The problem is, insofar as I can tell from his posts (and what else do we have to go by?) that TheRyan appears to sincerely believe that he is making some cogent point by enforcing a totally strict usage of vocabulary when he raises that sort of point – and gets offended when people say that they meant something covered by the normal connotation of a phrase. “Woman” technically includes a newborn female baby, but it would be the rare person indeed who uses the term to describe that child. However, TheRyan would, on my understanding, object to a thread suggesting that men are entitled to marry any woman they want, not on the basis that the women do not have reciprocal choice, but that “any woman they want” must include a newborn baby girl to be strictly accurate in parsing the terminology.
The problem is not that he insists on precise usage of terms, which is something we all have done at one time or another, but that he is (to me at least) incoherent in defining the point he seeks to make in doing so.
For example, he claims that the situation in the thread Esprix references in the OP is not discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, but I find it totally impossible to follow his train of thought to see what the heck it is that he does mean.
In short, I need to defend TheRyan from a charge of hijack-trolling, but to indict him on a charge of incoherence in stating his arguments. We can all figure out (more or less) what he objects to, but (so far as I can tell) nobody can figure out what point he is making in rebuttal to it.
It frightens me that I think I know what he’s trying to say. Don’t ask me how, but I can sometimes understand every word of a Stevie Nicks song, too.
Somehow from the old thread in which he was toasted for equating homosexuality and pedeophilia when it involved a man and a boy, the only relevant point he remembers is “behavior is not the same as orientation.” Therefore, merely one man going out with another consenting man does not necessarily mean that the men involved are gay. It follows, using the Ryan logic, that the discrimination is not based on homophobia, but just the aversion to the behavior of two men going to the prom together.
Even if you understand that, and that’s as clear as I can make it, it is still an absurd statement. Although I guess it is possible that two straight boys could want to go to the prom together as a statment of solidarity with their gay friends, or to just try to be shocking.
Or two straight boys could go together because neither could get a date, for that matter.
Poly, you know I love you, and I hate to argue with you, but in one of the recent threads TheRyan has spawned he made mention of the fact that he very seldom follows links to information that might correct one of his misapprehensions because means he’ll be “wrong” and he can’t stand that.
Although this isn’t trolling, it is somewhat assholish on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance.
And of course, TR will be in to say I’ve “misinterpreted” his position on that, too, I’m sure… :rolleyes:
Whatever you might think about the Hill case, this is a ridiculous Pit thread. Are we starting a Pit thread now about every person we disagree with in Great Debates? Does everyone who gets something wrong in GD deserve a profane admonition?
RickJay, this pit thread is about The Ryans habitual nit-picking of grammer rather than any one particular instance. I think.
I know it is extremely annoying no matter what position he takes in an argument- it’s almost more annoying when I happen to agree with him. It is a very annoying tactic, and is the only thing I’ve ever seen him do on these boards.
The problem, grendel, is, How can you tell? I can see the points he tries to make – but I don’t understand why he’s making them, where he’s trying to go with the nitpicks. That’s what annoys me about his posting.
If you care to tell me that something’s wrong because The Bible as the infallible Word of God says it is, or because a majority of the Supreme Court have so ruled, or because acting on an ontological interpretation of Kant’s unconditional imperative would lead you genitively as opposed to ablatively to that conclusion – I’ll follow you (or try to; sometimes the abstractions get a mite thick on the ground in such threads! ;)) – but if you care to argue that semantically a generally-held-as-valid presumption is not borne out by the terms used in defining it – and then fail to make clear what point your argument is in support of – all you’ve done is to piss people off and kill an interesting thread, with no results. If you do this repeatedly without answering inquiries as to what exactly you’re trying to prove by your nitpick, you’re well advanced towards my definition of jerkdom.
Polycarp: I think you are looking for a motivation that simply doesn’t exist. Picking nits is the sole point.
It’s rather like if we were playing eightball, but rather than attempting to sink my striped balls, I kept tapping the cueball into position behind the eight. You could critique my inability to sink my assigned balls all you like, but my objective would more likely be to annoy you while technically staying within the confines of the game.
I’d certainly categorize it as being a jerk. I can’t say for certain the Ryan would do the same, but I have a sneaking suspicion that he knows his semantic gymnastics sidetrack, as opposed to contribute to, a discussion.
Here’s something constructive for him to try: recognize the spirit of the concept being communicated rather than seeing a collection of individual words and phrases to be parsed.
Guy tries to take same sex date to the prom. Church doesn’t let him. The conclusion that the Church doesn’t like pople taking same sex dates to the prom is not something any reasonable person would agree with? I’m supposed to believe if this had been a straight guy taking another guy to the problem, the Church would have had no problem with that? And if I don’t, that “bothers” you?
So you’re expressing disaproval of me because of what you think I would do? I guess at least that’s better than Esprix and SisterCoyote who seem to think that making up positions and then claiming that I hold them is a good way to criticize someone.
I have already stated what my reasoning for that is. You could ask for a clarification of that. Or… you could post in a Pit Thread complaining about how you can’t understand what I’m saying. Your choice.
SisterCoyote
Well, yes. Because you have. I never said what you said I said, and I don’t appreciate you and Exprix making up lies about me.
Polycarp
Are you implying that I am doing so? What inquiries have you made?
Waverly
“I’m not going to listen to this guy because I’m sure that he’s just here to annoy people. Gee, I wish he would actually listen to the spirit of what people are trying to say, instead of just dismissing them”.
Oh, and an example of what Waverly considers a “semantic game”. He said that he found my argument absurd, and therefore an argument ad absurdem. I said that he used the term incorrectly.
Yes, that’s right. Insisting that terms be used correctly is “masturbatory word play” (his words).
If you people think that you can just massacre the English language (or in this case, the Latin language), and then shrug of any criticism as “semantics”, then I really don’t see why I should care one whit about your opinion.
Here is the exact text of what you claimed was reasonable:
Once again, I don’t think many people would agree that it’s a reasonable presumption that the Catholic Church is cool with his sexuality, but insists that he take a girl to the prom if he chooses to go. I am not aware of any church not allowing two men or two women to attend mass. Would this be a homosexual act? As we stated before, no one is expecting him to give his date head on the dance floor, and I like to believe that the school board is unaware of Marc’s sex life outside of the school, so the church’s stance on homosexual acts versus homosexual orientation should not even be an issue here.
For the record, I went to four proms when I was younger. All four had plenty of folks who went with someone of the same sex. I’m not aware that any of them were homosexual, they just didn’t have a date and didn’t want to attend by themselves. This is what you call homosexual behavior?
Ryan: You never do let go. Not unlike a vicious litle pit bull with a stunted intellect. Argumentum ad absurdum is “extrapolating a trend to a ridiculous end.” Find a definition here: link. Do you really think playing word-twister with us does not occasionally end up stretching legitimate arguments into absurd positions? In the example you allude to, this is what you did by swapping contexts and implying what was acceptable in one context should be acceptable in another. Bugger off. I find it particularly insulting that I set aside my dislike for you to offer something constructive, and it is precisely that comment that you choose to dissect.
Oh, that’s choice. Five hundred people complain that they can’t understand you and you’re being a jerk, but they’re the ones with the problem. :rolleyes: Did you ever think they might be right? No, of course not - you’ve already said that being wrong isn’t an option for you.
The way you phrased that, it makes it sound like I actually equated homosexuality and pedephilia.
Well, I think that most would. Apparently having people disagree with you “bothers” you.
Waverly
What are you talking about? You come here, complain about me nitpicking, and when I defend myself, you say that I “can’t let it go”. You’re the one who came here to attack. How am I the pit bull?
Your position was that it wasn’t acceptable in any context. I showed that it is acceptable in at least one context. Instead of admitting that you were wrong, you accused me of “semantics”
You’ve had nothing but scorn for me in this thread. “Constructive”? How is insulting someone “constructive”?
Esprix
Five hundred? And yes, I do think that you’re the one with a problem. You’re the one that is lying. When a bunch of people go around making up think to accuse me of (“you equate homoseuxality to pedephilia” “you think that taking a same-sex date to the prom has nothing at all to do with homosexuality” “you don’t like following people’s links because it might prove you wrong”), I think it’s only natural to conclude that they have a problem. What, just because I am surrounded by insane people, I’m supposed to conclude that I’m insane?
My children, have you learned nothing? There is no light at the end of this tunnel, no soft bed at the end of this wearying road. Behold the post above, and accept the futility of your quest, the certainty of the doom of your tempers, nay, your very reason. Turn away from the darkness! Do not fall into the Pit of Excessive Literalism, or get lost in the Bog of Incomprehensability! Go back! Go back to the sun of reasoned discourse, to the joy of interaction with Others who posess a functioning sense of humor! This will suck the life right out of you. Run, you fools! Just run, and don’t look back!!