Is a Stapler still a "Stapler" if it is incapable of stapling?

[Jymotion]

When I start this discussion, it usually begins with people chuckling at how silly it is, saying their answers under their breath, realizing people disagree with them, and eventually a debate/argument breaks out.  It's a much deeper question than it seems on the surface.

 

What do you think?

[Wesley]

i dont even know, i'm gonna have a discussion with myself and come back.

[cleverpun]

The noun refers to the item regardless of whether it functions or not. A couch is still a couch even if you can't sit on it.

 

Followup question; Is a stapler still a stapler if it doesn't use staples?

 

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/8b70/

[Jymotion]

The noun refers to the item regardless of whether it functions or not. A couch is still a couch even if you can't sit on it.

 

The issue that the question is based off is the fact that the item is named after the verb it is supposed to perform.  A stapler staples.  A couch does not couch.  If I have an item that does not staple, why would I call it a stapler?

 

Your followup question ties into this concept as well.

[Punishment_Fatal]

If it has worked before, then it's that certain item. Now, it needs the adjective of Broken in front of it.

[Jymotion]

If it has worked before, then it's that certain item. Now, it needs the adjective of Broken in front of it.

 

and if it never worked?  If it was defective from the start?

[cleverpun]

A defective stapler or blender (or couch) is still ostensibly recognizable as that item. Mis-manufacturing a gear doesn't prevent it from being blender-like. You could certainly stop referring to it as a "stapler" (presumably the factory would start calling it scrap metal) but calling it a stapler would still be justifiable.

 

Same with movie props--a prop gun doesn't actually shoot anything, but it is still gun-like.

 

Thankfully there's not a lot of moral implications attached to staplers. Now you mention it this is prolly exactly how the Fetus/Baby semantics began...

[ivor]

If a stapler no longer functions, it recieves the prefix 'Broken', therefore making it a 'Broken Stapler', or, for short, 'Stapler'.

[Jymotion]

You touched on a lot of points

 

A defective stapler or blender (or couch) is still ostensibly recognizable as that item. Mis-manufacturing a gear doesn't prevent it from being blender-like. You could certainly stop referring to it as a "stapler" (presumably the factory would start calling it scrap metal) but calling it a stapler would still be justifiable.

 

From the perspective of my argument, though, what is "blender-like"?  It either blends or it doesn't.  It is of course justifiable, as most of us do it.  Just an example for a bigger argument.

 

Same with movie props--a prop gun doesn't actually shoot anything, but it is still gun-like.

 

I won't weigh too much on this point, as guns aren't called "shooters" and "prop" is a noun in itself.  It doesn't fall in line with the argument too much, but I get that it supports the view that names are just names.

 

Thankfully there's not a lot of moral implications attached to staplers. Now you mention it this is prolly exactly how the Fetus/Baby semantics began...

 

No moral implications that I can think of, but it can have major inferences.  Take professions (named after the actions the perform), for example.  Can a writer still call himself a "writer" if he loses functionality of his arms or mind?

 

The deeper discussion usually comes from someone saying: "but it was made with the intention of stapling".  Using that train of thought, you reach the debate of "Is a 'writer' someone who can write, or is it innate?"  Can someone be "born to write/sing/dance", or can they lose that title?

[Jymotion]

If a stapler no longer functions, it recieves the prefix 'Broken', therefore making it a 'Broken Stapler', or, for short, 'Stapler'.

 

I cannot open an automatic garage door.  Am I a broken garage door opener?  What is the difference between a "broken stapler" and a paperweight / hunk of metal?

 

If your response is that I/it was never able to do such a thing, then refer to my response to Punishment_Fatal

[ivor]

I cannot open an automatic garage door.  Am I a broken garage door opener?  What is the difference between a "broken stapler" and a paperweight / hunk of metal?

 

If your response is that I/it was never able to do such a thing, then refer to my response to Punishment_Fatal

 

Well, I'm sure you probably could if you tried enough, but that's another story.  Since your sole purpose in life is not to open automatic garage doors, then it's safe to say that you are not a broken automatic garage door; a stapler, when broken, on the contrary, is considered a broken stapler, because 1) it does not function, and 2) its sole purpose is (was) to staple things.

[Jymotion]

2) its sole purpose is (was) to staple things.

 

and that is where the question gets deeper.  Like I proposed to cleverpun: what happens if a "writer" loses both his hands in an accident and is no longer able to write?  Is he still a writer or is he a broken writer?

[ivor]

and that is where the question gets deeper.  Like I proposed to cleverpun: what happens if a "writer" loses both his hands in an accident and is no longer able to write?  Is he still a writer or is he a broken writer?

 

Well, he wasn't always a writer.  He could have easily chosen a different career path - for the first 25 or so years of his life, he was not a writer.  Additionally, his career doesn't define what he is, whereas a stapler is a stapler.

[Jymotion]

his career doesn't define what he is, whereas a stapler is a stapler.

 

how can you say both of those things are true?  staplers are named after the action they perform, just like writers.

[cleverpun]

Instead of "blender-like" you can use "blender-looking" and my meaning would be the same. It's function is only one aspect of its identity.

 

The same logic doesn't really transfer to sentient things. The writer or dancer self-identifies as that role (and they may have others). The stapler doesn't declare itself a stapler, it has that label put upon it.

[Jymotion]

Instead of "blender-like" you can use "blender-looking" and my meaning would be the same.

 

My argument wasn't based on the "like".

 

Those names/identities were given to the items based on the actions they performed.  Have they reached a point that those names are as meaningless/arbitrary as names like "car" or "dog"?  What causes that transformation?  Time/usage?

 

How can this be explained in the case of the stapler you linked?  It doesn't look like a stapler.

[MC22]

C'mon guys, stop arguing about semantics and just fix the stapler!

[There]

verb it is supposed to perform

 

SUPPOSED TO perform.

 

You said it. So, even if it's broken, it's SUPPOSED to staple, and therefore is a stapler.

[Jymotion]

SUPPOSED TO perform.

 

You said it. So, even if it's broken, it's SUPPOSED to staple, and therefore is a stapler.

 

So it depends on the intention of the creator?  What if the creator intended for it to be broken?  i.e. purposely built the "stapler" without a vital piece.  It still looks like it can staple, but it cannot and was never supposed to, so why would I call it a stapler?

[F CHARLIE]

Instead of "blender-like" you can use "blender-looking" and my meaning would be the same. It's function is only one aspect of its identity.

 

The same logic doesn't really transfer to sentient things. The writer or dancer self-identifies as that role (and they may have others). The stapler doesn't declare itself a stapler, it has that label put upon it.

 

If the stapler was sentient it may self identify.  You don't know if it would or not.  As it is non-sentient, it also can not be imposed upon (or labeled in the way you mean it).

[F CHARLIE]

 

 

Followup question; Is a stapler still a stapler if it doesn't use staples?

 

http://www.thinkgeek.com/product/8b70/

 

 

In this discussion you have forgotten construction stapler.  The staple is more integral to the function of that tool then is the common paper staple to its as shown by the tool you have linked to.

[F CHARLIE]

and that is where the question gets deeper.  Like I proposed to cleverpun: what happens if a "writer" loses both his hands in an accident and is no longer able to write?  Is he still a writer or is he a broken writer?

 

As long as they can not communicate their thought then they are not a writer.

 

If a stapler no longer functions, it recieves the prefix 'Broken', therefore making it a 'Broken Stapler', or, for short, 'Stapler'.

 

Or empty and any other prefix for other tools that are simular.

[BQE]

>Is a stapler still a stapler if it is incapable of stapling?

 

No.  If I cut out, paint, and assemble a series of plastic parts to visually look idential to a stapler, that doesn't make it a stapler. 

 

>Is a stapler still a stapler if it doesn't use staples?

 

Yes.  We're looking into the meaning (not websters definition) of "staple," which is to join two objects together in a certain and specific fashion. 

[Pokey]

No. Are you slow? Yes.

[There]

We're complicating this too much.

 

This is a stapler:

 

This is also a stapler:

 

This is not a stapler:

 

It's still a stapler regardless of whether it functions or not. Let's think about it this way: a couch is a couch as a stapler is a stapler. I don't think that we call a stapler a stapler anymore because it's function is to staple. We call it a stapler because that is the name associated with the object.