This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your quote box just agreed with me.
Post by
Squishalot
If I were the only person in the universe would that change my status as arrogant? No. Does the concept of "arrogant people" even need to enter the picture? No.
I haven't mentioned the existence of other people. All I would need to understand is arrogance in the context of a human being. Arrogance in dogs is somewhat meaningless in this context, much the same way that scoring points in netball is useless in your basketball analysis.
So, for you to use that other person as a standard of judgment concerning my arrogance is relative and in fact biased.
Now you're introducing relativity, where I'm only dealing in absolutes.
You want to say that we can't do that, that we can't know arrogance apart from people. I say we can.
I'm not saying that we can't do that. I'm saying that it's not necessary to know it apart from people, for the sake of my (your?) argument. Otherwise, I would insist on you knowing netball, tennis, baseball,
cricket
, just to understand the principle of scoring and defending.
So, what does all this mean? Judgments can only be made unbiasedly if one is judging from an absolute.
Your conclusion had nothing to do with you tangent about knowing arrogance apart from people. But it is worth knowing that you can explain the concept of a metre, or a yard, even, and you can explain the methodology of how you can identify a stick to be a metre (or a yard) long, give or take a centimetre (or an inch). But you can't explain how you can identify your good your brother is. Again, you can't explain how you've measured your brother's 'goodness', which leads me to doubt that you can.
What is a degree? I'm going to butcher this definition, but you should get the concept. It's 1/360th of a line's angle with itself.
Vanstorm said all I needed to say. But even using your butchered example, see this:
So my arrogance fall at a certain degree. But you can't know that degree without reference to the whole. What is the whole? Arrogance absolutely.
If I know arrogance absolutely (which is an assumption we've made already), then I can know that degree with reference to the whole. And if you're going to quibble about knowing arrogance absolutely (inclusive of apart from humans), then I can argue that your degree of arrogance is greater than 50% of what a person can be, making you an arrogant person.
Edit: Hold up - give me about half an hour, and I'll post up a more detailed explanation of why I think your stick analogy breaks down completely. It has to do with the fact that we only know what a 'metre' or 'yard' is relative to other objects that we've been told is a metre or yard long.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Your conclusion had nothing to do with you tangent about knowing arrogance apart from people. But it is worth knowing that you can explain the concept of a metre, or a yard, even, and you can explain the methodology of how you can identify a stick to be a metre (or a yard) long, give or take a centimetre (or an inch). But you can't explain how you can identify your good your brother is. Again, you can't explain how you've measured your brother's 'goodness', which leads me to doubt that you can.
You keep saying this and I keep answering. You know metre, so I can explain it to you. You already told me you don't know basketball or my brother, so I can't.
It's like proving to you that Jabberwoks have 2 thimperduds, when you don't know what a Jabberwok or a thimperdud is.
If I know arrogance absolutely (which is an assumption we've made already), then I can know that degree with reference to the whole. And if you're going to quibble about knowing arrogance absolutely (inclusive of apart from humans), then I can argue that your degree of arrogance is greater than 50% of what a person can be, making you an arrogant person.
You just agreed with me.
Edit: Hold up - give me about half an hour, and I'll post up a more detailed explanation of why I think your stick analogy breaks down completely. It has to do with the fact that we only know what a 'metre' or 'yard' is relative to other objects that we've been told is a metre or yard long.
We come to universal knowledge through particulars, yes. We see things that are a metre long and then see the objective reality behind them all, one-metre-ness. Just like we see particular applications of basketball and form a universal concept of basketball. Just like we see arrogant people and come to a universal concept of arrogance.
Post by
Squishalot
You keep saying this and I keep answering. You know metre, so I can explain it to you. You already told me you don't know basketball or my brother, so I can't.
I know the rules of basketball, just like I understand what comprises a metre. I don't know the stick you have over there, but I don't need to if you can explain it to me, just like with your brother.
When you say that you know basketball, or when I say that I don't really know basketball, it just means that I've seen a limited number of things that are a metre long. It doesn't hinder my understanding of what a metre is, or what a basketball game is.
Unlike cricket, for example, where you would have little-to-no understanding of the rules and how the game works, I've played basketball in high school (only socially and for internal school sport though), and I've watched enough to understand how the mechanics of the sport works. Which is all you need to understand how long a stick is.
You just agreed with me.
So would you agree that I can make an unbiased statement that you're arrogant? (Not that I actually believe that I can, I'm biased for sure ;p but this is simply a thought exercise to present you with your own argument.)
Just like we see particular applications of basketball and form a universal concept of basketball. Just like we see arrogant people and come to a universal concept of arrogance.
My universal concept of basketball would be different to yours, if all I did was play and watch the Australian basketball circuit. But then, your universal concept is based on a relative (and biased) premise, and is therefore biased.
Post by
313135
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Long story, but I had to make a last minute trip to Georgia. I'm at the airport waiting for my flight back home, and typing on my phone is a bish--so I'm leaving it at that for now.
Post by
Squishalot
No worries, was wondering what happened. Have a safe trip, and hope all will be well with whatever you need to deal with.
Post by
172710
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
The purpose of language, in any form, is to communicate ideas and thoughts. Depending on the medium, the audience, and the purpose of the commnication a number of disctractions may be present that can cause static that is disruptive to efficient communication.
I don't think anyone denies that. SMS txt abbreviations are more than appropriate, provided that they stay in SMS messages. The issue is when people start using abbreviations in inappropriate situations, and don't realise that it's not appropriate.
There is no excuse whatsoever for a banker or lawyer being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to be using "i kno wut u mean, thanking u" when emailing a client. It may be faster, and I may know what you mean, but I'm not going to send you my business, if that's how u rite ur imprtnt docs.
It reflects badly in a professional environment, which is where the younger generation are getting slammed for using their txtspeak.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Wow, I'm tired.
Anyways...
I know the rules of basketball, just like I understand what comprises a metre. I don't know the stick you have over there, but I don't need to if you can explain it to me, just like with your brother.
When you say that you know basketball, or when I say that I don't really know basketball, it just means that I've seen a limited number of things that are a metre long. It doesn't hinder my understanding of what a metre is, or what a basketball game is.
Unlike cricket, for example, where you would have little-to-no understanding of the rules and how the game works, I've played basketball in high school (only socially and for internal school sport though), and I've watched enough to understand how the mechanics of the sport works. Which is all you need to understand how long a stick is.
Well, the question remains: do you know enough about basketball to make a judgment about a player? I do. Secondly, in the case of me telling you about my brother, that is not enough, unless you're willing to take it on faith like you are doing with the stick. Staying with the stick analogy -- when you see a stick, you immediately know it's a a metre. You know the universal, you compare the particular stick to that universal, and you make a judgment concerning it's conformation with the universal. The same thing occurs with a basketball player: I see the particular, I compare it to the universal, and I make a judgment.
So, if you are unable to make the judgment, you are either lacking in knowledge concerning the particular or the universal or you just don't have the ability to abstract (but in that case you wouldn't be able to do it with the stick either).
So would you agree that I can make an unbiased statement that you're arrogant? (Not that I actually believe that I can, I'm biased for sure ;p but this is simply a thought exercise to present you with your own argument.)
If you know me (which you don't), and you know arrogance (I assume you do), then yes you would be in a perfect place to make a judgment concerning my arrogance.
My universal concept of basketball would be different to yours, if all I did was play and watch the Australian basketball circuit. But then, your universal concept is based on a relative (and biased) premise, and is therefore biased.
Are you referring to rules? If so, I already dealt with that -- when I use the term 'basketball' I'm referring to basketball as defined by the current rules of the NBA.
If you're just referring to the fact that you have experienced different particulars than I, there is a simple answer for that too. Particulars do not matter if you know the universal. Where did I get my concept of 30-foot-tall-ness? The pine-trees in my back-yard. Where did you get yours (assuming you have enough experience with feet to have such a concept)? I don't know, but I don't think you have pine trees down there. Does that mean we have different universals? No. By it's very nature, the universal is present in all particulars.
Post by
Squishalot
The same thing occurs with a basketball player: I see the particular, I compare it to the universal, and I make a judgment.
So, if you are unable to make the judgment, you are either lacking in knowledge concerning the particular or the universal or you just don't have the ability to abstract (but in that case you wouldn't be able to do it with the stick either).
My issue isn't about making the judgement - I realise that anyone can make the judgement. My point is that because your universal is biased, your judgement is biased.
If you know me (which you don't), and you know arrogance (I assume you do), then yes you would be in a perfect place to make a judgment concerning my arrogance.
Using your statement before - I see what you are like online (particular), compare it to arrogance generally (universal), and then I make a judgement. But would it be biased?
Are you referring to rules? If so, I already dealt with that -- when I use the term 'basketball' I'm referring to basketball as defined by the current rules of the NBA.
No, as you say, it's different particulars.
Where did I get my concept of 30-foot-tall-ness? The pine-trees in my back-yard. Where did you get yours (assuming you have enough experience with feet to have such a concept)? I don't know, but I don't think you have pine trees down there. Does that mean we have different universals?
Potentially, yes. Given that an inch is not exactly 2.5 centimetres, a foot is not exactly 30 centimetres, and a yard is not exactly 90 centimetres, we probably do have slightly different universals. My instinctive concept of 30-foot-tall-ness is that of 9-metre-tall-ness, which isn't exactly the same, but the universal that is taught to kids in Australia. Ditto with 61mph and 100kmph. (Having said that, I know better now ;p)
Now, if I asked you about where you got your concept of trees - you would say the pine trees in your back yard, and I'd say the gum or eucalyptus trees that grow all over Australia (including my old front yard). If you were to use that to develop a universal for what a tree is and what its potential is (with no other references), we would come to vastly different things.
To my knowledge, pines are very bottom heavy and top thin, right? A eucalyptus is a much more conventional tree-shape, widening as it gets taller and forming that dome sort of shape. They're both trees, but your universal of what a tree is is heavily biased by the particulars of what you experience.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
My issue isn't about making the judgement - I realise that anyone can make the judgement. My point is that because your universal is biased, your judgement is biased.
I don't think you understand what universal is. A universal is that which encompasses all the particulars under it. So the universal of tree must be that which all trees have.
I have never been to Australia, yet if I were to go down there and see one of your trees, I would immediately know it was a tree. Why? Because I know 'treeness,' and from that concept can make judgments about what conforms to it.
Using your statement before - I see what you are like online (particular), compare it to arrogance generally (universal), and then I make a judgement. But would it be biased?
In this case, your knowledge of me is biased. You don't know me, you know an aspect of me. The bias is in the particular, not in the universal.
No, as you say, it's different particulars.
No, I wouldn't call them different particulars. I would call it
analogous
language. Being made or created with another thing in mind does not make the two things the same in species. Of course I'm using 'species' in the logical sense, not the biological sense.
In the basketball example, 'Gabriel's gameplay' is the particular; basketball is the universal.
Potentially, yes. Given that an inch is not exactly 2.5 centimetres, a foot is not exactly 30 centimetres, and a yard is not exactly 90 centimetres, we probably do have slightly different universals. My instinctive concept of 30-foot-tall-ness is that of 9-metre-tall-ness, which isn't exactly the same, but the universal that is taught to kids in Australia. Ditto with 61mph and 100kmph. (Having said that, I know better now ;p)
That means you don't know the universal, and thus are in no position to make a judgment.
As I said, IF you know the particular and the universal, then you can make the judgment.
Now, if I asked you about where you got your concept of trees - you would say the pine trees in your back yard, and I'd say the gum or eucalyptus trees that grow all over Australia (including my old front yard). If you were to use that to develop a universal for what a tree is and what its potential is (with no other references), we would come to vastly different things.
To my knowledge, pines are very bottom heavy and top thin, right? A eucalyptus is a much more conventional tree-shape, widening as it gets taller and forming that dome sort of shape. They're both trees, but your universal of what a tree is is heavily biased by the particulars of what you experience.
You can't extract universals from a single particular. The person who just looks at pines has the concept of pine, not tree.
Post by
Squishalot
I have never been to Australia, yet if I were to go down there and see one of your trees, I would immediately know it was a tree. Why? Because I know 'treeness,' and from that concept can make judgments about what conforms to it.
And I'll recognise an American basketball game too. But what you might see as an 'old' tree (using 'old' as a measurable characteristic in common with all trees, similar to 'good') might not be very old at all, in the context of some of the Australian trees, simply because you've never seen an old-growth forest (don't know if you have or not), and so, don't actually realise what is possible.
In this case, your knowledge of me is biased. You don't know me, you know an aspect of me. The bias is in the particular, not in the universal.
Can you possibly know everything about a person then? Isn't your knowledge of your brother therefore biased? You know lots of aspects about your brother, certainly. But all?
That means you don't know the universal, and thus are in no position to make a judgment.
As I said, IF you know the particular and the universal, then you can make the judgment.
You're assuming that your understanding of the universal is correct (as opposed to biased, then). I'm saying that your concept of the universal is developed from your particulars, and so that development process means that your universal concept will be biased by what you see.
You say that the universal is present in all particulars. This is true, but it's missing something - a
subset of the universal
is present in all particulars. Seeing a limited set of particulars may or may not reveal the whole universal. You've never seen someone shoot baskets from the opposite side of the court, yet that should exist as part of the universal, no?
You can't extract universals from a single particular. The person who just looks at pines has the concept of pine, not tree.
American basketball vs basketball?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
And I'll recognise an American basketball game too. But what you might see as an 'old' tree (using 'old' as a measurable characteristic in common with all trees, similar to 'good') might not be very old at all, in the context of some of the Australian trees, simply because you've never seen an old-growth forest (don't know if you have or not), and so, don't actually realise what is possible.
Is 'old' something intrinsic to treeness? No. It's accidental to it.
Is variety of skill or 'goodness' intrinsic to basketball? Yes. It's not a game of chance, it's a game of skill.
Can you possibly know everything about a person then? Isn't your knowledge of your brother therefore biased? You know lots of aspects about your brother, certainly. But all?
I don't need to know all aspects about my brother, only those that pertain to playing basketball well. And those I do know.
You're assuming that your understanding of the universal is correct (as opposed to biased, then). I'm saying that your concept of the universal is developed from your particulars, and so that development process means that your universal concept will be biased by what you see.
You say that the universal is present in all particulars. This is true, but it's missing something - a
subset of the universal
is present in all particulars. Seeing a limited set of particulars may or may not reveal the whole universal. You've never seen someone shoot baskets from the opposite side of the court, yet that should exist as part of the universal, no?
I don't need to see it. If I have never seen it done (I have, but just assume I haven't), how could I possibly be talking about it to you? Because I have the concepts of shooting and of distance. I put the two together, and voila! I now know what a full-court shot is. Full-court shooting is not an intrinsic part of basketball; shooting is. That adjective helps distinguish certain particulars.
American basketball vs basketball?
You could make a
super
-genera which contains American, Austrailian, Japanese, etc. However, you'd be equivocating when using the term and would have to make sure it is clear the definition before using it.
Post by
Squishalot
Is 'old' something intrinsic to treeness? No. It's accidental to it.
Is variety of skill or 'goodness' intrinsic to basketball? Yes. It's not a game of chance, it's a game of skill.
It's irrelevant whether it's intrinsic to treeness or not (i.e. you can still measure 'tree age' absolutely, just as you can measure 'basketball skill'). It's relevant to our discussion in the sense that you are comparing what a particular to a universal. You could equally apply the question to your brother - is your brother 'old'?
I don't need to know all aspects about my brother, only those that pertain to playing basketball well. And those I do know.
I could argue that I only need to know those aspects about you that pertain to arrogance, which I can see online, just like you can see your brother playing. That doesn't mean that I can identify all of the relevant aspects, and neither can you.
Full-court shooting is not an intrinsic part of basketball; shooting is.
Going back to what you originally said about the definition of good - a median of shots. Full-court shots are part of the sample of possible shots, no? Just looking at undefended shots from each part of the basketball court, can you say that your brother could score in at least 50% of those parts?
You could make a super-genera which contains American, Austrailian, Japanese, etc. However, you'd be equivocating when using the term and would have to make sure it is clear the definition before using it.
My point was that your experience is in American basketball. If looking at pine trees or gum trees in isolation isn't enough to grasp the universal concept of a tree, then why is looking at American basketball enough to grasp the universal concept of basketball? You can watch and play a lot of games, but that would be the equivalent of seeing and growing a lot of pine trees.
Anyway, I'm actually fairly busy today, and you should go get some sleep. We can pick this up another time.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You could equally apply the question to your brother - is your brother 'old'?
Again, it's irrelevant, and you need to define old.
I could argue that I only need to know those aspects about you that pertain to arrogance, which I can see online, just like you can see your brother playing. That doesn't mean that I can identify all of the relevant aspects, and neither can you.
Pertain to and relevant mean the same thing.
Going back to what you originally said about the definition of good - a median of shots.
No. It's not. You making every shot isn't enough if you have no defense. Shooting is a part of being good at basketball, but that does not mean that good at basketball necessarily = good at shooting.
My point was that your experience is in American basketball. If looking at pine trees or gum trees in isolation isn't enough to grasp the universal concept of a tree, then why is looking at American basketball enough to grasp the universal concept of basketball? You can watch and play a lot of games, but that would be the equivalent of seeing and growing a lot of pine trees.
Because I never said he was good at basketball. I said he was good at basketball.
^ If you don't understand what I just did there, then you don't understand the semantics issue.
Post by
toastmaster7727
America is too diverse of a country to represent a single form of communication. Language is part of culture, and culture develops and evolves based on its surroundings. Just because it's different doesn't mean it's wrong. We don't standardize our system enough because we aren't THE SAME as other European countries: small in size, with a predominant ethnicity.
Post by
Squishalot
(last post)
Fussy, picking over words. Deal with the context rather than strawmanning individual sentances.
My point about 'old' is that you would define 'old' in the context of a tree differently to what I would define 'old' as. If trees in America live only to (say) 300 years old, then you might classify 'old' as above the median age (similar to your 'good shooter'), which would then be 150 years (based on your understanding of what the universal is).
But the universal that trees only live to 300 years old is one that is derived from your perspective only - in Australia, we've got trees that are over 500 years old. So a 200 year old tree should be considered 'young' (being below what I understand the median is).
Either way, we can't be sure that we know the universal absolutely, because we can only derive what we think it is from the particulars we observe. The same, I believe (and you seem to disagree with), applies to basketball.
No. It's not. You making every shot isn't enough if you have no defense. Shooting is a part of being good at basketball, but that does not mean that good at basketball necessarily = good at shooting.
Context fail. I was only referring to shooting at that point in time. The reason I only refer to shooting is because it's the only non-relative act in basketball. Every other measure of basketball skill relies on having an opposition, and I've already pointed out that you can't identify an absolute median without being able to identify all possible opponents.
Because I never said he was good at basketball. I said he was good at basketball.
^ If you don't understand what I just did there, then you don't understand the semantics issue.
Aside from the fact that it's a poor argument, you're just shooting down your previous argument that pine trees =/= trees generally.
Post by
Squishalot
America is too diverse of a country to represent a single form of communication. Language is part of culture, and culture develops and evolves based on its surroundings.
You have a single form of currency.
You have a single form of national government, with an associated single form of national laws.
You have a single official language.
To say that it's too diverse is a cop-out. I'm happy to go to a culturally diverse law firm, but I expect there to be a single standard of excellence in their work.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.