Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Yakk · 03-03-2004, 12:28 PM

filtherton, read my statements.

When I say "you are like a homocidal maniac", interprit this to mean "you are human, like a homocidal maniac".

I could have said "you are human", that would be clearer. The words "homocidal maniac" are utterly useless to the meaning I ascribe to the sentance.

Using "you are like a homicidal maniac" to mean "you are human" is ridiculous.

When you said "Philosophy is generally useless", as far as I can tell, you are saying "Philosophy, like everything else, is mosty junk".

If it is not your fault that people misinterprited "Philosophy is generally useless", then it is not my fault that you misinterprited "Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth."

"Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth."

Or, in other words:
"Your arguement could have been made by someone with impolite motivations -- I know nothing of your motivations."

Easy to misunderstand? You bet.

"In general, philosophy is useless" is also easy to misunderstand.

Another one:
"Look, if I where to post in the Politics forum that "in general, americans did not vote for Bush in 2000", I would be called out of making an idiotic overgeneralization."

If I made that statement in the politics forum, I would be told my statement was dumb. That is what my sentance said. When did I say your statement was idiotic? It was easy to read as an attack, I agree.

And, looking back, I think I have been trying to make this point since near the start.

Your original statement is ambiguous in meaning.

It is also worded in such a way that it is easy to interprit it as a general attack on philosophy.

This is a problem with the wording of the statement, not the problem of those that interprit it.

03-03-2004, 12:28 PM	#33 (permalink)
Yakk Wehret Den Anfängen! Location: Ontario, Canada	filtherton, read my statements. When I say "you are like a homocidal maniac", interprit this to mean "you are human, like a homocidal maniac". I could have said "you are human", that would be clearer. The words "homocidal maniac" are utterly useless to the meaning I ascribe to the sentance. Using "you are like a homicidal maniac" to mean "you are human" is ridiculous. When you said "Philosophy is generally useless", as far as I can tell, you are saying "Philosophy, like everything else, is mosty junk". If it is not your fault that people misinterprited "Philosophy is generally useless", then it is not my fault that you misinterprited "Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth." "Your debating bludgeon looked like the act of someone who cared more about winning a debate than truth." Or, in other words: "Your arguement could have been made by someone with impolite motivations -- I know nothing of your motivations." Easy to misunderstand? You bet. "In general, philosophy is useless" is also easy to misunderstand. Another one: "Look, if I where to post in the Politics forum that "in general, americans did not vote for Bush in 2000", I would be called out of making an idiotic overgeneralization." If I made that statement in the politics forum, I would be told my statement was dumb. That is what my sentance said. When did I say your statement was idiotic? It was easy to read as an attack, I agree. And, looking back, I think I have been trying to make this point since near the start. Your original statement is ambiguous in meaning. It is also worded in such a way that it is easy to interprit it as a general attack on philosophy. This is a problem with the wording of the statement, not the problem of those that interprit it. __________________ Last edited by JHVH : 10-29-4004 BC at 09:00 PM. Reason: Time for a rest.