You can shove that beer up your ass. :wally
Then what would you say the meaning of “I’m getting a very bad vibe from this talk about “Jewish girls”. As if every Jew who is also a girl has something in common on a fundemental level or an aesthetic level” is? SPOOFE certainly took it that way, as the poor guy felt the need to apologize when he hadn’t really said anything offensive.
Jesus, even when we’re on the same side, you’re a cock.
I understand this perfectly, Zoe. But if I say, “Americans generally live in the US”, certainly you’re not left scratching your head, wondering if I’ve forgotten the other five percent who live abroad. Maybe if you didn’t know me, you’d think this. But knowing me, do you think I actually believe Americans only live in the US?
I do not agree that generalizations have to be wrong just because groups are composed of different individuals. We generalize all the time without batting an eye. If the all-generalizations-are-wrong rule is true, then that means we can’t conclude anything from our personal experiences–including experiments we’ve conducted under the rigors of the scientific method. I cannot say something as basic as “Plants are attracted to light” because I’m “forgetting” that the growth of some plants, during certain parts of their life cycles, is impeded by light. But by attaching a long-ass disclaimer to every statement, I obscure the point–yet another generalization–I feel is important: light is important to plants. Humans shouldn’t have to operate like this. The beauty is that they do not, not even in the sciences where precision and accuracy are respected.
It’s FinnAgain’s obsession with the picayune and his totally unrealistic desire to rid the language of group identifiers that’s at the heart of my bewilderment.
He says there are no such thing as “real” human groups. Fine. But we can carry his argument to another level. Nothing is real. The couch we’re sitting on is not real…it’s just a construction of our mind. So is the color “red” (how do we know our color “red” is the same as anyone else’s?)? There is no such thing as “dog” or “cat”…these are just arbitrary designations for certain four-legged animals with tails. “Animals” is yet another arbitrary, “unreal” group. If we are going to base our language only on what’s real, we will not be left with anything to talk about!
I know that FinnAgain is no longer in this conversation. But I wish someone would help me understand his point-of-view.
Since when is a bad vibe the same as offense? I get a bad vibe off of people in public sometimes. THough I’m vibing in a bad way around them, I am not offended. A bad vibe would indicate that something is troubling the person who is vibing, but that person is not necessarily offended.
I’m sorry you feel that way, but you don’t seem to be able to tell the difference between someone being offended and someone who is rightly or wrongly using their academic knowledge to explain why a certain phrase gave him a “bad vibe”.
Something I noticed about you as well, no matter what the topic, you’re pretty much always a cock, so touche pal.
Sam
I’m sorry, but this statement implies that teachers can be treated as or recognized as a group. This does not meet the standards of precise language and I would urge you to avoid such constructions in the future, lest you create a false impression regarding the individuals who may pursue a career in teaching. Such language might create a danger that we would impose our own prejudices on any individual who happened to become a teacher, making it easier to marginalize or persecute large numbers (not groups) of persons.
I have never taken a cognitive science or linguistics course, and my only exposure to philosophy was in a course I took back in high school. Perhaps this is why I just cannot relate to that first sentence at all.
According to that bold statement, I cannot say that “All living things on Earth possess a metabolism.” I cannot say, “All eukaryotes use oxygen or an organic substrate as an electron acceptor”. Nor can I say, “All plants photosynthesize and utilize cellular respiration.” According to FinnAgain, I shouldn’t even be talking about “all living things”, “eukaryotes”, and “plants”, since they are groups of disparate individuals and thus not real.
All of these statements relate to the fundamental nature of a specific group (whether they are “real” or not) and all of them are quite easy to make. As far as I know, none of them have exceptions. What would a linguist deem incorrect about the statements I’ve just made? And most importantly, why should it matter to me, a biologist who wants to and has to study “all living things”, “eukaryotes”, and “plants” as if they are real entities with fundamental natures?
I think you’re being incredibly picayune in your distinction. Spoofe said “Jewish girls are hot”, and FinnAgain complained about it. I’m not interested in playing little semantic games about it. Call it whatever you like. If the word “offense” doesn’t work for you, use another word. I don’t really give a fuck. The POINT was that I was distinguishing between the language argument, and the “Jews are not a race” argument. Wait- why the fuck am I even arguing with you? You’ve already proven to me in previous threads that you’re a complete idiot. Goodbye.
You’re getting all tied up in your semantics when it’s real simple-he wasn’t offended. He wasn’t offended by the statement, only alarmed by what he sees as a trend. Get over yourself, you’re not nearly as smart as you think.
Likewise, you ignorant cock. Adios.
monstro, at least we know we’re not going to call each other names! 
Now you are getting over there into your terminology. Help!
How can I debate statements that I don’t understand? I do know that all living things on earth do not fit into one group. I suspect that all eukaryotes differ from all other eukaryotes in some way, etc. I don’t think that FinnAgain said that individuals are not real, but if he did, I disagree with him. Generally, science tries to use only the most generally useful systems of classification and even those get overturned from time to time.
tomndebb, notice that I didn’t say that teachers are misinformed. That which we classify as teachers through social constructs, can be misinformed. Teacher1 does not equal teacher2 who does not equal teacher3. And teacher, as a classification, may change anyway.
I’m pretty sure Tom’s in on the joke.
But I think we can all agree that eukaryotes are much hotter looking than prokaryotes. Although there are undoubtedly individual exceptions.
That is SO funny, coming from the guy who said,
Yes, I’m the one who thinks he’s smart. :rolleyes:
Wow, that was really clever how you made it look like my user name is “Dipshit”. Can you teach me that? You must have stayed up all night thinking of that one.
Oh, yeah - I forgot I’m not talking to you. :wally
Need I point out, oh master of the last word, that there is a difference between one who knows a little bit about the subject and one whom the entire subject goes over his head? There’s me on one end of the spectrum, at least grasping what FInn is trying to say, and then there’s you, who is constantly flailing about, trying to get his point across without haveing the foggiest notion of the subject and incessantly misinterpreting FInn’s words even though others have tried to break it down for you to the smallest pieces of information so you don’t get overwhelmed. That failed, too.
Sam
Just wanted to say, for the record, that I went out of my way, in, what, the first dozen or so of my posts in this thread, to be polite and point out that I wasn’t upset and had taken, and intended no, offense .
Moreoever, I maintained my cool even (for a while at least) when people started caling me haughty. But I’m no tomndebb, I can only keep my cool for so long. And of course, with more people joining in and needling me, it’s quite hard for me to stay icy. My blood runs hot when I’m passionate.
Now I will not throw the first punch in most circumstances, but generally I’ll throw the second.
So please, if I’ve got three or four people ganging up on me and/or personally insulting me, don’t hold me solely responsible. It’s unreasonable to ask me to attempt to fight ignorance while people are being downright hostile towards me. I think it’s also unreasonable to personally insult me, and then claim you’ve been somehow wronged when I respond in kind. As if you’re allowed to say whatever you want about me, but if I respond by saying “asshole”, I lose.
Now, Monstro, you asked a question of me after I’d left the debate. If you’ll check your email you should find my response. I’m more than willing to discuss these issues, but not in this thread.
Okay, now I’m leaving for good. Just wanted this post on the record. Besides, Zoe is arguing my point quite well.
Again, a good weekend to you all.
Namaste.
Speaking of going over heads, my point was that it’s ironic that you would bitch at me for “thinking I’m smart”, while in the same breath telling me how much smarter than me you think you are. Not sure how you missed that…
Now, if you feel you must continue whining and whimpering about me, why don’t you start a new thread and stop wasting other people’s time? Either do that or STFU.
Standard response to blowero who has needlessly hijacked yet another thread with his last word replies: :rolleyes:
I suppose that’s my point, Zoe. No linguist will ever be able to convince me that those statements are incorrect, especially if they don’t know what “groups” I’m talking about. Unless that linguist is also a trained biologist and has solid evidence that “Living things on Earth do not necessarily possess a metabolism” and “Some plants do not photosynthesize” are true statements, my ears will really not accept what they have to say. It is my own professional bias, I admit.
I don’t believe that humans know everything or that we have an absolute understanding for those things we do know. And I admit that many of the groups we’ve defined (like “living things”) are not always clear-cut. But I do think we know some things well enough to make some incontrovertible generalizations. For instance, there will never be a day when I open up Science and find that someone has stumbled across a life form that does not exchange materials with its environment, thereby disproving a generalization like “All living things exchange materials with the environment”. It would be like expecting someone to stumble across a rock that has a beating heart. Is a statement like “No rocks have beating hearts” fallacious too? Is “living things” just as arbitrary a group as “rocks” is?
FinnAgain, I did get your email and I may check out the book you referenced. But I’ve decided I’m not going to debate this topic anymore. It’s a beautiful day and I feel like going to the beach!
Well, although you’ve done an Elvis, and left the building, I shall address your post - just for shits ‘n’ giggles.
I suppose your above quote is just another case of you being terribly imprecise in what you are saying. If you say ‘the creation of reality via language’, this is the language of strong S-W, given that in weak S-W reality is only partially derived via language.
Academic language is typically specialised and simply unnecessary to integrate into everyday life. In this thread, it is only you who does not know what someone means when they say ‘Chinese girls are hot’, and it is only you who has incorrectly translated this phrase into a more accurate [sic] version. It is practically impossible to force a strictly ‘accurate’ mode of speech onto individuals. It will never happen, regardless of your eccentric personal philosophy.
No, not always. Literature (e.g., poetry) does not attempt to be ‘as accurate as possible’, for example. Moreover, for some branches of science, there is utility in being less accurate than one could be - e.g., using Rutherford’s model of the atom versus the current state of the art. Sometimes, use of the former is sufficient and optimal in context, even if it is not the most accurate.
You have provided no facts. You have provided at best a philosophical viewpoint that does not fit with the way science - behavioural science, anyway - works. You seem to miss the point that ‘groups’ and commonalities between groups are basically the foundation of (behavioural) science. I suppose you might argue that all of behavioural science is bunk. Good luck with that. And while your at it, why not piss over phylogeny?
God’s teeth, are you really this stupid? A cite could be, you know, Smith & Wesson (1942; J Spam Studies 16: 65-72). An interested reader can then look up the cite, and I’m sure many dopers have access to an academic library. Or better, a DOI (e.g., Harju, 2002 ). This links to the article in question, or just to the abstract if the journal is restricted access and the reader does not have a submission. Not all journals are restricted access, either.
You continually miss the fact that statements occur in a social context; it is your adherence to some highly-spiced flavour of Sapir-Whorf that leads you to insist a phrase cannot mean anything other than its literal meaning. Language is more than the words. Plenty of articles on this in behavioural science - implicit language and such.
Put it another way, if you actually interpret real conversations according to the arguments you’re making here, you must spend most of your life being confused. (‘But, but you said ‘Chinese girls are hot’ and you don’t fancy that one there. Argh!<head explodes>’). Or maybe just annoying.
Well, if you actually produced a coherent argument, that would be a start.
‘Maleness means nothing’? What a strange world you live in. Out here, in the real world, ‘maleness’ has a pretty clear meaning and utility.
On average women report greater pain to certain stimuli than males. So, if a person is in the ‘group’ of women, then they are more likely to report greater pain than if they are in the group of males. As such, the group has practical utility. These types of groups are simply probabilistic in nature. Now, you are correct that in an acedemic context one would not say ‘women feel greater pain than males’, this would have qualifiers (and cites). However, that these groups exist and have utility is a given.
In fact, much of behavioural science attempts to find ‘groups’, and if you have studied cognitive psych, it is distressing that you cannot see this. Again, a 'group in this case simply means a set of individuals that tend to share certain characteristics. This group can be the set of humans, set of males, can be formed via responses to different stimuli, and so on.
If you mean that a group is not a physical object, like a brick, then I would agree with that. Bloody trivial, mind, but I’d give you that.
Note that, many groups are defined by science which is, as far as we’re concerned, the reality. If I find that asians have, on average, a better ability to taste certain substances then, this group has utility when describing (probabilistically) response to tastes.
Irrelevant. That people do this does not alter that groups exist in which the members share common characteristics, or are relatively likely to share common characteristics. Groupthink and the like does not say that groups do not exist, not that they lack utility - it does say that people can attribute characteristcs to a group that the science does not support.
Well, there can exist universal characteristics, but that’s not necessary to practically define groups.
It’s far more complex than that. (Hey, guess what - social context is also important, just like language!)
Nope. The group of women tend to share certain characteristics. Descriptive, not prescriptive.
You are not a scientist. You are an idiot.
So, Boldface, because you do not understand the linguistic foundation from which FinnAgain is speaking, he is an idiot?
If it’s helpful, here are some things I learned from my studies long ago. (I’ve forgotten way too much to be able to argue well.)
-
No word means exactly the same thing twice. (That’s why it’s better to use examples when we can. Definitions are words about words.
-
The word is not the thing.
-
The meaning of the word is in us – not in the word.
What is an Asian anyway? Anyone born in Asia? What if the parents were not of traditional “Asian” descent? That if the person is of traditional “Asian” descent by one parent and not another? What about people born in the Urals? Turkey? The Himalayas?
I was asked to turn in a count of the number of Blacks, whites, and “others” in my classes each year at school. For the early years, students were “considered” either Black or white. If they had one “Black” parent and one white parent, they were listed as “Black.” Why? It is especially strange since the parents themselves appeared to have some white background. Who decides who is “Black”? (And we’ve certainly argued here at the Dope over what an African-American is.)
That is not what the linguist is trying to convince you of.
See, we’ve reached an agreement. Wasn’t that easy. Ha!
They are not in control of your feelings or responses.
BTW, I envy you your grasp of the subject and exposure to current thinking. My mind burned out long ago.
Hey, have you ever wondered why the Holocaust happened? Well, wonder no more. It was imprecise language. And every time you speak imprecisely, you contribute to the next human genocide. I hope you’re satisfied, fuckers. 
This is very important. I know I take a lot of poetic license in everyday speech. I suppose if linguists had their way, this would be a thing of the past.
Hey, I just had a funny thought: What if FinnAgain wrote a poem?
Some roses are red
A subset of violets are blue
When in the presence of certain types of chemical compounds known collectively as “sugars”, the taste receptors of some humans transmit signals to the brain corresponding to a sensory profile we refer to as “sweet”,
And if we can agree that the sensation is pleasurable, we have a common standard by which to measure the favorability and relative pleasantness of you.