Aphorisms and Distinctions

[El Nino]

This topic got kinda gay.

It was born that way. Try to be supportive.

I mean, really, what's so hard to grasp about this concept?

Personally, I understand the part about proper context. I view the use of technical terminology as functional. What I'm having trouble agreeing with are the "improves cognition," "necessary for concretizing [sp?] your understanding of something," and the notion that simplification is "counterproductive."

You can talk about how elements bond, but eventually you'll need to understand the words "valence," "orbital," etc.

If I understand those terms and the concepts they represent, even if I forget the words until the moment when I need to write a paper on it and just refer to a glossary to get the words right, does that mean I understand it less than I would if I could readily attach the word to the concept at any given moment? And isn't it possible that someone could just analyze language to get a vague idea of what something might mean without understanding it fully but be eloquent enough to fake it to a larger audience? I could read literature and understand that AAAAA is the precursor to BBBBB, and I could probably become proficient in the use of AAAAA and BBBBB and use those words in an essay without understanding what either one is.

Edit: There's a condition known as Expressive Language Disorder, in which a person's verbal expression is diminished, but their verbal comprehension is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_language_disorder

Also, people with nominal asphasia have problems recalling words, even though they tend to know what they want to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_anomia

It suggests that a person can understand a concept but be unable to use the proper word. The outward expression of language is functional, a form of communication, but it isn't always a determining factor in a person's ability to conceptualize something.

 

[Vermanubis]

you still haven't told me what part of the apple couldn't be defined using other words. its identity? if i tell you every attribute of an apple, have i not identified it completely?

Saying "apple" indicates an apple in a way nothing else can. I'll avoid everything else and simplify it to a very basic concept of intensionality: is the definition of "apple" the exact same thing as pointing to an apple and saying "apple"? It isn't. As terminology grows in complexity, the more "smaller" terms are needed to distinguish it from other similar concepts and the greater that intensional disparity comes from it and its <attempted> definition. Again, the concept itself can be simplified to a reductio ad absurdum: is <insert extraordinarily tedious definition for apple> the exact same as the word "apple"? It's not. Apple is singular, and ostensively defines one thing. Its supposed definition only implies it, as each word contained within the definition has its own intension/identity that has to be negotiated to arrive at the implied object.

complex terms can provide succinctness, but in theory, simpler terms could do the same.

Example? Define "entropy" for me. If not entropy, at least some other example.

GENERAL meaning? really? that's pretty vague for someone who demands so much precision in his language.

It's not vague in the slightest. The two Mandarin words aforementioned have a general meaning of happy, because that's the word to which the two other words share the most properties. You took the word "general" out of the body of the text and attacked it as vague for some reason.

"gao xing" and "kuai le" do not have the same EXACT meaning.

I know.

if a discrete entity emerges from the entity's relationships, then i can define an tree like so:

Explain to me what you believe this means in your own words. I'm curious to see if you understand what you're saying, because the conditional statement above is a non-sequitur.

"a discrete entity that emerges from the relationships of the following properties: aromatic, green, tall, wooden, carbon-dioxide-eating..." etc.

How do I know you're not talking about an aromatic, green, tall, wooden, carbon-dioxide eating monster? This is a serious question.

does that not accurately identify the entity "tree"? or am i just using those damn semantics too much again?

The latter.

we're both burdened with it. you don't get off scot-free either.

I fulfill my burdens by providing examples and reasoning.

the reason you think that the relationship is not an atomic part of a word is because you've defined it that way. i view relationships as within the scope of a word's set of atomic parts, because they are part of the word's meaning. do you not agree with this? how do you, personally, define an "atomic part"?

I'll take one from a dictionary to preclude contention: 4. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic (of a sentence, formula, etc.) having no internal structure at the appropriate level of analysis. In predicate calculus, Fa is an atomic sentence and Fx an atomic predicate

Taken from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atomic

"Having no internal structure." Relationships are predicated on structure. Your sophistry can be even further accented by the following: All things can hopefully be agreed to be comprised of parts and functions based on the presence of other parts. This being said, your vehement insistence that words were the sums of their atomic parts was absolutely redundant, as you were essentially saying that "words are a sum of everything that makes them words." So you either misspoke yet again, as atomic shouldn't have an "informal" definition, or you changed your position half-way through the debate.

I'll admit that it's a guilty pleasure seeing how much I can make a sophist scramble to rationalize his position.

 

[Vermanubis]

Personally, I understand the part about proper context. I view the use of technical terminology as functional. What I'm having trouble agreeing with are the "improves cognition," "necessary for concretizing [sp?] your understanding of something," and the notion that simplification is "counterproductive."

Simplification is counterproductive because it obfuscates something the same way an unexponentiated polynomial clots an otherwise well-formed quadratic equation--it's unnecessary in that sense when it can be compacted and more direct. As for the cognitive aspect, a rich understanding of words assist a richer understanding of unique properties (via an ability to identity them) and from there, a greater ease of expression and computational power in the brain. It can really be boiled down to thinking of it like a computer program. The more complex something is, the more strenuous is it is on the brain to conceptualize it and understand it.

If I understand those terms and the concepts they represent, even if I forget the words until the moment when I need to write a paper on it and just refer to a glossary to get the words right, does that mean I understand it less than I would if I could readily attach the word to the concept at any given moment? And isn't it possible that someone could just analyze language to get a vague idea of what something might mean without understanding it fully but be eloquent enough to fake it to a larger audience? I could read literature and understand that AAAAA is the precursor to BBBBB, and I could probably become proficient in the use of AAAAA and BBBBB and use those words in an essay without understanding what either one is.

It's not about actually speaking the words; It's about understanding the words and what they signify. Entropy is a good example of a highly technical concept that requires several parts to construct and concepts that need to be recalled by any understanding of a word which efficiently signifies the underlying concepts.

Edit: There's a condition known as Expressive Language Disorder, in which a person's verbal expression is diminished, but their verbal comprehension is not:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expressive_language_disorder

Also, people with nominal asphasia have problems recalling words, even though they tend to know what they want to say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_anomia

It suggests that a person can understand a concept but be unable to use the proper word. The outward expression of language is functional, a form of communication, but it isn't always a determining factor in a person's ability to conceptualize something.

Like I said up above, I'm not talking about a person's verbal articulation of the word, rather, the ability to articulate it through an understanding of it.

 

[john!]

Saying "apple" indicates an apple in a way nothing else can. I'll avoid everything else and simplify it to a very basic concept of intensionality: is the definition of "apple" the exact same thing as pointing to an apple and saying "apple"? It isn't. As terminology grows in complexity, the more "smaller" terms are needed to distinguish it from other similar concepts and the greater that intensional disparity comes from it and its <attempted> definition. Again, the concept itself can be simplified to a reductio ad absurdum: is <insert extraordinarily tedious definition for apple> the exact same as the word "apple"? It's not. Apple is singular, and ostensively defines one thing. Its supposed definition only implies it, as each word contained within the definition has its own intension/identity that has to be negotiated to arrive at the implied object.

take a step back and look at this paragraph. it contains a lot of declarative statements, and little else. you give a glimmer of reasoning near the end, when you make the point that the words used to define an object must in turn be defined themselves. this is true, but the definitions do still exist regardless of what method is used to derive them.

furthermore, using your below definition of "atomic part", there is no infinite regression with definitions because you will eventually arrive at atomic words whose definitions are singular and self-evident.

Example?

the tree example... although you may not consider "tree" a technical term, it's the same general method.

It's not vague in the slightest. The two Mandarin words aforementioned have a general meaning of happy, because that's the word to which the two other words share the most properties. You took the word "general" out of the body of the text and attacked it as vague for some reason.

yeah, but they are still not identical...

I know.

k, then why bring it up?

Explain to me what you believe this means in your own words. I'm curious to see if you understand what you're saying, because the conditional statement above is a non-sequitur.

how is it a non-sequitur?

...and i used your exact words so that you wouldn't try to waste my time by playing semantics (as you're trying to do now). please respond to my reasoning.

How do I know you're not talking about an aromatic, green, tall, wooden, carbon-dioxide eating monster? This is a serious question.

because "monster" is not one of its properties... i said et cetera for a reason.

The latter.

semantics are EVIL

I fulfill my burdens by providing examples and reasoning.

no. frotaz' last post was spot-on.

I'll take one from a dictionary to preclude contention: 4. (Philosophy / Logic) Logic (of a sentence, formula, etc.) having no internal structure at the appropriate level of analysis. In predicate calculus, Fa is an atomic sentence and Fx an atomic predicate

Taken from: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/atomic

"Having no internal structure." Relationships are predicated on structure. Your sophistry can be even further accented by the following: All things can hopefully be agreed to be comprised of parts and functions based on the presence of other parts. This being said, your vehement insistence that words were the sums of their atomic parts was absolutely redundant, as you were essentially saying that "words are a sum of everything that makes them words."

I'll admit that it's a guilty pleasure seeing how much I can make a sophist scramble to rationalize his position.

so, am i wrong, or am i correct and redundant?

 

[Vermanubis]

take a step back and look at this paragraph. it contains a lot of declarative statements, and little else. you give a glimmer of reasoning near the end, when you make the point that the words used to define an object must in turn be defined themselves. this is true, but the definitions do still exist regardless of what method is used to derive them.

And the primary point, ignored.

is the definition of "apple" the exact same thing as pointing to an apple and saying "apple"?

furthermore, using your below definition of "atomic part", there is no infinite regression with definitions because you will eventually arrive at atomic words whose definitions are singular and self-evident.

Who said anything about infinite regression? And yes, those atomic words are called ostensive--things which are literally and figuratively pointed to. In any case, you can't identify a definition with its intended referent as demonstrated by the above unanswered question.

the tree example... although you may not consider "tree" a technical term, it's the same general method.

See below.

yeah, but they are still not identical...

I never said they were. In fact, I said the exact opposite.

k, then why bring it up?

Feelin' saucy.

how is it a non-sequitur?

...and i used your exact words so that you wouldn't try to waste my time by playing semantics (as you're trying to do now). please respond to my reasoning.

You used my words, but I question whether or not you understand my words. And that's not what semantics are. Semantics are when one nitpicks and failing to acknowledge implicature or recognize appropriate context, often deliberately. I'll respond to your reasoning once I understand it.

because "monster" is not one of its properties... i said et cetera for a reason.

As you list off every single one of those properties, the properties will eventually share a cross-section with another concept and render the definition ambiguous, as to justify one surmising it could be a tall, aromatic, green, wooden, cardon-dioxide eating, ad infinitum monster. You made your assertion, now it's time to back it up: demonstrate a tautology regarding the identity of the tree, so that I can indeed know that the definition is not referring to a monster or other bogeyman.

so, am i wrong, or am i correct and redundant?

The former. This is strongly suggested by the fact that in no way was a tautology necessary or even contextually relevant. "Words are the sum of everything that makes them" is what you principally said on the premise that you considered familial values as "atomic."

 

[john!]

And the primary point, ignored.

there's no "point" because you merely stated a series of unfounded beliefs. you need to understand this. i don't care which academics have which beliefs. i don't care about whether i misuse words or not. that has nothing to do with my argument.

You used my words, but I question whether or not you understand my words. And that's not what semantics are. Semantics are when one nitpicks and failing to acknowledge implicature or recognize appropriate context, often deliberately. I'll respond to your reasoning once I understand it.

the irony here is staggering.

at this rate, i will never receive a response.

As you list off every single one of those properties, the properties will eventually share a cross-section with another concept and render the definition ambiguous, as to justify one surmising it could be a tall, aromatic, green, wooden, cardon-dioxide eating, ad infinitum monster. You made your assertion, now it's time to back it up: demonstrate a tautology regarding the identity of the tree, so that I can indeed know that the definition is not referring to a monster or other bogeyman.

a tree is a plant. a monster is not a plant.

The former. This is strongly suggested by the fact that in no way was a tautology necessary or even contextually relevant. "Words are the sum of everything that makes them" is what you principally said on the premise that you considered familial values as "atomic."

...so do you agree with what i principally said? according to you, i originally said that words are a sum of everything that makes them words. agree or disagree?

 

[Vermanubis]

there's no "point" because you merely stated a series of unfounded beliefs. you need to understand this. i don't care which academics have which beliefs. i don't care about whether i misuse words or not. that has nothing to do with my argument.

It so does. Your argument is that words, especially complex ones, can be fully reconstructed via definition. Full reconstruction necessitates identity. If you can't oblige the simple "yes" or "no" answer of "is the definition of 'apple' the exact same thing as pointing to an apple and saying 'apple'?" then there's no contest. That is very much relevant, and despite whoever may have previously "run away" from another's argument, this targets the focal point of the argument. Everything else can be forgotten but this one point, as it encapsulates the pivotal question of lexical identity. If you cannot justify the question above with a "yes" answer, then the definition is not identical to the word, and therefore, it is not possible to fully reconstruct a word from its subatomic definition.

If a word can be fully reconstructed, in that which technical terms are <not> necessary, rather, preferred, then you should be able to justify the above with ease. Unless of course, your argument is founded upon contradictory beliefs.

the irony here is staggering.

at this rate, i will never receive a response.

You accuse me of running away from explanations, yet you do the same. As the inferior debater of statistically lower intellect via traditional tests of intellect, shouldn't my sophistical assertions be easy to dismiss and force into submission?

a tree is a plant. a monster is not a plant.

Do you... not realize that by saying that a monster is not a plant, you pigeonhole yourself into an obligation to define "plant," such that it, too, is not a monster? I know you're going to avoid answering this within the realm of your argument--because you can't with your axioms. You're going to call it irrelevant and not say why.

...so do you agree with what i principally said? according to you, i originally said that words are a sum of everything that makes them words. agree or disagree?

Of course I do--how could I not? In fact, why would one even ask this question? You made a tautology under the premise that you already considered relationships--something that is impossible to be untrue. Like saying "the color blue is blue" or asking me if I agree that "the sky is the sky." This is why it's silly that you're trying to defend a position you and I both know you didn't hold until it became necessary to glue your argument together. Why would you use a defense like "the color blue is blue"? The answer is: you wouldn't, unless you were profoundly addled.

 

[john!]

It so does. Your argument is that words, especially complex ones, can be fully reconstructed via definition. Full reconstruction necessitates identity. If you can't oblige the simple "yes" or "no" answer of "is the definition of 'apple' the exact same thing as pointing to an apple and saying 'apple'?" then there's no contest. That is very much relevant, and despite whoever may have previously "run away" from another's argument, this targets the focal point of the argument. Everything else can be forgotten but this one point, as it encapsulates the pivotal question of lexical identity. If you cannot justify the question above with a "yes" answer, then the definition is not identical to the word, and therefore, it is not possible to fully reconstruct a word from its subatomic definition.

If a word can be fully reconstructed, in that which technical terms are <not> necessary, rather, preferred, then you should be able to justify the above with ease. Unless of course, your argument is founded upon contradictory beliefs.

defining an apple as "apple" is correct but trivial.

"apple" is nothing more than a string of characters and phonemes that we assign to a collection of traits which we feel is sufficient to uniquely identify apples from other objects. there is nothing contained in the word "apple" that cannot be stated using other words.

for example, someone who has never seen a green apple would have "red only" as a trait of an apple. someone who has never seen any other fruit would have no traits differentiating apples from oranges, pears, etc.

language is a tool comprised of other tools. there is nothing special about the creation of a technical term. it's the sum of its parts... and it's your job to try and prove that it is more than the sum of its parts. all you've done so far is conjectured about hypothetical "identities" of words that somehow do not qualify as attributes. you haven't given an example yet that i couldn't disprove.

You accuse me of running away from explanations, yet you do the same. As the inferior debater of statistically lower intellect via traditional tests of intellect, shouldn't my sophistical assertions be easy to dismiss and force into submission?

not necessarily. there are multiple types of intelligence; a single number doesn't suffice. and my initial claim of intelligence seems to have inspired you to keep debating me, instead of blithely dismissing me like you did to frotaz... so i have no regrets.

Do you... not realize that by saying that a monster is not a plant, you pigeonhole yourself into an obligation to define "plant," such that it, too, is not a monster? I know you're going to avoid answering this within the realm of your argument--because you can't with your axioms. You're going to call it irrelevant and not say why.

this is what i was talking about earlier with respect to "infinite regression". after defining tree, one then has to define plant (e.g. green, organism, gets energy from sunlight, etc.). then one has to define the terms in that definition. the only way out is by eventually arriving at atomic terms that are self-evident. i said this a few posts back.

Of course I do--how could I not? In fact, why would one even ask this question? You made a tautology under the premise that you already considered relationships--something that is impossible to be untrue. Like saying "the color blue is blue" or asking me if I agree that "the sky is the sky." This is why it's silly that you're trying to defend a position you and I both know you didn't hold until it became necessary to glue your argument together. Why would you use a defense like "the color blue is blue"? The answer is: you wouldn't, unless you were profoundly addled.

so if my argument logically boils down to a tautology, wouldn't that suggest that it is correct? if you think i'm trying to cop out by changing my argument, then you need to point out to me where i stopped arguing for my original point and started arguing for this tautology.

i have proved my original point by showing how it is equivalent to a tautology. that's what a proof is.

 

[Vermanubis]

defining an apple as "apple" is correct but trivial.

"apple" is nothing more than a string of characters and phonemes that we assign to a collection of traits which we feel is sufficient to uniquely identify apples from other objects. there is nothing contained in the word "apple" that cannot be stated using other words.

for example, someone who has never seen a green apple would have "red only" as a trait of an apple. someone who has never seen any other fruit would have no traits differentiating apples from oranges, pears, etc.

language is a tool comprised of other tools. there is nothing special about the creation of a technical term. it's the sum of its parts.

You didn't tell me whether or not the word "apple" was identical to its definition. You danced around the focal point nicely, but didn't answer the direct question. Again, if it's not, then it's not identical. Instead of obfuscating the point with proofs and whatnot, let's just demonstrate the very principle of the matter. If not identical, that means that it cannot be fully expressed by other words. Trivial as the word apple may be in the scope of the discussion, it contains the principle of lexical identity and how that identity becomes more and more essential as concepts become complex.

not necessarily. there are multiple types of intelligence; a single number doesn't suffice. and my initial claim of intelligence seems to have inspired you to keep debating me, instead of blithely dismissing me like you did to frotaz... so i have no regrets.

Oh yes. It's pretty hard to justify that when you plainly stated that you were probabilistically my intellectual superior in the realm of the topic. Unless you felt like saying you were likely my superior for the hell of it without any relation to the topic at hand, which would only make you seem addled.

this is what i was talking about earlier with respect to "infinite regression". after defining tree, one then has to define plant (e.g. green, organism, gets energy from sunlight, etc.). then one has to define the terms in that definition. the only way out is by eventually arriving at atomic terms that are self-evident. i said this a few posts back.

"Tree" is, under my premises, one of those self-evident words. But for you, If tree is not a self-evident word, then what is? Example? What makes a tree self-evident if it is? Pointing to it and saying "tree"? If so, then you concede to my argument above that the intensional difference of pointing to a tree and thus assigning the word "tree" to the desired referent is very different from a definition of non-tree words who can only state the nature of the tree rather than the tree itself. So yeah, explain how "tree" is self-evident or different from a prospective definition. Under your premises, every word is the sum of its atomic parts. "A word is the sum of its atomic parts" encapsulates all words. You're caged on that one. You contradict your position if you claim a word requires self-evident definition.

so if my argument logically boils down to a tautology, wouldn't that suggest that it is correct? if you think i'm trying to cop out by changing my argument, then you need to point out to me where i stopped arguing for my original point and started arguing for this tautology.

i have proved my original point by showing how it is equivalent to a tautology. that's what a proof is.

You don't understand. Your original premise was wrong--I'm proving that you changed your position half-way through the debate by equivocating a word's meaning. You said "words are the sum of their atomic parts" which, if you actually <did> speak this (with the incorrect notion that relationships were non-structural as a part of the atomic constituency of a word), was a senseless and pointless tautology with null purpose. I don't know how much more I can spell it out. I don't see what "proof" you gave by saying "words are words." Why would one say "words are words" when trying to prove a point about something? They wouldn't, which accents your subtle shift in position. Your use of "atomic" was intended to provide a contrast to my opposing view--not create a pointless tautology.

 

[frotaz37]

Vermanubis I can't believe you don't see that your entire argument boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong. Don't think so? Prove it."

It's gotten to the point where you're basically just trolling.

 

[Vermanubis]

Vermanubis I can't believe you don't see that your entire argument boils down to "I'm right, you're wrong. Don't think so? Prove it."

It's gotten to the point where you're basically just trolling.

The input from the peanut gallery is much obliged.

 

[frotaz37]

Hah yeah John!, it's like I thought.

He'll only respond to me when I'm not easily destroying his easily destroyable arguments.

 

[Vermanubis]

Hah yeah John!, it's like I thought.

He'll only respond to me when I'm not easily destroying his easily destroyable arguments.

Damn. And I thought I'd get away with it, too.

 

[frotaz37]

Damn. And I thought I'd get away with it, too.

Aww poor baby is mad.

 

[Vermanubis]

So mad that I just... just... the only way I can quell such rage is to infract you!

 

[Flowtaz]

The only way you're going to get me to stop posting in this thread is if you answer my inquiries. It's that simple.
And yet for some reason, the only thing you seem capable of doing is dodging and handing out infractions, even though you don't even moderate this forum.
If you have no intention of arguing with me, then you have no reason to be responding to my posts with such an elitist dissmissive attitude.

I've already thouroughly explained my point:
Which words are and are not complex is completely subjective.

The first time I brought this up, you dodged by defining the word complex and stating that the defenition is NOT subjective while of course making sure
to include belittling assertions that I am not apt to even be participating in the conversation. You go on about how my statement that engineers are probably smarter
than illegal immigrant field workers PROVES that I am simply not thinking on a level that qualifies me to be discussing this with you.

So of course, seeing that you dodged my point entirely, I decided to clarify and say this:

I never said the definition of "Complex" is subjective, it's just that determining what the term applies to is completely subjective.

How do you respond? By COMPLETELY IGNORING MY POINT and derailing the conversation.

Just something to think about:


"If that were the case, then bi-lingual illegal immigrant field workers who have never been in a classroom are smarter than aerospace engineers who only speak english."

What makes an aerospace engineer any smarter than a field worker? Wouldn't that fall under that "subjective" category? This is your reasoning, and it's prone to circular argumentation. Maybe it'll highlight my disinclination to "debate" the topic with you.

Instead of responding to my point, you start making demands that I prove my worth to you as a debator.
You act as if my comment about engineers has any bearing on my main point that what words are and are not complex is completely subjective.

Well guess what? It 100% beside the point and you know it.
This was nothing but a blatant and obvious dodge.

So what can I do next?
Logically, since you are so insistent on dodging all my points, I decided to try a different approach.
So I asked you to give an example of what you consider to be a technical term.
Afterall, the neccecity of technical terminology is the subject of the discussion, so it's only logical to ask for an example of what you consider to be a technical term.
How are we going to know if we even have the same idea of what a technical term is unless you answer the question?

It makes no sense.
You refuse to define the concepts in which your entire argument is based on.
You insist on keeping your defenition of "complex technical terminology" as clouded as possible, which makes no sense if your goal is to convince people that what you're saying is true.
Since it's clear that you have no intention of attempting convincing other people that what you're saying is right, the only remaining option is that you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

I mean just look at your posts.
You spend entire pages telling people that they are not even making the points that they are making

All you do is dodge and ignore people's points.
In other words, all you do is troll.

 

[Vermanubis]

The only way you're going to get me to stop posting in this thread is if you answer my inquiries. It's that simple.
And yet for some reason, the only thing you seem capable of doing is dodging and handing out infractions, even though you don't even moderate this forum.
If you have no intention of arguing with me, then you have no reason to be responding to my posts with such an elitist dissmissive attitude.

I've already thouroughly explained my point:
Which words are and are not complex is completely subjective.

The first time I brought this up, you dodged by defining the word complex and stating that the defenition is NOT subjective while of course making sure
to include belittling assertions that I am not apt to even be participating in the conversation. You go on about how my statement that engineers are probably smarter
than illegal immigrant field workers PROVES that I am simply not thinking on a level that qualifies me to be discussing this with you.

So of course, seeing that you dodged my point entirely, I decided to clarify and say this:



How do you respond? By COMPLETELY IGNORING MY POINT and derailing the conversation.




Instead of responding to my point, you start making demands that I prove my worth to you as a debator.
You act as if my comment about engineers has any bearing on my main point that what words are and are not complex is completely subjective.

Well guess what? It 100% beside the point and you know it.
This was nothing but a blatant and obvious dodge.

So what can I do next?
Logically, since you are so insistent on dodging all my points, I decided to try a different approach.
So I asked you to give an example of what you consider to be a technical term.
Afterall, the neccecity of technical terminology is the subject of the discussion, so it's only logical to ask for an example of what you consider to be a technical term.
How are we going to know if we even have the same idea of what a technical term is unless you answer the question?

It makes no sense.
You refuse to define the concepts in which your entire argument is based on.
You insist on keeping your defenition of "complex technical terminology" as clouded as possible, which makes no sense if your goal is to convince people that what you're saying is true.
Since it's clear that you have no intention of attempting convincing other people that what you're saying is right, the only remaining option is that you're arguing for the sake of arguing.

I mean just look at your posts.
You spend entire pages telling people that they are not even making the points that they are making

All you do is dodge and ignore people's points.
In other words, all you do is troll.

As if it wasn't clear by now, I don't plan on continuing the discussion with you until you relax a little. I really don't think I'm worth this kind of trouble. I'm trying to debate my point and do what I enjoy doing, but once incendiary remarks are made, that's where I've learned to no longer engage someone. Contrary to John's claim that I'm only debating him out of an intellectual challenge, I'm doing so because he, while somewhat tedious to debate with, is a joy to because of his seemingly collected demeanor.

As for the the trolling part, if trying to gain a richer understanding of my own conceptions by defending them and having someone question me from all angles is trolling, then trolling is extremely productive.

 

[BannedTaz]

Except you seemed to have no problem debating with me until I asked you for examples.
My demeanor didn't stop you before, so I have no idea why you're using that as an excuse, especially considering it contradicts your previous explanation for ignoring me.

What makes an aerospace engineer any smarter than a field worker? Wouldn't that fall under that "subjective" category? This is your reasoning, and it's prone to circular argumentation. Maybe it'll highlight my disinclination to "debate" the topic with you.

Remember when you said that?
Your memory seems to be extremely short term, considering I quoted it in my previous post.

Multiple times you have backed out of discussing this with me at the EXACT time I ask you for examples, each time coming up with a poorer and poorer excuse for why.

As for trying to gain a richer understanding of your own conceptions?
Bull. You've stated multiple times that your views are unarguable facts, and like I've already said, if gaining richer understanding of your own ideas is your priority, then you would respond to as many people who challenge your views as possible, and you would make every effort you clarify your views when said challengers ask for clarification.

But hey, you're not doing that are you? Instead, you just belittle, dodge, and abuse mod powers.

Why? You're making this infinitely more complicated than it needs to be

 

[Vinylic.]

Okay. That is just ridiculous. What he is doing is not abusing.
He does this because there are rules. And your last post is exactly the point why you are thinking this sort of way that many others would as well.

 

[Vermanubis]

I'm not even sure what to say, to be honest.

 

[Vinylic.]

Sounds like you were blown away.

 

[Vermanubis]

Sounds like you were blown away.

That's one way to put it. This topic has turned so sour, it's not even funny.

 

[Vinylic.]

Well, It happens. Things like these can get you to learn a lesson or two.

The first thing you learned is something pretty obvious. Yet we have already did learn this in the past.

 

[El Nino]

frotaz, you little spitfire you.

On topic: There is a condition known as alexia, also called word blindness. It's usually caused by damage in which the visual areas of the brain lose connection with the language areas. Related conditions include losing the ability to comprehend spoken language and/or written language. I bring that up to point out that it's possible for the language areas of the brain to be severed from other areas. Meaning, it's possible to receive external stimuli, process it, know it, and yet be unable to form language from it. People with color anomia know color; they can distinguish them and categorize them, but they can never name them. It isn't just a matter of being unable to articulate a word because, often, the motor skills to produce language remain in tact.

In short, the brain still processes information even if it suffers damage to the language areas (or if those areas are disconnected from other areas).

Aisight pointed out earlier that the Mandarin words "Gao xing" and "Kuai le" are not equivalent, and only marginally satisfy an expression depending on the intention of the speaker or communicator, despite both having a general meaning of "happy."

It's like the difference between "happy" and "joy." Sort of. Gao xing usually refers to a person (ie. "I am happy."). Kuai le is often a salutation (ie. "Happy birthday.").

But on the subject of Mandarin, the Chinese written language is known to be extremely complicated. About ten years ago, the government decided to introduce a simplified form of writing. So do you think that, theoretically, something has been lost in that simplification?

 

[Teran]

This blog is a ****ing disgrace, and there are a couple reasons for that.