Apologies for being unclear. No, I didn’t disagree with anything you said – I simply used your observation, about all the facts presented tending to support one conclusion, as a springboard to segue into my Wesson oil point… that is, that a truly intelluctually honest presenter would happily admit, and present, evidence against himself, because the search here ought to be for the truth, more than it ought to be about persuading others of the rightness of your position.
So no - i disagreed with nothing you said; I just used your phrase as a gateway. Sorry 'bout that lack of clarity…
I cannot believe you guys are still debating my * ** example ** * two pages into it! The title of the thread is not “Resolved: Dubya Mangles Language and Is Therefore An Idiot” – sheesh!
Ya know, if we are going to be positively anal, let’s at least be * consistently * anal. And if we’re going to be consistently anal, I did not implicitly state squat, you inferred.
I * explicitly * explained that the word “mangled” does ** not ** refer to * frequency * or * degree of unusualness * , which is what was being claimed. I clearly added the words “on a fairly regular basis” to modify the first part of the sentence. “Mangled” refers, (in a judgmental way, if you would prefer) to what it is he does to the language, not how often or whether other people do as well.
As far as the value judgment, sure. If Bush was my child and he had a speech impediment which caused him to speak as though he had marbles in his mouth, I would not describe it as “mangling” his speech, because I would be seeking ways of saying it that sounded as kind as possible. But it does not follow that “mangles” implies any sort of* specific frequency * of anything, nor does it in any way imply any * degree of abnormality * when compared to anyone else. For instance, he “mangles” the word “nuclear”. As it happens, and as I assume the people in THIS forum are aware, lots and lots of people mangle that particular word virtually all the time. (“nuk-u-lar” vs “nu-cle-ar”) I’d venture a guess that most people do! So yes, there is a value judgment in using the word “mangle”, but it sure isn’t referring to the idea that he screws it up more than anyone else, or more often.
I’ll even argue against the idea that there’s an * automatic * value judgment in the * word itself. * In this instance, no, I’m not gonna deny that there is one, of course. But inherent in the word itself? Not really. I can and have used the word affectionately in reference to ways that I and people I care for have misspoken. It’s a great, descriptive word, don’t you think? Doesn’t it conjure up a picture in your mind?
Well, see, we’re back to opinions now, aren’t we? There is no scientific, objective standard for assessing what constitutes a mangling, and certainly by some people’s standards he speaks well, since he speaks far better than they do themselves. But byy other people’s, he’s mangling the language. In the online dictionary, it says this: “to spoil, injure, or make incoherent especially through ineptitude <a story mangled beyond recognition>”. Is “spoil” a scientifically measurable idea in this context? Is “injure”? Even “make incoherent” might be argued to be a matter of opinion, since we can (usually) puzzle out what he (probably) means when he says things like
But the bald truth is that the statements are, in fact, incoherent! (BTW: all this proves that my use of the word “mangle” was perfectly justified as a fact. Because it is a fact that he makes the English Language incoherent. As well as, in my opinion, spoiling and injuring it).
Yo ho! Look at what you said here…
“Stoid pointed out the existance of the book as though the mere existance of the book proved out something objective about George W. Bush”
Yes, yes that is precisely what I did. And what was it I was proving about him?
Why, this of course:
" the fact that he misspeaks"
The only “beyond” is this: we all misspeak. Everyone. The fact that a book was compiled of Bush’s malapropisms and incoherent statements proves that he does misspeak, and strongly suggests that he does so “on a fairly regular basis”. Your spin is in using the words “on occasion”
-If we take this literally, it is false. The English language has not been ruined or spoiled through ineptitude or ignorance.
-Nobody here seems willing to assert that speaking errors constitute ineptitude or ignorance of Bush’s part. In fact Xeno has agreed with Bordelond on something quite different.
So, it’s not true in this sense.
-If it’s hyperbole, than it’s not literally true either.
-I suppose some kind of weak case could be made if we had a concrete axample of spoilage or ruination of two entire speeches due to a speaking error on the part of Bush.
But I don’t know how an honest person could put that out there and call it a fact, and attempt to convince us it is.
I don’t so much mind the dishonesty as the implied insult to my intelligence.
It’s just clearly a blatant mistake. It is interesting to see what people do when they are confronted with their own errors though.
There’s an interesting thing I did early in this thread (actually twice, but I only got caught once.)
I think Bricker picked it up, and I’m sure at least one other person did, but I guess it must be Greek as far as some people are concerned.
If there is no “scientific or objective standard,” and it varies according to the “standards” of he who interprets it, and it’s “a matter of opinion,” than how is it a fact?
Aren’t facts supposed to be objective?
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 07:57 PM]
Here’s where you implicitly stated that “mangled” was not a loaded word (bolding mine):
“…nothing else is implied” = “not loaded with extra meaning”
" … That’s all it means" = “not loaded with extra meaning”
I never said “mangled” referred to frequency or whether other people slip up as well. Others may have.
However, I simply will not allow that the phrase “mangling the English language” communicates nothing about the “degree of unusualness” of the verbal mistake(s). I cannot accept that “mangling the English language” and “slipping of the tongue” are perfectly equivalent in meaning, for example.
The word “mangling” does carry a value judgement. We are in agreement here.
Again, there is no quibble about “frequency.” However, “degree of abnormality” is clearly implied to me (and most people, IMHO). If I had just given a speech, and an adviser told me I had flubbed up a few times, I wouldn’t mind so much. But if he told me “You mangled the English language,” I’d be a little riled up and take the charge much more seriously.
“Mangled” does not imply any comparison with other speakers. That’s true. But it is a more serious charge than “making a boo-boo” or “slipping up.”
Again, I posit that a “mangling” is more severe than a “malapropism” or “boo-boo”.
Well, heck – that can be said of Bill Clinton, Al Gore, Newt Gingrich, and anyone else we’d care to bring up. So what does saying it about Bush mean? As long as it’s not taken by anyone as a FACT that Bush is “mangling the English language”, I’m satisfied.
I disagree. It is not a fact that those sentences are incoherent. I think that they are coherent.
The first sentence about Midland is perfectly clear and OK by me. The second and third sentences require only the non-verbal pauses, expressions, and gestures to become crystal clear. As they are written, without such cues, they are pretty well understandable.
Taking snippets or malapropism out of the many thousands of ad-lib sentences that a politician utters publicly over the course of a campaign is extremely disingenuous IMHO. Record ANY person’s spoken dialogue in ANY given situation, and you will come up with many sentences that look like garbage written down, but are fine in face-to-face speech.
I have great doubts (with no evidence) that the second and third sentences above were actual speeches. They “sound” like extemp answers to the press or something ad-libbed.
Uh … I conceded that. So what’s the “yo ho” about?
Perhaps I should recast: Stoid pointed out the existance of the book as though the mere existance of the book proved out something objective about George W. Bush’s intelligence and competence.
That Bush misspeaks was never in question. The fact that a book came out about Bush’s malapropisms suggest to me something different – that someone had a serious axe to grind. Also, the book’s existance establishes nothing about the frequency of Bush’s flubs – only that someone cared enough to collect them.
I can live with withdrawing the use of “on occasion”. Reread as: What does the existance of that book truly establish about George W. Bush beyond the fact that he sometimes misspeaks? However, I ask that you concede that using “on a fairly regular basis” is spin, as well. Can we agree on “sometimes”?
So, at this point, we have established as fact that “mangle” in the context of the OP is a mildly disrespectrful jape? Ahhh, good! And after only three pages!
And I get the further benefit of Scylla’s dicta as to the correct nature of polite rhetorical discourse. I was already instructed that to term another’s post as “diarrhea” is entirely proper. Today I learn that the correct terms for someone who agrees with someone you do not is “toady” and/or “dupe”. Wow. I had no idea.
So, when Milo or some such echoes his sentiments it is entirely correct for me to refer to them as “running dogs of the crypto-Fascist Scyllaist Regime”. Cool! And all this time I was thinking you were supposed to be decorous and stuff. Whole new vistas are opened to me!
However, I was a bit troubled by all that stuff about some unnamed person who hides behind other posters, “cowardly”, “dishonest” etc. Gee, I wonder who he means? You know, I kind of think he means Stoid. No, really! But OTOH, it could be me? I mean, I just sort of sat there and watched while Xeno tore him a new one. Hadn’t had that much fun since they shot Ol’ Yeller!
But I think what we need here is a succinct summation of what conclusions have been derived. Takers?
Actually, I don’t think the opposition has even conceded that much.
Actually that was my mistake, as I got things confused. I was wrong to call Xenophon “Toady.” He’s actually “Dupe,” and you’re “Toady.”
Once again you have it all wrong. Milossarian should properly be referred to as “simpering syncophant 1st class.”
and we are not crypto fascists, and I demand that you instantly rescind that remark or we’ll send our Stormtroopers out to get you.
Well, in your official duties as “toady” you have no independant existence or worth of your own, but are merely considered a mindless appendage of the person for whom you are toadying. Since you came over from the temp agency and started toadying for Stoid, you are considered subsumed by her overmind, and hence a part of her. Therefore, when I refer to Stoid, you are included by implication and may rightly take umbrance.
However, you are technically breaking protocol by addressing me directly. As unstated rule 33b clearly omits, you are recquired to fulfill all your toadying against me through the proxy of my simpering syncophant 1st class.
Please don’t let it happen again.
I’m glad we’re having fun, but do you actually wish to debate now?
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 08:00 PM]
Sure! But I kinda think this one was has pretty much been beaten to death. You know, you never quite got around to apologizing for that “diarrhea” remark. I remain calmly confident that this is an oversight, you being a classy guy and all. Now would be a good time, don’t you think? Or don’t you?
Okay, I can see how you’d feel that way. Where the problem lies, I think is in what each of us is saying as regards that “extra meaning”. I concede (and in fact, never denied) that there is an implicit value judgment. It would be bizarre of me to deny it, since everyone knows how I feel about him. However, I was being (in my explanation of what I meant, not in the original post…it’s so much FUN being anal!) very specific in what I was referring to: the assertion that it meant he is more so than others, more frequently. That was not what I used the word to mean. The judgment implied by the choice of the word “mangled” rather than other words was more like a sneer in his general direction.
I don’t think so either. Which is why I chose one over the other. But it still doesn’t indicate “degree of unusualness”, which is a comparative idea. (Something must be usual for something else to be UNusual)
Excellent! We have reached perfect agreement in this regard!
Again, I agree. But it’s not automatically a value judgment. Imagine that a friend of mine, someone whose rhetorical skills I respect and towards whom I feel affection, has an unusual moment and trips all over his tongue. I may say: “You are totally mangling the language, man!” and I mean no value judgement at all. I mean only to say that he has in fact, totally mangled the language. Period.
In other words, I contend that context makes a difference. The word “mangle” is like many words, in that it can be completely neutral or a thoroughly snide. Depends. From me re: Bush? Yeah, I’d go with snide. It still doesn’t affect the accuracy of the word choice.
Sorry. Looks like a fact to me. I mangle the language, too (on rare occasion) Don’t you? Whether he does it with great frequency in comparison to other people or other politicians, and whether it indicates anything meaningful about his intelligence or abilities is up for debate.
I disagree with you completely. I studied those sentences very closely before I used them. They stumped me. I don’t think it’s because they’re too deep and complex.
Maybe. Wanna debate it? (which would have been my point at the very beginning. The * debate * part of my example was: “does it mean anything?”)
Actually, again, and how many times do we need to do this…no I didn’t! I pointed out the book as though the book had something to say about whether he does in fact “misspeak” a lot. Then I openly and specifically offered what the debate would be: does it mean he’s an idiot or not?
Sheesh!
Do we have to? Okay, fine.
Now back to the actual ** thread topic ** : is opinion acceptable in debate or not?
I’ll risk making a mistake and be perfectly honest with you.
The post which I called “verbal diarhea” was one that attacked on the basis that was wholly without substance, i.e . a load of crap. It was humorous and sarcastic sure, but still crap. All you did was go off on a generalized rant about the evils of Republicans.
Likewise, it is similar to your previous post, which while fun is simply sarcastic play with nothing of debatable material or substance to be discussed seriously.
I think the classification of such as “verbal diarrhea” is both an apt and fitting description, and stand by it.
In considering your call for an apology, I have taken the following into consideration (and I’ll be ruthlessly honest):
My belief that the description was apt and fitting.
The very post that I described as Diarrhea was one where you were making an attack (and the “dish it out but can’t take it” maxim comes to mind.
It seems kinda petulant and childish to be carrying this kind of angst around from thread to thread.
If I recall correctly from that previous debate, I attacked only your posts and arguments, and never you personally, yet you saw fit to call me a “silly ass.” Yet you never apologized to me, so when we measure things like this, how worthy is your call for an apology? (Please note: that an apology is neither asked for nor required. I thought nothing of it and it’s only of note as to how it affects the merits of your request for an apology.)
I’ve already made one grand gesture in this thread to make a point about admitting errors, but my example seems to have been lost among several (but notably not all) of my debating opponents. Consider both the magnitude of the blunder and it’s apt timing and what that might suggest. In light of that failure will another gesture be meaningful or will it be similarly lost?
On the other hand:
This seems to mean an awful lot to you.
When possible it’s best to leave ego out of debates and try to be a nice guy.
So, when I consider all these factors and weigh them as best I can, I can come to no other possible conclusion than to apologize for hurting your feelings as that was not my intention.
As we were in the heat of debate I assumed my remark would be taken as an attack against the substance of your arguments, yet obviously it was taken personally by yourself. For those reasons I’m sorry I said it, and apologize.
I hope it detracts not at all from my apology when I suggest that maybe you took that a little more personally than you should.
Nevertheless to avoid hurting your sensitivities in the future, I will take a solemn vow upon a sacred effigy (I was thinking Ronald Reagan, that way I could later say I forgot) to tone it down a notch in my dealings with you and be extra special careful not to hurt your feelings.
Is that enough? Would you like to debate now or do we need to do some more of this Jerry Springer touchy-feely stuff?
Sorry to reply to something from pages ago, but I am interested to continue this thread of the discussion.
Before turning to Scylla’s latest inquiries, I would just like to step back for a moment and add something which I find to be crucial to the argument regarding the classification of rhetoric. Rhetoric happens to be one of my special areas of study. Ironically, I am procrastinating writing an essay on rhetoric in 12th century poetry as we speak. I’ve written about five pages and I just can’t seem to eke any more out tonight.
Aristotle’s work on rhetoric was manifestly not the most important text in the history of western rhetoric. It was essentially forgotten in the western world for a thousand years. The Latin texts on rhetoric were considerably more influential. Though they in many ways revised, adapted, and incorporated Aristotle’s method and conclusions, they are quite different.
From Cicero’s De inventione, Lib. 1.2:
This translation is also mine, as I have never even seen an English version of this text. Only goodballs like myself work on this material.
Although the De inventione is a rather unsophisticated work of Cicero’s youth, its influence on the study and practice of rhetoric in the west is immeasurable. It influenced the course of liberal education from the classical world to the 19th century, and perhaps beyond.
Yes, I do. The Latin, scientia, is a faithful representation of episteme. They concern themselves with specific areas of human knowledge in which exact truths are teased out of nature.
This is indeed true. The classical Greek thinkers did not make great strides in either area. The Hellenistic ones, however, did. Kimstu, if you are out there, illumine us.
No, I don’t.
I do believe that you communicated the fact that you believe that rhetoric is a body of knowledge that can be systematized and and explored methodically without error or misunderstanding.
MR
(edited to fix vB code)
[Edited by Arnold Winkelried on 11-06-2001 at 08:02 PM]
That’s it? That’s what this was all about? You managed to provoke three pages of hissy-fit debate over something like “opinion is acceptable in debate”?
[toady] Natasha, the awesome power of a True Incarnation of the Goddess never ceases to confound me! For Heavens sake, don’t post anything controversial, it could lead to nuclear war!
[/toady]
Of interest to me would be how to interpret Aristotle’s rhetoric for use in GD.
You’ll note that lots of political debate here consists of grandstanding and trickery, with the intent not to find truth but merely to win.
What Aristotle never suggests very well is how a Socrates arguing in the dialectic form for example would handle a political speaker, or how one who is debating, seeking truth as if before a judge or in a peer review situation should handle the political style of mob appeal for victory.
Should one take the high ground and stay in the dialectic or legal forms, or is one forced into the political form?
What in the * world * is your problem? What exactly is it you are upset with me about? Cuz I don’t get it at all.