My dude, it is absolutely you who is playing the semantics game by refusing to use or even recognize a word in its common definition which is agreed upon by everyone except you.

But I guess there is no point in continuing this debate, seeing as how we are apparently speaking different languages.

No, you are deliberately conflating two different definitions of the word capitalist to suit your argument. I hate to be the guy citing a dictionary, but since your definition of the term is not one shared by everyone else, let's consult Miriam-Webster:

>Capitalism: noun

>1: a person who has capital especially invested in business

>2: a person who favors capitalism

You are saying that only definition 1 is valid and that definition 2 does not exist (even though it's the one that more relates to discussions of philosophy, and is obviously the meaning I intended in my comment).

You do not get to gatekeep how the word is used or decide which definition is or isn't useful. You also do not get to tell other people what their beliefs are. Sorry.

I'm still getting over some post-COVID brain fog so I'm sure my examples aren't amazing, but you can probably come up with something where two ideologies, or even just principles that you generally agree with are in conflict with each other. And just because you resolve it one way or another doesn't mean you have to commit to or abandon either idea.

Indeed, but why must you commit to one? If I'm on a road trip with 5 kids and ask them where they want to eat and 4 say McDonald's and one says taco bell, the utilitarian argument says go to McDonald's (ignoring for a moment ethical concerns about their business practices and eating meat in general). Most would agree that utilitarianism provides a good framework for ethically deciding this.

But say it's the taco bell kid's birthday and you promised him you'd eat wherever he wants. Suddenly the utilitarian framework falls apart and the deontological argument looks better.

So why commit to one at all? Different situations test the limits of every philosophy. Isn't it better to make each decision on its own merits instead of rigidly adhering to a framework that may or may not work well in that situation? It's great to learn about different schools of philosophy, their strongest arguments and criticisms of it. The mistake is the idea that we have to become adherents of it.

Or as F. Scott Fitzgerald said, "The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function"

You're nitpicking by only focusing on a single definition of the word capitalist, but substitute whatever word you want for "someone who thinks capitalism is a good economic system" (and I realize the way I phrased that sets it up for some pithy zinger but can we please not?)

I wouldn't necessarily argue if you called me that. But that's just one example of competing ideologies. Am I a utilitarian or a deontologist? Both sides have good arguments. Am I an existentialist or a determinist? Again, both sides have good arguments. Obviously I could keep going but I think you get my point. There is nothing that says you have to pick a side, other than adherents of that side :)

>Any exposure to philosophic theories inevitably lead to choosing a side, a team, a theory; then good old confirmation bias kicks in, and then a lifetime of debate with all who disagree lol

This is extremely common, but not necessary. I've read Adam Smith, Fukuyama, Marx, Hayek, Rand, Mao, Lenin, Trotsky, and Zizek and I still haven't decided if I'm a capitalist or a Marxist and probably never will. Every writer I mentioned above gets some things right and others wrong (though not in equal measure).

While it's true that I'm not "disinterested" in or "detached" from the issue of the ideal economic system, I'm not dogmatic about solving a problem. Some problems are best solved through government programs. Other problems are best solved through private competition. The way i see it, once you commit to team communism or team capitalism, you've shut yourself off from half the possible solutions.