I think you're just trolling now. Your responses are ridiculous. I'm repeating your own logic.

So you think that by inventing the word 'gay,' you change what it is to be gay? How does that even work?

Here's a question: since to be any kind of animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the particular species, were there any animals in existence before people called them anything? If so, how is that possible on your account?

So you think that but inventing the word 'gay,' you change what it is to be gay? How does that even work? — The Great Whatever

Exactly the way it worked. When we used the word "gay" to talk about the happy and carefree, then to be gay was to be happy and carefree. Now we use the word "gay" to talk about homosexuals, so to be gay is to be homosexual.

Here's a question: since to be any kind of animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the particular species, were there any animals in existence before people called them anything? If so, how is that possible on your account?

I'm not saying that to be an animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the species. I'm saying that if we use the word "equine" to refer to horses then to be an equine is to be a horse and if we use the word "equine" to refer to rabbits then to be an equine is to be a rabbit and if we use the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals then to be gay is to be homosexual and if we use the word "gay" to refer to the happy and carefree then to be gay is to be happy and carefree.

I'm saying that if we use the word "equine" to refer to horses then to be an equine is to be a horse and if we use the word "equine" to refer to rabbits then to be an equine is to be a rabbit — Michael

The word used changes, but a horse is a horse, of course. The meaning of horse remains the same. We don't mean that rabbits are now horses. We mean that horses are horses.

Did the meaning of "gay" remain the same when we changed the way we used it?

Exactly the way it worked. When we used the word "gay" to talk about the happy and carefree to be gay was to be happy and carefree. Now we use the word "gay" to talk about homosexuals so to be gay is to be happy and carefree. — Michael

Okay, consider the following.

"Gay" means "homosexual." Homosexuals were already homosexual before the word "gay" was invented. It follows therefore that they were already gay. Please epxlain to me what is wrong with this argument.

I'm no saying that to be an animal is just to be a referent of the word referring to the species. I'm saying that if we use the word "equine" to refer to horses then to be an equine is to be a horse and if we use the word "equine" to refer to rabbits then to be an equine is to be a rabbit and if we use the word "gay" to refer to homosexuals then to be gay is to be homosexual and if we use the word "gay" to refer to the happy and carefree then to be gay is to be happy and carefree. — Michael

But this is wrong. Consider: "gay" means "homosexual." If it is true that if we call something "gay," then it is gay, it follows that if we call something "gay," then it is homosexual. But this is refuted by your own examples, since we called things "gay" that were not homosexual

We didn't change the meaning of gay, we changed the way we used the word, "gay", such that it means homosexual now. The meaning is not the in the word.

Okay, consider the following.

"Gay" means "homosexual." Homosexuals were already homosexual before the word "gay" was invented. It follows therefore that they were already gay. — The Great Whatever

Okay, consider the following.

"Horse" means "rabbit." Rabbits were already rabbits before the word "horse" was invented. It follows therefore that they were already horses.

Your continued rejection of this is nonsensical hypocrisy.

We didn't change the meaning of gay, we changed the way we used the word, "gay", such that it means homosexual now. — Marchesk

And I'm saying that we could change the way we use the word "horse" such that it then means "rabbit".

"Horse" does not mean "rabbit." Are you crazy?

It's a hypothetical change in the way we use the word "horse" to mirror the actual change in the way we use the word "gay".

We can change the word "horse" such that it's a synonym for "rabbit", which means those furry creatures with big ears, regardless of what we want to call them.

I know. That's all I've been saying. I've repeatedly said that I'm not saying anything so ridiculous as that they undergo a biological transformation.

So you agree that "rabbit" means those furry creatures with big ears, and not equines, even if we decide to use the word "horse" instead.

It is not a hypothetical change; it is a premise you used in an argument. The premise is false, so the argument is unsound. My argument used no such false premise.

Now tell me what is wrong with the argument I presented.

No; if we use the word "horse" to refer to furry creatures with big ears then "horse" becomes a synonym of "rabbit".

Yes, but that does not mean horses are rabbits. Horses remain horses.

It's a counterfactual argument. I'm certainly not trying to conclude that rabbits are horses.

What counterfactual argument? You posted an argument with a premise. That premise was that "rabbit" means "horse." It does not; so the argument fails. There was no counterfactual in the argument.

Now please address my argument above as I presented it.

No; if we use the word "horse" to refer to furry creatures with big ears then "horse" becomes a synonym of "rabbit". — Michael

Yes, but that does not mean horses are rabbits. — The Great Whatever

And if I were to say "if we use the word 'gay' to refer to homosexuals then 'gay' becomes a synonym of 'homosexual'" would you respond with "yes, but that does not mean gays are homosexual."?

The premise "'Horse' means 'rabbit'" is the counterfactual premise.

But gays are homosexuals, because "gay" is a synonym of "homosexual." The language as we speak it is not such that "rabbit" is a synonym of "horse." If it were, then in that language as used at a future time we could say something like "rabbits were always horses" and be correct. But we are not at such a time, so we cannot say it, as you are trying to do, because "gay" and "homosexual" actually are synonyms, but "rabbit" and "horse" are not.

It's a counterfactual argument. I'm certainly not trying to conclude that rabbits are horses. — Michael

Right, but what exactly are you trying to claim? That the meaning of rabbits or horses is contained in the word we use, such that if we use another word instead, the meaning changes?

I'm not saying that we're at such a time. I'm saying that if we used the word "horse" to refer to rabbits then rabbits would be horses (according to the new meaning of "horse" and not the old meaning).

That what it means to be X depends on how we use the word "X".

Because we are not at such a time, you cannot make the claim in the language as it now is. Rabbits would not be horses. They would be the referent of the word 'horse' in the language as it existed at that time. You are not saying that "in the future language the claim 'rabbits were always horses' would be true," which is true, but rather you are saying that rabbits would always have been horses, which is false, since you are speaking the language as it is now.

The premise "'Horse' means 'rabbit'" is the counterfactual premise. — Michael

No it isn't. A counterfactual premise has the form, "If it were the case that p, then it would be the case that q."

Because we are not at such a time, you cannot make the claim in the language as it now is. Rabbits would not be horses. They would be the referent of the word 'horse' in the language as it existed at that time. — The Great Whatever

But I'm not making the claim in the language as it is now. As I said before, "horse" means "equine" at T₁, and means "rabbit" at T₂, where the language at T₁ is language as it is now and the language at T₂ is a hypothetical future language. The conclusion that at T₂ horses are rabbits applies the language at T₂, not the language at T₁. That's why I accused you of conflation; you interpreted the conclusion using the language at T₁.

No it isn't. A counterfactual premise has the form, "If it were the case that p, then it would be the case that q."

I would have thought the implicitness of the "if" was obvious.

That what it means to be X depends on how we use the word "X". — Michael

But we use the word "horse" to refer to animals with certain properties, and that's where the meaning comes from. The meaning of "horses" is horses. And if we decide to use "rabbit" in the future, it will also mean horses.

And if we change our use of the word "horse" to refer to animals with different properties then that's where the meaning comes from. Just as we changed our use of the word "gay" to refer to people with different properties, and so this is where the (new) meaning came from.

So you agree that horses is what gives meaning to how we use the word "horses".