[brookst]

Sure, but my point is that for either of those, someone could mount a spirited argument in any of four directions (innovation / invention x yes / no) and it’s all just semantics.

We humans desperately want binary definitions, but things like this are gradients coupled to imperfect terms.

[mannykannot]

So one must choose between seeing every issue as a stark dichotomy, or never doing so?

[brookst]

I am choosing to believe you were smiling and enjoying the humor in that question.

[stronglikedan]

Some people think sustaining debates by splitting hairs indefinitely is productive, some don’t. Debating the point isn’t useful because there’s no objective truth to get to.

[robertlagrant]

You're doing the same thing, but instead of invention/innovation you're saying how productive something is. That is also a sliding scale.

[TeMPOraL]

Yeah, but then some of us might mount a spirited argument along the third dimension - (honest / lying). In my experience, most of the "semantic arguments" you mention happen in context of someone wanting to sell you something (whether a product or a belief) - so while it's never binary, the borders get fuzzier the further you go towards "lying" on that third axis.