For this reason, those in Christian homeschooling circles often and wisely recommend the use of Noah Webster’s 1828 American Dictionary of the English language. Here is that definition of seduction:
1. The act of seducing or of enticing from the path of duty.
For comparison, here’s the same dictionary’s definition for the word gay:
1. Merry; airy; jovial; sportive; frolicksome. It denotes more life and animation than cheerful.
2. Fine; showy; as a gay dress.
3. Inflamed or merry with liquor; intoxicated; a vulgar use of the word in America.
Clearly, this is how everyone uses the word "gay" in 2014. Oh wait, the meaning and the use of the word have changed since 1828. Could it also be the case that other words have changed meanings, connotations and usage? Probably not, since English is a static language, which is why scientists and physicians are so fond of choosing English words when they need words that have static, unchanging definitions…
My bad, I accidentally confused English with Koine Greek and Latin. Turns out English is actually a rather dynamic language which is precisely why people in professions that need static definitions tend to turn to dead languages for their jargon’s neologisms.
More to the point this again speaks to Cane’s newly acquired bad habit of defeating straw men. My point in citing a dictionary definition wasn’t a lengthy discourse on etymology (since the very definition of etymology is studying how words have changed meanings throughout the history of their usage) but rather to point out that most people who discuss seduction on this corner of the web, particularly the Christian Game writers, generally view seduction as an amoral tool/process. This general understanding of amorality is reflected in the definition I cited. Tracing the history of the word is quite irrelevant because this isn’t the past.
Furthermore, if one is going to rebut an argument or assertion, as Cane ineptly tried to do with Vox, one’s rebuttal has to use the terms of the affirmative. (If this sentence makes no sense, it’s probably wise to take some time to study formal logic and formal debating.) Cane clearly did not use the terms of the affirmative because he added words that were not found in the original definition provided by Vox. In the colloquial terminology of formal debate, this is known as building a straw man. Every argument that proceeds from a straw man assertion is invalid because it is irrelevant. Quibbling over words and arguing etymology in rebuttal is likewise irrelevant, from the standpoint of formal logic, because the definitions (i.e. terms) are already provided.
If Cane wishes to rebut the assertion that, “Game–in it’s [sic] broadest sense–is about looking at men who have found success in the world, calling that worldly success good, and then imitating it to the point that these habits of worldly success are internalized and then realized,” he must first find someone who makes that assertion. Thus far I can only think of one person that has made that assertion, and that is Cane himself. Thus, Cane is really only arguing with himself.