The Glade 4.0

I had that exact thought last night.

I see. So, if I were to say, "Your ability to breathe underwater is dependent on an intricate web of SCUBA equipment," you would think I was denying the need for lungs?

Nope, because you're not specifically excluding "lungs" from the singular, identified set that satisfies the dependence. A singular, indefinite set (denoted by the use of "an") includes all factors not explicitly exclude from the set.

_________________

Your ability to breathe underwater is dependent on an intricate web of SCUBA equipment and has nothing whatsoever to do with your lungs.

Would you agree with that statement and if so why or why not?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

I have had it independently verified by other authorities that Khross' knowledge of the English language and its grammatical structure is sound. You all can keep arguing with him if you want to. I'm sure it wouldn't be the first time someone came to him with grievances over his dissatisfaction with their writing.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Ok, so:

"Your ability to breathe underwater is dependent on an intricate web of factors...that have nothing whatsoever to do with your lungs."

You read that as a statement denying the need for lungs rather than a statement propounding the need for "factors" in addition to lungs? And that's the only correct reading of it? The statement can't be read either way; it's just a flat out denial of the need for lungs?

I don't deny his greater knowledge of the English language, Corolinth. In this case, however, I don't believe he genuinely misunderstood the meaning of my post. I think he presented a bad faith reading of my statement in order to be a douche and then retreated into grammatical pedantry when called on it. He didn't read my post and think to himself, "Whu!? RD doesn't believe personal effort is a factor in wealth accumulation at all? That's crazy! But...he did use 'an' as the article in his sentence, so clearly he must be arguing that personal effort is utterly irrelevant to success. What a silly person! I must call him on it." His focus on the grammatical technicalities (assuming he's actually arguing those in good faith) was just a post hoc justification for his initial misread/mischaracterization of my post.

This is a good illustration of why an appeal to authority is problemmatic. Merely being an authority is not a guarantee of correctness, obviously.

True, but you have to work pretty hard to prove it. I haven't seen a lot of working hard.

_________________

I'm mostly just surprised it's taken Khross this long to reach the same conclusion about Arathain's literacy that I came to back in 2005.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Actually, I presented a good faith argument based on my initial reading and your posting history post-Law School. I still contend that you have lost your ability to separate the demagoguery you ingest from the positions you actually hold; that is, you read political, economic, and social news much the same way Paul Krugman does: from sources that confirm your expectations.It's not post hoc at all. If I for a minute thought you meant something else, I'd have pressured you to correct your inaccurate statement (something I've done to you in the past); however, nothing in the original post or subsequent justifications gives me any reason to believe you place any value (insignificant or otherwise) on personal efforts vis-a-vis an individual's ability to accumulate wealth. As the standard liberal position is that wealth accumulation is fundamentally a factor of incongruous opportunity, it's really not any stretch at all to take your statements as an agreement with that argument. In fact, probably the single largest reason I called you on the post and argument was your personal history with regard to your advanced education. Indeed, I felt you should KNOW better because of experience that incongruous opportunity is not the fundamental or primary determinant in outcome.

_________________

Yes, indeed, that statement denies the need for lungs and is a flat out denial of the need for lungs. You're explicitly separating "lungs" from the indefinite, singular of all factors necessary to breathe. You are removing something from a singular undefined set, which of necessity includes all possible values not explicitly excluded.

_________________

Arguing with retards is a lot like drinking alcohol. It's fun in moderation, but it also kills brain cells.

It might also cause liver cancer. More research is still needed on that front.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

Should I add this to the Rugby Grant?

_________________

Yes.

_________________
Buckle your pants or they might fall down.

This thread is so awesome that I need to go take care of something... in my bunk.

_________________

Big surprise - Coro's trolling.

Well RD what you said was not what you meant. It happens. Acknowledge it, try to prevent in the future and move on. Trying to pretend that others should assume that you mean something different from what you wrote is putting the responsibility for clarity on the wrong party.

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Very little of the political, economic, and social news I read is from the demagogic left, and the little that is I balance with a sprinkling of demagogic nonsense from the right. The bias is actually that my sources are overly aligned with the establishment, instinctively skeptical of big changes in any direction, disdainful of sweeping passions, etc. In short, they're temperamentally conservative.


If that's really what you believe, Khross, it just shows how little you understand me and the "standard liberal position". You've substituted a ridiculous caricature for reality.


*shrug* I guess I'll take your word for it. Assuming that's true, it strikes me as a perfect example of technical precision being an impediment rather than an aid to understanding. If I made the same statement to 100 people, I'm quite certain 98 of them would understand my meaning, and the other two would apparently be an English professor and a guy who has a near-religious disdain for scuba gear.

Here's the thing, though - if I actually made that statement about scuba gear, common sense would enable you to realize that I wasn't actually arguing that lungs are irrelevant, but given your substitution of caricature for reality when it comes to liberals, you seem incapable of such common sense when you encounter a liberal argument.

I disagree to an extent, Elm. In legal drafting, for instance, we're taught to do three readings of our documents: a casual reading, a good-faith reading, and a bad-faith reading. The casual reading is just that - a casual read-through to see if the intended meaning is immediately clear. The good-faith reading is performed with an eye toward resolving any ambiguities or grammatical errors (which are inevitable when drafting on a budget and by committee) in the most natural way. The bad-faith reading is performed as though you were opposing counsel trying to find any hook with which to shred the document.

Unless a discussion/debate is being held in a formal adversarial setting, I think resorting to a bad-faith reading is petty and annoying, regardless of whether there's a technical justification for it.

Paul Krugman and Tyler Cowen are part of the demagogic left. Indeed, Krugman is/was a member of Ezra Klein's Journo-list. Indeed, I believe that covers the majority of your regular sources since returning the Glade. Why would I assume you read beyond those sources when your arguments and positions mirror theirs?Actually, I think this is where you're mistaken. I read the New York Times (biased left), DailyKOS (biased hard left), Marginal Revolution (biased left and economically suspect on macro issues), the Huffington Post (used as an aggregation too and biased left in commentary), listen to NPR News and Commentary Shows (all biased left, hence recent defunding), and quite a few other sources. I actually avoid Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, Savage, and Boortz to the best of my ability. I do on occasion listen to Jerry Doyle. I don't think my understanding of the contemporary American liberal is a caricature anymore than Al Franken and similar individuals have made it so. More to the point, since these arguments about environment, inherent advantages, and disproportionate opportunity emerge regarding wealth on a regular basis; enter into the union/labour discussion regularly; inform pedagogical demagoguery; etc., I find it entirely reasonable to challenge that argument when you ostensibly turn to that line of reasoningI am quite capable of common sense when I encounter a liberal argument. I am also quite capable of actually looking at the policies and actions that liberals in the United States take. I think many posters here tend to forget that I believe the only difference between the Republicans and Democrats is the lies they tell to get elected. I've stated numerous times in the past (and several recently) that we live in a one party system. I believe that oligarchy is left of center. But, those statements are not anything new.

_________________

Well you just pretty much showed how your legal education has poisoned your mind.

There isn't a "bad faith" reading when someone reads your sentence as it was constructed to say what it actually said. Nobody here is a mind reader so nobody can interject what you believe you have said to replace what you actually said.

Perhaps that sort of reading is required when dealing with a jury which is designed to be of the easiest to manipulate class while facing someone as eager to manipulate and twist your words as you are theirs but it has no place in reality of text. There is no intonation and no ability for you to catch yourself and explain what you really mean until the words have been processed.

You continue to defend yourself as if your meaning was contained in the sentence you wrote and it was not. It clearly and plainly stated exactly what you did not mean for it to say.

Why can't you just admit to making a mistake that everyone makes?

_________________
"...but there exists also in the human heart a depraved taste for equality, which impels the weak to attempt to lower the powerful to their own level and reduces men to prefer equality in slavery to inequality with freedom." - De Tocqueville

Link?

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

No need for a link: I have clarification: It was not a bunch of people tellign shuyung anything it was all me with a bunch of Wrong.

I gave out the information that I was (erroneously) given regarding how SIP traffic worked and VoIP, assuming the infallibility of the source I gained the information from; and Shuyung proceeded to *** rape me on the subject, call me Shirley and handed me a pretty floral bonnect to wear. And I will own up to the ass-whoopery that occurred and tell you all right now, it prompted me to learn more and expand my knowledge.

I was not just WRONG but **** WRONG, I got owned and schooled and moved past that.

_________________
Darksiege
Traveller, Calé, Whisperer
Lead me not into temptation; for I know a shortcut

Oh, that's not as interesting as I thought.

I tell everyone that the internet is made of 1s and 0s and that the 0s make it through okay cause they are round, but sometimes the 1s get stuck. If the internet isn't working, they probably need to straighten their cables.

_________________
"...the line dividing good and evil cuts through the heart of every human being. And who is willing to destroy a piece of his own heart?" -Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn