When is a point made in a discussion 'moot'?

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Thursday, February 7, 2008 05:35
VIEWED: 2801
PAGE 1 of 1

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 8:20 PM

Quote:
moot (mt)
n.
1. Law A hypothetical case argued by law students as an exercise.
2. An ancient English meeting, especially a representative meeting of the freemen of a shire.
tr.v. moot·ed, moot·ing, moots
1.
a. To bring up as a subject for discussion or debate.
b. To discuss or debate. See Synonyms at broach1.
2. Law To plead or argue (a case) in a moot court.
adj.
1. Subject to debate; arguable: a moot question.
2.
a. Law Without legal significance, through having been previously decided or settled.
b. Of no practical importance; irrelevant.

Oh. I guess it's
w h e n e v e r.

Ex:
"WMD's were a lie."
"Your point's moot because there is no proof."

"Being that there were no WMD's, I believe that suggests falsehoods were passed on, at least."
"Old news, your point is moot."

"There were no WMD's."
"That they found none, doesn't PROVE that they didn't exist, your point is moot."

Easy peasy; just point and moot.

Chrisismoot

KWICKO

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:11 PM

I think that, in the instance(s) where it was used against you most recently, it means "Okay, you've proven me wrong, and now I don't want to talk about it any more."

Sweeping generalizations are always wrong!

FLETCH2

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:13 PM

To ask this question in THIS forum is moot!

This entire thread is moot!

Which makes this post moot!

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:17 PM

Thank you, your Mootness.

I gave him the moot Chrisisall

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:33 PM

A point is moot if it is debatable, such that by being debatable it has no importance. The question of Iraq’s WMD is not something that would likely be called moot, since the question clearly has significance, but the question of whether the we know if the Iraqi Government is opposed to a faction trying to destabilize and overthrow them would certainly seem to be somewhat moot, and certainly the question of whether we can trust if Al Qaeda is likely to do bad things would seem to be somewhat moot too, since at this point, we can assume that we can.

And this thread is also somewhat moot, since the issue of whether the previously said points were moot was already made and there's likely not going to be much resolution on either case or acceptance of said mootness by those denying it.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 9:51 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
A point is moot if it is debatable, such that by being debatable it has no importance.

With you so far.

Quote:
The question of Iraq’s WMD is not something that would likely be called moot, since the question clearly has significance

No, it's clearly moot because it can never be proven one way or the other.

Quote:
but the question of whether the we know if the Iraqi Government is opposed to a faction trying to destabilize and overthrow them would certainly seem to be somewhat moot

Okay, back with ya.

Quote:
and certainly the question of whether we can trust if Al Qaeda is likely to do bad things would seem to be somewhat moot too, since at this point, we can assume that we can.

Yes. very moot-y.

Quote:

And this thread is also somewhat moot, since the issue of whether the previously said points were moot was already made and there's likely not going to be much resolution on either case or acceptance of said mootness by those denying it.

Again, agreement- this is a board full of mootness and mootyosity.
Arguing present & future possibilities is moot, as is arguing over 20/20 hindsight.
Arguing facts is impossible, due to flawed perception and incorrect interpretation, which we all share to varying degrees.
All we can argue is perception, which by it's very nature, creates moot points.

I embrace my inner mootery!

Free at last Chrisisall

FREMDFIRMA

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 10:25 PM

Ah but it begs the question...

If an otherwise moot point is addressed by me or Jack, does it then become a mook point ?

Embrace your inner mook!
*GLARGHHH!*

-F

CHRISISALL

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 10:30 PM

Don't mooks come from Brooklyn?

But that's moot anyway Chrisisall

WASHNWEAR

Tuesday, February 5, 2008 11:15 PM

You want the moot? You can't HANDLE the moot!

A lie will travel the world around before the truth even gets its moots on...when we got here.

VETERAN

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 1:55 AM

I get the impression that it is one of those words that's used improperly more often than not. When people say that a point is moot they aren't saying it's debatable they really mean it's irrelevant. Figures the first time I heard this used frequently was when Jesse Jackson was running for President. He said it several times during debates and if I remember his context correctly he was using it as a trump card to say that the other candidate was making an irrelevant statement.... "But your point is moot." One of the few times he didn't rhyme. What a psuedo intellectual.

Oh well that's the lexicon for you. The meaning of words change. For instance, look at the way decimated is used most of the time. People act like a decimated army can't fight becuase it's been virtually destroyed. While if the word is properly taken it means the unit was punished by executing every 10th man, or at least suffered a 10% lost. Still 90% left hardly a ruined force.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 4:20 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
No, it's clearly moot because it can never be proven one way or the other.

There are ways in which it could be proven - it just hasn’t been, but if it ever is proven, one way or the other, it will have huge impact on the politics of the last 6 or so years. But when something is described as being “moot,” it’s not necessarily that it is something that can’t be proven. It’s just something that’s proof is somewhat irrelevant. If we prove that Al Qaeda didn’t use mentally handicap women to pull off this recent suicide bombing - so what? The proof has achieved nothing. That is a fundamentally moot point.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

JEWELSTAITEFAN

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 5:24 AM

The most common usage of moot that I've seen is the last 2 definitions posted above. I've always assumed that was what was meant each time.

The question of when WMDs were in Iraq and when were they allowed to leave is moot because by this point in time, no matter what further evidence or proof is provided or more clearly highlighted, the masses will not allow their opinions to be changed. The political opponents in America will continue to shrilly denounce the facts for political gain, and the public will refuse to cahnge thier minds. Therefore the facts have become irrelevant, and moot. Very few who understand WMDs were present will switch to the belief they never existed, and few who think they never existed will change to the view they were present, and the remaining number who would be swayed by the facts, or away from the facts are such a small number as to be an irrelevant percentage.
As is the common case, the politics of the left have rendered the facts moot.

BADKARMA00

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:34 AM

Why is everyone so mooty about this?

Bad_karma
Great and Exalted Grand Pooba, International Brotherhood of Moonshiners, Rednecks, and Good Old Boys.

NEWOLDBROWNCOAT

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 8:10 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:

Ex:
"WMD's were a lie."
"Your point's moot because there is no proof."

"Being that there were no WMD's, I believe that suggests falsehoods were passed on, at least."
"Old news, your point is moot."

"There were no WMD's."
"That they found none, doesn't PROVE that they didn't exist, your point is moot."

Sadly, your point, tho' correct, is moot, i.e, irrelevant, because we've already invaded the place, screwed it up, and hung the guy.

Truthiness or falseity of any statement made earlier is no longer important...

Sorry about that...

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 2:07 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by NewOldBrownCoat:

Sadly, your point, tho' correct, is moot, i.e, irrelevant, because we've already invaded the place, screwed it up, and hung the guy.

Truthiness or falseity of any statement made earlier is no longer important...

Sorry about that...

Don't be sorry my friend. This is my whole point right here (moot as it is), that truth itself has been rendered moot by emotional, knee-jerk perception. We polarize things to such a degree that no correct perception or reaction is possible anymore. We perceive and react to extremes, not realities. Bad men are not merely despicable, THEY ARE EVIL! Bush is not just trying to do his best (limited as that might be), HE'S A HERO!!! The Left does not just engage in tree-hugging, THEY WANT TO SEE AMERICA FALL!!!
The Constitution is not just a secular document, IT'S GODLESS!!!

Ahhh, it's all moot now, and like Murtaugh, I'm getting too old for this shit.

isall

GEEZER

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 2:22 PM

Well, at least we all agree it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" point.

"Keep the Shiny side up"

CHRISISALL

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 2:25 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Geezer:
Well, at least we all agree it's a "moot" point, not a "mute" point.

Shut up Geez, you're getting to old for this shit too.

Chrisisall

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 3:58 PM

Quote:
If we prove that Al Qaeda didn’t use mentally handicap women to pull off this recent suicide bombing - so what? The proof has achieved nothing. That is a fundamentally moot point.

No... The lesson I would derive would be not to trust what the Iraqi government says. But some people are only ready to accept that lessons they WANT to learn. and so the truth is... moot.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

RUE

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 4:13 PM

"As is the common case, the politics of the left have rendered the facts moot."

Please check your facts before you post.

Thanks.

***************************************************************
"Global warming - it's not just a fact, it's a choice."

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 4:33 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
No... The lesson I would derive would be not to trust what the Iraqi government says. But some people are only ready to accept that lessons they WANT to learn. and so the truth is... moot..

Very well, but most of us are beyond that point. We’re already aware of the difficulties of situational awareness and the inexactness of political rhetoric. So that’s not a lesson most of us would learn since we’ve already learned a long time ago, hopefully. So for most of us it would be very moot.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 5:43 PM

Quote:
We’re already aware of the difficulties of situational awareness and the inexactness of political rhetoric. So that’s not a lesson most of us would learn since we’ve already learned a long time ago

Except when people go off half-cocked over a story that may, or may not, be true. It's an easy lesson to learn, but it's a hard lesson to remember and apply when emotions are running high.

So here's another lesson I would take away: NEVER react on emotion.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

FINN MAC CUMHAL

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:23 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:
Quote:
We’re already aware of the difficulties of situational awareness and the inexactness of political rhetoric. So that’s not a lesson most of us would learn since we’ve already learned a long time ago
Except when people go off half-cocked over a story that may, or may not, be true. It's an easy lesson to learn, but it's a hard lesson to remember and apply when emotions are running high.

So here's another lesson I would take away: NEVER react on emotion.

Much like attempting to draw conclusions that fly in the face of probability, such as finding a report about the ruthless cruelty of Al Qaeda questionable, simply because someone doesn’t agree with the Iraq war or has an anti-authority bent.

Nihil est incertius vulgo, nihil obscurius voluntate hominum, nihil fallacius ratione tota comitiorum.

Nothing is more unpredictable than the mob, nothing more obscure than public opinion, nothing more deceptive than the whole political system.

-- Cicero

SIGNYM

Wednesday, February 6, 2008 6:50 PM

Quote:
Much like attempting to draw conclusions that fly in the face of probability, such as finding a report about the ruthless cruelty of Al Qaeda questionable, simply because someone doesn’t agree with the Iraq war or has an anti-authority bent.

The Incubator Story.

9-11 and the Patriot Act. (Conveniently drafted six months in advance)

Saddam Hussein's conspiracy with al Qaida.

Saddam and the Magical Mushroom Cloud.

Jessica Lynch.

Pat Tillman.

For balance I would include

Abu Ghraib

Now, all of these stories "seemed" believable at the time, or were made to seem believable by the endless echo-chamber that our media has become. All of them generated a lot of heat but not much light. But only one of them proved to be true. It's one thing to act out of conviction, it's another to act on spur-of-the moment reaction.

---------------------------------
Always look upstream.

6IXSTRINGJACK

Thursday, February 7, 2008 4:43 AM

It's a moo point ya know, like a cow's opinion. it doesn't matter. it's moo...

"A government is a body of people, usually notably ungoverned." http://www.myspace.com/6ixstringjack

FREMDFIRMA

Thursday, February 7, 2008 5:35 AM

Oh shaddap and eat yer cheeseburger, Mook!
*GLARGH*

-F

Quote:
Don't mooks come from Brooklyn?

(Technically, I AM originally from Brooklyn, which is a subdivision of Baltimore in the 21225 zipcode)