actually trying to say. "Original," as people mostly use it, is a value judgement just the same as "cool" or "creative." It may not necessarily "mean" that, but that's what people say it to mean, anyway. You could keep insisting that it should mean something else, just as I keep insisting that colour and armour are spelled with a U, but you really should read the word as people say it, not necessarily how it "should" be used.

Generally, I find it's a good idea to try and figure out what people mean, even if you have reword it completely in your head. Language, by its very nature, is never precise, clear and unambiguous, and the more exact you try to make it, harder it becomes to understand, ironically. I don't think it's reasonable to expect people to be precise in their phrasing when what we all do is basically hurl words and sentences at each other in the hopes that the other will "get it." It's one step removed from prodding your mate and pointing to that can of beer, hoping that he'll spark an imagination and understand you want him to hand it to you. Language isn't actually too much more precise than that.

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.

There's a breakdown in communication here.
If YOU say something/do something bad to SOMEONE ELSE and they are UNHAPPY with that, even if you didn't MEAN it, what would be YOUR appropriate response?

Wait, what? Are you asking what my response to my own action would be? If I did something to someone else absent any context, then wouldn't it be up to that someone to react?

I guess if you gave me some context about how I didn't think I was doing something bad but I suddenly realised I was and what my reaction would be to that, then I could work from there, but as you formulate your statement, I just don't know what you're asking.

Off the cuffs, my reaction to the situation as you describe it would be "Sorry about that."

Originally Posted by Arcanaville Samuel_Tow is the only poster that makes me want to punch him in the head more often when I'm agreeing with him than when I'm disagreeing with him.