I bet a coworker $20 that “tariff” and “tax” were synonyms. Motherfucker refused to pay up, calling merriam-webster.com, thesauraus.com, wikipedia etc. “fake news”.
A tariff is a tax or custom duty on an imported good.
Tariffs can lead to a reduction and higher prices on foreign imported goods.[1] Like the corporate income tax, domestic consumers ultimately pay the tax in higher prices.
Arguing with idiots is like playing chess with a pigeon. No matter how good you are, the bird is going to shit on the board and strut around like it won anyway.
My point exactly. The bet was about whether “tariff” and “tax” are synonymous. They aren’t synonymous if they describe different things, even if one of those things is a subset of the other. (This is complicated a bit by the fact that synonymity is context-dependent so in some contexts they can be synonymous. I’m assuming a general context.)
To give a different example, every iPhone is a smartphone but not every smartphone is an iPhone. The two terms aren’t synonymous except in specific contexts like when discussing the inventory of an Apple store.
In a general context, I would argue that the bet is lost – tariffs are taxes but taxes encompass more than just tariffs. The definition of synonymity is not fulfilled.
The actual point of the bet, namely to illustrate that tariffs are paid by people in the country that raised them (because they are taxes on imported goods and services), remains valid.
They aren’t synonymous if they describe different things
This is clearly false. Obviously the degree of difference determines whether terms are synonymous. You’re correct that not all taxes are tariffs. Apparently however that doesn’t mean they’re not synonyms.
Additionally one term being a subset of the other evidently does not preclude being a synonym.
If you have a bet, and every dictionary says that you’re wrong, then you should just graciously pay up.
There are various definitions of synonymity with varying degrees of strictness. Whether something is considered synonymous depends both on how strictly one defines synonymity and on which context one operates in.
I assumed a relatively strict definition: Two terms are synonymous if and only if they can be used interchangeably in most contexts, e.g. “bigger” and “larger”. Under that definition, “tax” and “tariff” are not synonymous; “tariff” usually implies something crossing a border while “tax” doesn’t.
However, an equally correct definition is that two terms are synonymous if they have similar or related meanings within a context. Under this definition, “tax” and “tariff” are synonymous since they describe similar things – even if they aren’t interchangeable. This definition is usually used by synonym lists because it makes it a lot easier to write those lists. Annoyingly, this means that two words that are listed as synonymous in such a list aren’t necessarily synonymous in the context you’re using them in.
For example, Collins lists “tariff” and “tithe” as synonymous. Do you know anyone who pays a tariff to a church? The synonym list for “tithe” doesn’t even mention a church-specific reading; it just assumes that a tithe is some kind of tax and that’s close enough. You can write like that but your style would be seen as very flowery and wouldn’t be suitable e.g. in a scientific context.
Another correct definition, by the way, is that the two words must have exactly the same meaning in all possible readings. That one is so strict it’s practically useless for natural languages but can be use in different contexts.
Let’s look at how Merriam-Webster describes synonyms:
1: one of two or more words or expressions of the same language that have the same or nearly the same meaning in some or all senses
2a: a word or phrase that by association is held to embody something (such as a concept or quality)
“a tyrant whose name has become a synonym for oppression”
2b: metonym
3: one of two or more scientific names used to designate the same taxonomic group
→ compare homonym
All three definitions I gave above match Merriam-Webster’s first definition, depending on whether one chooses “the same” vs. “nearly the same” and “some” vs. “all”.
Interestingly, Collins’s definition of “synonym” is very strict due to excessive brevity:
A synonym is a word or expression which means the same as another word or expression.
This doesn’t allow for similar meanings (which their own synonym lists heavily rely upon as illustrated above), which is probably not intended.
I didn’t check Thesauris since you messed up that link but so far one dictionary says “it depends” and the other one says “the meaning must be the same” (and then completely ignores its own definition). “It depends” is the best we can do.
According to Merriam-Webster, “income tax” is a synonym of “value-added tax” and “property tax”. And it can be, depending on context, but few people would argue that they are always synonymous. It’s the same with “tariff” and “tax”. Whether or not they are synonymous depends on context.
Mussolini also said that fascism was whatever it needed to be in the nation it was in, for future reference. There is only the pragmatic consolidation of power.
It does not even matter if is the state consolidating power, or the church, or corporations, only that the process is aimed at merging their powers in the end.
Man, this isn’t even “doing your research” it’s just knowing what very basic words mean.
I bet a coworker $20 that “tariff” and “tax” were synonyms. Motherfucker refused to pay up, calling merriam-webster.com, thesauraus.com, wikipedia etc. “fake news”.
Your mistake was referencing a woketionary.
https://www.conservapedia.com/Tariff
I would’ve made you pay him. Every tariff is a tax but not every tax is a tariff. Of course your actual point still stands.
That’s not what a synonym is.
My point exactly. The bet was about whether “tariff” and “tax” are synonymous. They aren’t synonymous if they describe different things, even if one of those things is a subset of the other. (This is complicated a bit by the fact that synonymity is context-dependent so in some contexts they can be synonymous. I’m assuming a general context.)
To give a different example, every iPhone is a smartphone but not every smartphone is an iPhone. The two terms aren’t synonymous except in specific contexts like when discussing the inventory of an Apple store.
In a general context, I would argue that the bet is lost – tariffs are taxes but taxes encompass more than just tariffs. The definition of synonymity is not fulfilled.
The actual point of the bet, namely to illustrate that tariffs are paid by people in the country that raised them (because they are taxes on imported goods and services), remains valid.
thesauris.com, merriam-webster, and collins all disagree with you.
This is clearly false. Obviously the degree of difference determines whether terms are synonymous. You’re correct that not all taxes are tariffs. Apparently however that doesn’t mean they’re not synonyms.
Additionally one term being a subset of the other evidently does not preclude being a synonym.
If you have a bet, and every dictionary says that you’re wrong, then you should just graciously pay up.
There are various definitions of synonymity with varying degrees of strictness. Whether something is considered synonymous depends both on how strictly one defines synonymity and on which context one operates in.
I assumed a relatively strict definition: Two terms are synonymous if and only if they can be used interchangeably in most contexts, e.g. “bigger” and “larger”. Under that definition, “tax” and “tariff” are not synonymous; “tariff” usually implies something crossing a border while “tax” doesn’t.
However, an equally correct definition is that two terms are synonymous if they have similar or related meanings within a context. Under this definition, “tax” and “tariff” are synonymous since they describe similar things – even if they aren’t interchangeable. This definition is usually used by synonym lists because it makes it a lot easier to write those lists. Annoyingly, this means that two words that are listed as synonymous in such a list aren’t necessarily synonymous in the context you’re using them in.
For example, Collins lists “tariff” and “tithe” as synonymous. Do you know anyone who pays a tariff to a church? The synonym list for “tithe” doesn’t even mention a church-specific reading; it just assumes that a tithe is some kind of tax and that’s close enough. You can write like that but your style would be seen as very flowery and wouldn’t be suitable e.g. in a scientific context.
Another correct definition, by the way, is that the two words must have exactly the same meaning in all possible readings. That one is so strict it’s practically useless for natural languages but can be use in different contexts.
Let’s look at how Merriam-Webster describes synonyms:
All three definitions I gave above match Merriam-Webster’s first definition, depending on whether one chooses “the same” vs. “nearly the same” and “some” vs. “all”.
Interestingly, Collins’s definition of “synonym” is very strict due to excessive brevity:
This doesn’t allow for similar meanings (which their own synonym lists heavily rely upon as illustrated above), which is probably not intended.
I didn’t check Thesauris since you messed up that link but so far one dictionary says “it depends” and the other one says “the meaning must be the same” (and then completely ignores its own definition). “It depends” is the best we can do.
“Nearly the same meaning in some” should have been enough words for you to not write this wall of text.
Oh man. Do you really want to have a debate about the meaning of the word synonym?
Please, by all means, continue believing you’re right about everything.
Pretty sure everyone else will continue finding you insufferable.
Synonyms of tariff
According to Merriam-Webster, “income tax” is a synonym of “value-added tax” and “property tax”. And it can be, depending on context, but few people would argue that they are always synonymous. It’s the same with “tariff” and “tax”. Whether or not they are synonymous depends on context.
That’s actually a huge problem I’ve had with a right winger.
Even though he was relatively reasonable, we got stuck because we could not agree on what fascism means.
I was good to use a dictionary or better yet Wikipedia. He said it can only mean what Mussolini meant when he came up with the term.
What was annoying is that all I wanted to do was say, group X does Y things, Y things are fascism and fascism is bad.
It’s just mental gymnastics because it doesn’t matter what we call it, group X is still doing bad things, but instead we got stuck on details.
Imo this is pretty much all right wing’s only play, dismantle the tools of logic so the conversation doesn’t even happen in the first place.
Mussolini also said that fascism was whatever it needed to be in the nation it was in, for future reference. There is only the pragmatic consolidation of power.
It does not even matter if is the state consolidating power, or the church, or corporations, only that the process is aimed at merging their powers in the end.
It’s anti-intellectualism.
You don’t need to understand any of it, you can just ask people who spend their lives researching this stuff.