I just KNEW someone would try to help with this one 
I appreciate it, but I have to admit, I was kvetching. it’s nigh-impossible to miss the MERRIAM-WEBSTER names slapped all over the site upon a visit.
Heh, this is turning out to be something along the lines of “Help MrC with blatantly obvious information!”…
What an apt vicissitude.
Kwyjibo that.
Oompa loompa doobedy doo.
When we discuss mathematics, we use terms like transitivity, matrix, and exponential. When we discuss politics, we use terms like interstices, ethics, and gerrymander. When we discuss philosophy, we use terms like epistemology, metaphysics, and modality.
If you don’t know what we mean when we say that a non-obtaining entity is ontologically neutral, then ask questions to get yourself up to snuff, or else go hang out in IMHO.
When I discuss mathematics, I use terms like; ‘Where’s my fucking calculator’ and ‘Oh for fuck’s sake Washte, add this up for me’. When I discuss politics, I use the terms ‘Wanker’ and ‘Bastard’ - quite a lot actually. When I discuss philosophy I use terms like, ‘Oh you’re talking complete bollocks’ and ‘Are you on crack?’
If I don’t know what you mean when you say that a non-obtaining entity is ontologically neutral, then I drink more beer.
Underpants.
What a perfectly cromulent argument.
Damn, Lib. What a perfectly arrogant and elitist argument. The true measure of the intelligence of a debater is not the ability to express oneself within the framework of a specialized vocabulary but rather to express ideas within the larger framework of language and ideas.
Otherwise, what point in arguing if you’re only communicating to a small group? Sounds like group masturbation to me.
I have perused GD occasionally - barely ever post - and going by your description, which is heartbreakingly accurate, I often leave there feeling as though I was in a (figurative) bukkake flick.
Granted, but you could make the same argument to the jokesters who respond to every thread with Simpsons references, figuring the people they’ll reach are the ones that will be most embiggened by the communication.
I don’t understand your complaint. I’m not suggesting that using the specialized vocabulary signifies intelligence, just that using the specialized vocabulary is necessary.
Are you suggesting that we ought to define our terms each and every time we post? Defining them once won’t do, since new people come aboard all the time.
Or are you suggesting that we avoid the proper terms altogether? If so, why? You would cripple the discussion, or else severely limit it.
Imagine discussing car mechanics while someone who doesn’t know a carburator from a manifold complains about your usage of jargon. To accomodate them, your discussion becomes “Try adjusting the thing that mixes the fuel with air.” Aside from the fact that your posts become longer because you have to use definitions instead of words, your lurker probably doesn’t understand what you said any better than if you had said, “Try adjusting the carburator.”
As to the idea of communicating to a small group, no one has established that it is a rule that every thread have universal or even broad appeal. And in fact, few threads do.
Right now, there is a thread in Great Debates, Logic is meaningless, that is a deeply philosophical discussion on the context in which logic is effected by systems and theories of knowledge (epistemology) as well as its implications in the context of theories of existence and truth (ontology).
And while there are only twenty-seven participants in the thread, it has spanned four pages and is still quite lively. To our great fortune, Spiritus Mundi himself has joined in. And you can bet your bottom dollar that his contributions will greatly edify every person present.
Look, there was a time when I didn’t understand philosophy either. But I was interested in it, and so I studied it. And I gravitate to discussions about it. If you want to do that, fine. If you don’t, fine. But what is the point in going to the Pit and complaining that you don’t understand what we’re talking about and that those of us who do are elitist?
I’m writing a research paper on the royalty rates for radio station webcasting. I gave a rough draft to my dad to look over and one of his main comments was “I don’t really understand half of what you’re talking about, but it seems like it’s written well. Don’t worry, though. Your professor will understand this.”
So I give it to my professor. One of his main comments was “you don’t explain things like who the NAB is. You don’t tell me what the RIAA does.”
I said “but I do tell you! I have it listed right here that they’re the National Association of Broadcasters and the Recording Industry Association of America.”
“That’s what they stand for. You don’t tell me who they are. Why are they involved in this struggle? I know it, you know it. But you’re not writing for us. You’re writing for your reader and your reader would be lost right now.”
It’s not necessary to dumb down your ideas to make sure everyone is included. What is necessary is that you explain yourself well enough for the people that are going to be reading your work and a good percentage of those people will have very little familiarity with the core concepts before they start reading.
Believe me, if I never see “my cat’s breath smells like cat food” ever again in my entire life it will be too soon. We were only talking about masturbatory debators. If we throw in EVERYONE who essentially jerks it until they spooje all over the forums, we’ll have to come up with a new category of Bodily Fluid Porn.
“What is the sound of 200 Dopers fapping? MPSIMS!!”
Hee. Hee. Hee.
[sub]should anyone misunderstand, I do not discount myself from this group.[/sub]
Jesu Christo! Stop with the bukkake references. You’ll give me a heart attack!
No, no, don’t stop, I think you’re onto something: SDMB MasterDebaterTentacleBukkake Porn – ow, my heart!
Specialized vocabulary is the sine qua nolo contendere of serious debate, a sort of j’aime le fromage for the exchange of ideas. Mr. Cynical might try subliminal vocabulary-builder tapes, I tried them and lost 15 lbs. 
Lookit that…all of your favorite things in one place.
</hijack>
FWIW, I agree with MrC here…I don’t know what a lot of those terms mean; that doesn’t mean I’m incapable of debate. I can drive a car without knowing how the engine works. I can use this computer without understanding precisely how the circuit boards are constructed.
Isn’t there’s always some tension between shorthand language growth within groups and inclusive communication for new members? I personally don’t see any deliberate barriers to entry on the par with, say, the latinate obscurity of the barrister. YMMV.