Should an inability to quantify an opinion negate it?

[PrinceofWands]

Failure to defend an argument doesn't negate the argument, it negates the arguer. In other words if I tell you I think the sky is green but I can't tell you why, it doesn't necessarily mean it ISN'T green, it just means I have no right to continue in the debate. That's a very important distinction when you start applying it to real situations and actual philosophical arguments.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Descartes

I'm a little worried by the suggestion that any of the words I chose could be used to impress. No offense, but I find such a perception to be fault of the reader, not the author. Words are issue of an author's mind, not the other way around.

If that were the case, it would be impossible for one to behave in a pretentious manner.

See, to me that makes no sense. Have you consciously chosen words so careful so as to remove all feeling and meaning of their use?

Do you suggest that the issue of one's mind has some pretext of social sensibilities? I prefer writing to be as raw as possible, and if someone writes something that I don't understand I take it upon myself to ameliorate the situation by thinking about it, and that includes looking up sometimes esoteric word choices so I can try to fully understand the author's intentions.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: PrinceofWands
Failure to defend an argument doesn't negate the argument, it negates the arguer. In other words if I tell you I think the sky is green but I can't tell you why, it doesn't necessarily mean it ISN'T green, it just means I have no right to continue in the debate. That's a very important distinction when you start applying it to real situations and actual philosophical arguments.

Good point to clarify.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Descartes

Meh... I find yours to be linear and lacking, to be quite honest. It seems purposed to the linguistic sensibilities (and by sensibilities I mean yours) of others as opposed to meaning.

Niles, the primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas, not to confuse or impress others with your choice of words.

If I were the only person who thought this way I'd look at myself. But when the third reply to your post said the exact same thing, I think I have a point.

There's no lack of reading comprehension on my part, I was actually in gifted programs all throughout school and scored in the top 2% nationwide. Until now, I didn't brag about scoring in the 98's on the CATs, a 100 on my HSPT or scoring in the 1500's on the SAT. I guess nowadays it's acceptable to be pretentious and brag about one's self. The difference is that I don't feel the need go around acting that way to strangers. Others in school may try to demand prestige with their act, but make no mistake about it- it's just an act.

I don't think you understand the concept. I'll simplify it and describe it is like this: The first stage of mastering a language is learning how to speak, the second stage is increasing your vocabulary, and the final stage would be to use that vocabulary in an efficient and responsible manner. You're acting like a kid who just learned how to box- the first stage in his development is learning to box, the second stage usually consists of beating up everyone he knows, and the final stage is learning how to wield that skill in a responsible manner.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Descartes


See, to me that makes no sense. Have you consciously chosen words so careful so as to remove all feeling and meaning of their use?

No, when I formulate a sentence I have an idea in mind, and I express it accurately with the proper words. I don't bend the original meaning so I can shoehorn as many ten-letter words in the sentence as possible. Stick to the straight and narrow.

I prefer writing to be as raw as possible, and if someone writes something that I don't understand I take it upon myself to ameliorate the situation by thinking about it, and that includes looking up sometimes esoteric word choices so I can try to fully understand the author's intentions.

I prefer writing to be as clear and concise as possible, and I intentionally avoid all the useless fluff since it does nothing to add actual meaning to the sentence.

In my opinion a good author avoids esoteric word choices. He knows they're esoteric, he knows they're awkward, and he knows he could use a word which would allow the sentence to flow. Some people think esoteric words add character to a sentence, but then again the same people think potholes add character to a road.

 

[Descartes]

Originally posted by: 91TTZ

Originally posted by: Descartes

Meh... I find yours to be linear and lacking, to be quite honest. It seems purposed to the linguistic sensibilities (and by sensibilities I mean yours) of others as opposed to meaning.

Niles, the primary purpose of language is to communicate ideas, not to confuse or impress others with your choice of words.

If I were the only person who thought this way I'd look at myself. But when the third reply to your post said the exact same thing, I think I have a point.

There's no lack of reading comprehension on my part, I was actually in gifted programs all throughout school and scored in the top 2% nationwide. Until now, I didn't brag about scoring in the 98's on the CATs, a perfect 100 on my HSPT or scoring in the 1500's on the SAT. I guess nowadays it's acceptable to be pretentious and brag about one's self. The difference is that I don't feel the need go around acting that way to strangers. Others in school may try to demand prestige with their act, but make no mistake about it- it's just an act.

I don't think you understand the concept. I'll simplify it and describe it is like this: The first stage of mastering a language is learning how to speak, the second stage is increasing your vocabulary, and the final stage would be to use that vocabulary in an efficient and responsible manner. You're acting like a kid who just learned how to box- the first stage in his development is learning to box, the second stage usually consists of beating up everyone he knows, and the final stage is learning how to wield that skill in a responsible manner.

Sounds like you have some serious insecurity issues. First you try and belittle my choice of words, and then you try to build yourself up with references to your "gifted" status. You're obviously juxtaposing your intellect with mine, and for whatever reason you are finding yourself deficient; this is obvious in your attempts to first equalize our intellects and then belittle mine. I just don't get your purpose or point. I couldn't care less how intelligent you are, and my intention is never to make anyone feel less intelligent than myself; rather, if you know me at all you will realize that I often have an almost self-deprecating humor, and many of my responses are congratulatory and optimistic in nature.

Do you read at all? I question how you can feel this way given your obviously gifted status. Most books I read are very difficult, and as such they communicate in a style that would likely offend you and be considered abstruse.

That said, I do request that you send any further diatribes to my PM. So far you've committed the fallacious practice of ad hominem, so I request that you instead consider the ideas. Let's drop it.

I do sincerely apologize for any offense, because that is never my intention.

 

[91TTZ]

Originally posted by: Descartes
You're obviously juxtaposing your intellect with mine, and for whatever reason you are finding yourself deficient; this is obvious in your attempts to first equalize our intellects and then belittle mine. .

You mean like this?:

Originally posted by: DescartesMeh... I find yours to be linear and lacking, to be quite honest.

Originally posted by: DescartesI'm a little worried by the suggestion that any of the words I chose could be used to impress. No offense, but I find such a perception to be fault of the reader, not the author.

I don't think you're a dumb guy, you actually seem quite smart (with a good taste in cars) I was merely pointing out that your writing style seemed awkward, that's all. I'm not saying that you're not smart enough to clear up your writing, obviously if you have that vocabulary you could choose words that make your sentences more concise.

I posted my test scores because from past experience I know the next logical step is to say, "You don't like it because you don't understand it. It's not my fault you're not smart enough." I'm saying that's not the case at all. I'm quite secure with where I stand.

About the books, I don't read novels or fiction. This may seem geekish, but I strictly read news, manuals, and other factual references. I can't read things like music or movie reviews because they annoy me. I question whether those critics are actually trying to review the subject at hand or if they're just trying to market themself and show a creative writing sample to the readers.

But back to the point, I apologize if I offended you. That's not what my intention was.

 

[Gurck]

Originally posted by: brigden
I don't mean to be rude, but do you speak to people in the same manner? I find people like that pretentious and annoying.

Pot, kettle... Lol

But yeah, it's pretty annoying, see it a lot here in fact. Generally when unable to back up an opinion/argument people here turn to name calling & character attacks.

 

[everman]

What you're saying is that most people seem to have a hard time answering the question, "Why do you believe what you believe?"

This spans everything from the realm of intel vs amd to religion. People are a lot like sheep and go along with the crowd for no good reason.