Is there ever a situation where this a responsible start to a sentence?
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
When in the presence of a telepath?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
A skinhead Nazi necrophiliac telepath?
Posted by scholar (Member # 9232) on :
My husband and friends tell me I should stop thinking all the time. Never used the word unacceptable though- more like obnoxious and annoying.
Posted by cmc (Member # 9549) on :
I'd say no... If you can't think of something, how can you try to see both sides of the argument?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
If the sentence ends ..."of Bea Arthur naked."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
MightyCow wins.
Posted by Tante Shvester (Member # 8202) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: If the sentence ends ..."of Bea Arthur naked."
Dang you, MCow, for placing that disturbing image in my poor head.
The horror! The horror!
And just for retaliation, "...of Wilfred Brimley doing a strip tease."
Posted by FlyingCow (Member # 2150) on :
Perhaps when you're standing before Gozer the Gozarian and are asked to choose the form of your destruction?
Posted by Dr Strangelove (Member # 8331) on :
It is unacceptable to think of a situation where "It is unacceptable to think ..." is a responsible start to a sentence.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
To be fair, I was able to come up with a few cases:
- In a dystopian novel, such as 1984
- In a communist dictatorship or perhaps Islamic Theocracy
- In a speech given by the President of the United States
Oh wait, I'm not so sure about that last one.
Posted by SteveRogers (Member # 7130) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: - In a speech given by the President of the United States
Oh wait, I'm not so sure about that last one.
The words "think" and "President" should rarely be used in the same sentence. Unless the President got someone different to write his speeches.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Steve, President Bush wasn't talking about himself thinking, but rather telling us what is and is not acceptable to think.
Of, if I were writing an Onion article: In a bold new move today, President Bush continued his administration's expansion of the power of the executive branch by laying claim to jurisdiction over the innermost thoughts of the American populace.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet.
No, it's not. It's wrong and pretty awful, but people are actually allowed to hold that thought in their mind.
Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
How about a situation where you must act quickly? So quickly, in fact, that it would be unacceptable to take the time to think about your action?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, it's not. It's wrong and pretty awful, but people are actually allowed to hold that thought in their mind.
Yes, but it's possible (acceptable, even) to say that sentence using a different definition of "think" and "unacceptable" than you seem to be using here.
"Unacceptable" is often use specifically to express "disfavored in society" not rising to the level of forbidding, and "think" is often used to mean "hold the opinion that."
"That is unacceptable behavior," for example, is often used to condemn acts that are not against the rules but are rude or otherwise have a negative effect on those who witness them.
"I think that you are an idiot" is more often used to mean "I hold the opinion that you are an idiot" than "a thought is present in my mind that you are an idiot."
So "It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet" can be rewritten "It is disfavored society to hold the opinion that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet."
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet.
Not only is that an acceptable thought, and a hypothesis that deserves trial, but it might actually be accurate. Without Nazi Germany, would American eugenics interests have been checked? Would the Soviet Union have had an opponent in Europe, or might they have expanded eastward without an invading Hitler on their western front? Would America's industrial base had their WWII jumpstart, and would we be able to develop into the power we became if we'd had substantial competition from Europe or Japan for the next half-century? Hell, would Germany have lost if they had a sane leader guiding them?
It's not unacceptable at all. Only six million Jews died in concentration camps because of Hitler -- how many more people might have suffered if Hitler never existed?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I strongly disagree with your usage of unacceptable. It is used to mean either this thing is not or at the very least should not be allowed.
That being said, I did post this a bit quickly after reading the President's remarks where he presumed to tell the country that it is not acceptable to think certain things and didn't stop to think about all the potential usages of the words.
On reflection, even using the definition I had above, I can think of limited situations where that statement could be responsible.
Of course, I'm pretty sure these usages would be using very different definitions and very different contexts than the President's statement. Do you disagree?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Not only is that an acceptable thought, and a hypothesis that deserves trial
Once again, "think" does not mean only "have a thought in one's mind." It also means to hold as a belief.
And that belief is not acceptable - acceptable here not meaning "something we allow" but rather something pleasing to the receiver. Even if the statement were true, I bet I can find millions of people to whom such a belief will not be acceptable.
I'm not saying that the hypothesis can't be considered. The way I'm using the words - very common uses of the words, I might add - means something very different.
If you want to explain how it can't mean what I've said, be my guest. As it is, you're arguing about something else entirely.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It is used to mean either this thing is not or at the very least should not be allowed.
Yes, it is used like that. Sometimes.
However, it is NOT used like that every time it is used. Not by a long shot.
quote:Of course, I'm pretty sure these usages would be using very different definitions and very different contexts than the President's statement. Do you disagree?
I have no idea what statement you're referring to. Perhaps you'd like to link and quote it, and then explain why that statement is irresponsible.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't think that your usage of unacceptable is a very common one. I don't think it is one at all. But as I said, ultimately, I can think of something like, "In the service of the Jewish anti-defamation league, it's unaccceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet."
Of course, Lalo was reacting to the statement as if it took the same form as that from President Bush, which, barring other circumstances, I think is the default form such a statement would generally be parsed as.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:QUESTION: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic.
It's just -- I simply can't accept that.
It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't think that your usage of unacceptable is a very common one. I don't think it is one at all.
People use it about clothing worn in public. Sometimes they mean there should be a law. More often, they mean it's a breach of social convention.
Edit: snip paragraph now irrelevant - thanks for posting the transcript.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't think that your usage of unacceptable is a very common one.
I think it is.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
I think it's clear he's not using "unacceptable" in the "should not be allowed" sense.
Read the line above: "It's just -- I simply can't accept that."
Which is the literal definition of unacceptable.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote: I don't think that your usage of unacceptable is a very common one.
I think it is, and I think it's the obvious usage for Dagonee's quote.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Whatever. I don't think it is, but I really don't care to argue the point. Shouldn't have really gotten into it in the first place.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Reading the transcript now, I pretty much agree with the president.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
It's a shame he thinks it's unacceptable, though. Because if he were able to accept the thought, he might actually see that his "kill innocent women and children" bit isn't the isolating factor he thinks it is.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Whatever. I don't think it is, but I really don't care to argue the point. Shouldn't have really gotten into it in the first place.
You started the thread. You don't want to discuss with people who disagree with you?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Icky, You think we shouldn't let people even consider these things?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I think people tend to say that when they don't literally mean, "I can't accept the thought."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
Tom, I'm not sure what you mean.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I don't care to argue about the usages of the word "unacceptable". I don't think Dag's usage is correct. You disagree. I'm okay with that. I see no reason to continue on with a "Is too", "Is not" exchange.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Icky, You think we shouldn't let people even consider these things?
I would have interpreted Icarus's statement, coming so soon after his previous post, to mean he thought the president was using the other meaning of "unacceptable," not the "shouldn't be allowed" meaning. That's just me, though.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Icky, You think we shouldn't let people even consider these things?
No, that is not what I mean. As has been noted, I don't think Bush is talking about what should be allowed. I think you are being too literal. What I think is that the thought that the actions of the American military, taken as a whole, are analogous to those of the terrorists, is absurd on the face of it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I see no reason to continue on with a "Is too", "Is not" exchange.
It's more like, "Here's several examples and explanations of usage that suggest it is," "is not" exchange.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't care to argue about the usages of the word "unacceptable". I don't think Dag's usage is correct. You disagree. I'm okay with that. I see no reason to continue on with a "Is too", "Is not" exchange.
Fair enough, but wasn't the usage of the word "unacceptable" pretty much what the whole discussion hinged on?
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Tom, I'm not sure what you mean.
I mean that if Bush were to accept the possibility that our behavior and the behavior of our enemies might be compared in some way, then he wouldn't have identified as the major difference between us the fact that they've killed innocent women and children in pursuit of a cause.
Because here's the thing: so have we. We've done EXACTLY that. By this point, we've probably killed more innocent women and children (and men) than they have.
So it's not the death of non-combatants that's the problem, here; there are other distinctions being made. And I think Bush has difficulty being explicit about those distinctions precisely because, by his own admission, he's not capable of drawing ethical comparisons between our behavior and the behavior of our enemies.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think I fully understand you yet. We have killed inncent women and children and men, but generally not on purpose. I think Bush's difficulty being explicit about the moral distinctions between terrorists and the US military are simply due to his general inability to speak coherently.
And stating that there is no comparison, is, of course, a comparison.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:What I think is that the thought that the actions of the American military, taken as a whole, are analogous to those of the terrorists, is absurd on the face of it.
I don't see how that statement could be, using what was actually said, said to mean that. I do accept that, ultimately, that'll be the official story of what was meant. This wasn't actually a prepared statement (well, probably not anway).
However, I think it betrays the same type of thinking as the prepared statements such about how "Responsible debate over Iraq must be limited.":
quote: The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
There has been an organized effort by this administration to declare that certain ideas are off limits, can not be brought up, and even shouldn't be considered.
The idea that it's acceptible for an American president to state during an official communication a statement that literally means that certain ideas are unacceptable to even think is not something I'm okay with.
edit: I was actually angry that he had the balls to say something like that and think that he could get away with it. Seems like other people have a different interpretation of it and he can get away with it. So, there you go.
[ September 21, 2006, 10:45 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, The examples you offered are of things that are aginst some set of rules, not merely things that some people disapprove of.
And, there, you've drawn me in to the is not, is too again.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:What I think is that the thought that the actions of the American military, taken as a whole, are analogous to those of the terrorists, is absurd on the face of it.
I don't see how that statement could be, using what was actually said, said to mean that.
Why not? It's the obvious interpretation to me.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: However, I think it betrays the same type of thinking as the prepared statements such about how "Responsible debate over Iraq must be limited.":
quote: The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
There has been an organized effort by this administration to declare that certain ideas are off limits, can not be brought up, and even shouldn't be considered.
I don't see it as the same. I find the second statement far more objectionable. Even so, it's basically typical politician-speak: those who criticize our motives are not honest critics. Not different from something I might hear from a democrat under criticism from republicans.
Still, there is a big difference between saying "Those who criticize me are boogerheads" and saying "the idea that our soldiers are comparable to terrorists is absurd." (And I know, I know, that's not how you read the statement you quoted. My point is that while I agree with your larger point about this admninistration's response to criticism, I just don't think this is an example of their most objectionable tactics.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:And, there, you've drawn me in to the is not, is too again.
You have a strange way of characterizing things, Squicky.
quote:The examples you offered are of things that are aginst some set of rules, not merely things that some people disapprove of.
Rules of social convention, not coercion.
If all you're saying is that President Bush said that "it is against the generally agreed-on rules of social convention..." then I'm not sure why you're so up in arms against this. Because that sentence is almost certainly true for a large portion of Bush's audience (in this new, looser sense of "allowed" you're trying to apply to my examples).
Which does not seem to be at all the sense you were using "rules" in this thread. Certainly, such an interpretation wouldn't match up with this question to Icarus: "You think we shouldn't let people even consider these things?"
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'll quote my edit from above
quote:I was actually angry that he had the balls to say something like that and think that he could get away with it. Seems like other people have a different interpretation of it and he can get away with it. So, there you go.
To me, this was another instance of the stuff I quoted above or the "If you're not with us, you're against us." with Thought-Crime overtones.
It's not something I think should be let stand. To me, it should be said, specifically, that the President did not in any way, shape, or form mean to say it not allowed for American citizens to think anything.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see how that statement could be, using what was actually said, said to mean that.
You truly don't see it? At all?
I can understand someone interpreting your way. I can understand thinking the way you've interpreted it is the most natural interpretation, even though I disagree. I can't understand how you can't, after hearing some fairly detailed explanations, see how someone else could possibly mean the other.
Literally, I can't grasp how someone with an advanced degree can't comprehend other people interpreting that statement as "the idea that our soldiers are comparable to terrorists is absurd."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, The President stating in his official capacity that some thoughts are against the rules is, to me, a very bad thing. If he wants to say, it's something we should look with disfavor on, I'm still going to think it's an improper thing to say, but I'm not going to be anywhere near as incensed about it.
He can also say, as he did in the preceding bit, that it's unacceptable to him personally, but when the President says, flatly and during an official communication, that something is unaccepted, he's speaking from the office. And that's not something the office should ever be allowed to even come near.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Literally, I can't grasp how someone with an advanced degree can't comprehend other people interpreting that statement as "the idea that our soldiers are comparable to terrorists is absurd."
I can accet, taking the context, that people may assume that this was meant. I don't see that, given those actual words, that this could be the literal meaning of them. They don't mean that in any way I'm familiar with them.
Consider it this way. He writes that on a piece of paper and signs his name to it and issues it as an Executive Order. What's it mean now?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:The President stating in his official capacity that some thoughts are against the rules is, to me, a very bad thing.
I actually haven't commented on this aspect, for the very simple reason that I don't think he said this.
Again, I wish you even attempt to provide some analysis other than "I disagree" concerning the interpretation. As it stands now, you've basically said "it means this because it means this."
quote:He can also say, as he did in the preceding bit, that it's unacceptable to him personally, but when the President says, flatly and during an official communication, that something is unaccepted, he's speaking from the office.
If this is what's bothering you, then take out the line-feeds, which weren't part of his spoken words:
quote:If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
It's a clear picture of someone who is astounded at the concept and is speaking of his personal thoughts about it.
"It's unacceptable" is most naturally read in the context of following "I can't accept that" as "I find this unacceptable," not "this is against the rules."
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Consider it this way. He writes that on a piece of paper and signs his name to it and issues it as an Executive Order. What's it mean now?
um, nothing?
It's a loaded question, because making it an Executive Order already assumes your interpretation, since only your interpretation was proscriptive. Mine was descriptive. You can't legislate that things are stupid or in poor taste, you can only legislate that they are allowed or not. So I don't really think it's a meaningful question you are asking.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky:
quote:Literally, I can't grasp how someone with an advanced degree can't comprehend other people interpreting that statement as "the idea that our soldiers are comparable to terrorists is absurd."
I can accet, taking the context, that people may assume that this was meant. I don't see that, given those actual words, that this could be the literal meaning of them. They don't mean that in any way I'm familiar with them.
Consider it this way. He writes that on a piece of paper and signs his name to it and issues it as an Executive Order. What's it mean now?
Meaning doesn't work like that. He was talking in a press conference, making unprepared remarks, and that sentence was preceded by two sentences extremely relevant to the
If you want to really push the issue, that sentence is absolutely meaningless in the context of an executive order, or even a law. "It is unacceptable" means nothing in a legislative context, and an executive order is a legislative context.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Dag, I'm pretty darn sure the President was not blindsided by the question about Colin Powell's (among others') opposition to his plan to get the U.S. into the torture business, nor about the statements Colin Powell made.
I don't think it's probable that he could be said to have been, at that moment, astounded by the concept, especially since that was not at all what Colin Powell said. It wasn't something that he was previously unaware of that had been sprung on him at that moment. His press briefing team had to expect questions concerning it.
As such, I'm pretty sure it was part of a prepared (though likely not strictly scripted) strategy of response.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I don't think something has to be sprung on you for you to be astounded by it. There are things that I am continually astounded by.
(And I don't think the point is to give the president a pass on poor speaking on account of this being extemporized, but simply to point out that a hyperliteral interpretation may well not be a fair or accurate one. Most people are not that literal.)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm pretty darn sure the President was not blindsided by the question about Colin Powell's (among others') opposition to his plan to get the U.S. into the torture business, nor about the statements Colin Powell made.
Didn't say he was. Your own propagandist streak is showing here, by the way.
quote:I don't think it's probable that he could be said to have been, at that moment, astounded by the concept, especially since that was not at all what Colin Powell said. It wasn't something that he was previously unaware of that had been sprung on him at that moment. His press briefing team had to expect questions concerning it.
He can still be astounded by the concept even if he's expecting the question. It is a rather astounding concept.
quote:As such, I'm pretty sure it was part of a prepared (though likely not strictly scripted) strategy of response.
The idea, yes. The wording, probably not.
Oh, I'm sure they tried to prepare wording for him. He's known to not be good at getting wording correct.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You keep redefining words.
quote:Main Entry: astound Function: transitive verb : to fill with bewilderment or wonder synonym see SURPRISE
edit: For that matter, without it being a suprise, what you're saying doesn't work.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
"Bewilder" = "blindside"?
Since when?
I use words (or, more accurately, recognize uses of words) in ways that match how words are used by people. If you're trying to parse how someone used a spoken word not read from a script, or written informally and quickly, the dictionary isn't necessarily the best way to go.\
For example, I adopted Icarus's usage of "astound" because I interpreted it as bewildering or confusing.
If you want, I'll go back to my other interpretation, which is very similar but doesn't use the word "astound" in a colloquial mannner with which you are unfamiliar.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I am bewildered by the attitude my high risk latino students have toward education. The fact that they travel throughout school all day long without a backpack, a pen, a pencil, or books. It's been happening for years, but I am nevertheless bewildered and, yes, astounded by it.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
People don't enter into a prepared response and then go into their bewildered personal thoughts.
You claimed that this a clear picture of him astounded into his personal musings. That doesn't work if he was prepared for the question and had a general response prepared.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:edit: For that matter, without it being a suprise, what you're saying doesn't work.
Yes, it does. I'm confused by many things I've heard before, and I often express my confusion when discussing them.
Even though I've heard them before.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yes, you say that you are confused. You aren't astounded into your personal musings about it.
edit: You know, I'm out. There's no up side of this and you've already started with the personal attacks. I don't need to argue this with someone who can't stay civil.
I was very upset by this. Other people see it differently. I can accept that, though I'm still upset by it. I'm okay with leaving it there.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:People don't enter into a prepared response and then go into their bewildered personal thoughts.
You claimed that this a clear picture of him astounded into his personal musings. That doesn't work if he was prepared for the question and had a general response prepared.
Yes, they do and yes it does. Lawyers count on it, and it happens even with the best prepared witnesses, witnesses far more articulate than Bush seems to be on television.
By the way, see my post above about how we can drop "astound" if you want. I was using it colloquially.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Yes, you say that you are confused. You aren't astounded into your personal musings about it.
And one way of expressing that confusion is to say I can't accept that.
You keep saying "people don't..." Almost inevitably, it's something I've seen people do, and usually something I've seen quite often.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: People don't enter into a prepared response and then go into their bewildered personal thoughts.
Well, I'm not a politician, but I do in a sense have "prepared responses," in the sense of conversational ground I find myself covering on multiple occasion, with different people. And I have expressed bewilderment, such as in my above post, in those "prepared responses," if my bewilderment was relevant to the conversation. In this case, the question, expected or not, was about a concept Bush finds bewildering. It seems only natural then for him to express bewilderment, whether the bewildering question is expected or not.
Also, keep in mind that expressing bewilderment is part of Bush's "charm." It's that "simple guy" thing that the people who elected him, to a large degree, eat up. So that's even more incentive for him to express bewilderment; he does it exceedingly well.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:you've already started with the personal attacks.
Excuse me? Where?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Icky, That's not the way I meant it. I wasn't saying he wasn't bewildered by it. I was saying that he was astounded into going off into his own personal musings, in such a way that him saying flatly "It's not acceptable" was really sort of a externalized internal monologue doesn't work in the circumstances.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Your own propagandist streak is showing here, by the way.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
When you change my words and then attempt to refute the changed words, the description seems to fit. Not to mention your characterization of the detainee bill.
It's not just a sometimes thing. And it's particularly annoying when it's transparently clear your point wouldn't work with the word I actually used.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Where did I change your words? I'm not conscious of doing so.
Also, if you're going to talk about transparent, going from "Where did I make a personal attack?" to "Yeah, I made a personal attack, but you deserved it."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This was in response to "I didn't change your words."
Where did I say blindsided? You used that word in a direct response to me in way that clearly implied I was suggesting he had been.
Otherwise, your point wasn't relevant to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Also, if you're going to talk about transparent, going from "Where did I make a personal attack?" to "Yeah, I made a personal attack, but you deserved it."
That's not a personal attack. It's a statement about what you've done.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
You didn't say blindsided. You said astounded, which, as I showed, is synanamous with suprised, which itself is synanamous with blind-sided.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Again with the redefinitions. Saying someone has a propogandist streak is a personal attack. Man up already.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You didn't say blindsided. You said astounded, which, as I showed, is synanamous with suprised, which itself is synanamous with blind-sided.
I simply don't believe that your that obtuse about language usage.
If the words were really the same, you could have easily used "astounded." But it doesn't carry the same connotation as blindsided, a connotation that was necessary to the point you were trying to make.
I didn't contend that he had no idea the topic would come up, which is what "blindsided" suggested.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
FWIW, I think there are different nuances to "surprised," and as I attempted to point out in my example, it is not necessarily synonymous with blind-sided. Maybe what we have here is just a miscommunication?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, you said astounded, which again, is synamous with suprised. Saying he was suprised by it does in fact mean that he did not know it would come up.
edit: You know, I have no idea how to spell "synonymous". Kindly assume that I meant to use that spelling in all the instances above.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Again with the redefinitions. Saying someone has a propogandist streak is a personal attack. Man up already.
Bullcrap.
Especially not with regards to you and the things you've posted about OSC on these boards and maintained the entire time aren't personal attacks..
No way do you get to credibly make that claim.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:No, you said astounded, which again, is synamous with suprised. Saying he was suprised by it does in fact mean that he did not know it would come up.
No, it doesn't. Icarus has already explained why this isn't necessarily so.
And I didn't say he was astounded by the question, but by the concept.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I never said they weren't personal attacks. When you say, for example, that you doubt someone's intellectual integrity, that's a personal attack.
Also, you're sort of arguing against yourself here. You think I made personal attacks on OSC, but, because you claim that I said they weren't personal attacks, then you making similar on me aren't personal attacks? Even if I did argue as you say I did, that doesn't change the fact that you considered what I said to be personal attacks and therefore, logically...you weigh the same as a duck.
edit: Because I wanted to put in the logically and then the Monty Python's just came out.
[ September 21, 2006, 11:56 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:No, it doesn't. Icarus has already explained why this isn't necessarily so.
And I didn't say he was astounded by the question, but by the concept.
I've never seen astounded used that way. The dictionary also supports my usage. and, as I said, I don't see how someone could be bewildered into going into his sort of internal monologue by something he was prepared for. If you didn't mean it that way, that's fine. But I don't see any reason why me applying the dictionary definition to a word must necessarily be a malicious attempt to distort what you said.
As to the second part, if he was prepared for the question, he would necessarily be in a state where he'd not be suprised by the concept, yes?
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
No. He's not surprised by the question, but bewildered by the concept.
There are two different issues in play here.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Right, he was astounded by the concept. I get that. However, as, if we're talking about astounded in the sense of "suprised into bewilderment", which is the only sense I've ever seen it, then being prepared for the question, which relies on encountering the concept, would preclude being astounded by the concept.
Look, if people have a different perception of things or even a less specific definition of certain words than I do, I can get that. And, as I said before, while I don't necessarily agree that you may be using the words in what I would consider the "correct way", I don't see arguing over stuff like that as leading to anything other than "Is Too"/"Is Not" stuff.
This was very upsetting to me. If other people interpreted it the same way as I did but did not find it upsetting, there might be grounds for an argument. As it was, I tried to explain how I saw it, and why I really thought this was the only way, coming from where I'm coming from, that I could see it. If people have a different perspective and are not inclined to adopt mine, there's little I can do about that. We might be able to discuss it, but Dag is clearly not willing to do that with me. So what's the point?
---
Icky, Technically, dropping the wtcayta on someone is supposed to mean that there person has so little integrity and is just talking crap and engaging them will only lead to nastiness. So, putting it in is a recognition of this as a sort of "You're wrong, but there's no point in getting into a thing with you about it, so this is it." If you continue to address the person afterwards, you're kind of going against the whole spirit of the thing.
Of course, as you dropped on a statement of mine that was (arguably) accurate and as I'm not terribly lacking in integrity nor really interested in kicking up the nastiness, or at least I like to think so, I didn't deserve the initial application anyway. But, hey, Dag's in your clique and I'm not.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
MrSquicky, you'll note that I deleted that post as soon as you clarified what you were talking about.
In any case, though you came up with the idea, I was not aware of the interpretation that it means a person lacks integrity, and I do not use in that way. I use it to mean pretty literally that I don't know what someone is talking about, in a situation when someone apparently decides to get hostile.
I frankly didn't know what attack you were referring to, and it kind of seemed like you could be referring to me, since there was nothing in your post to distinguish whether you were referring to me or to Dag.
As far as the clique accusation--and boy am I tempted to "drop it" on you again--is it your contention that Dag and I are never on opposite sides of any debates?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, you're part of a social clique. I'm not. For some people this means you don't have to treat people with the same consideration, like, for example, looking for what they were talking about before saying they were spouting BS or feeling like you need to apologize when you falsely accuse them of something. It's got nothing to do with being on the same sides in an argument though.
I'm used to the ill-effects of not being popular on Hatrack.
---
edit: You know, if you really use what the crapping the way you say - well, first, could I respectfully ask you to choose a different phrase, because that's extremely different from the (I think) useful purpose I tried to establish it for? - what I said above really isn't fair. I'll leave it because it helps explain my earlier reaction though, as well as my aversion to deleting things.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: You know, if you really use what the crapping the way you say - well, first, could I respectfully ask you to choose a different phrase, because that's extremely different from the (I think) useful purpose I tried to establish it for?
Okay.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Edit: Bah. That was an unkind and immature thing for me to say. I apologize.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Semantics! Yay!
quote:"Unacceptable" is often use specifically to express "disfavored in society" not rising to the level of forbidding, and "think" is often used to mean "hold the opinion that."
Yes. Yes.
quote:"That is unacceptable behavior," for example, is often used to condemn acts that are not against the rules but are rude or otherwise have a negative effect on those who witness them.
Yes.
quote:"I think that you are an idiot" is more often used to mean "I hold the opinion that you are an idiot" than "a thought is present in my mind that you are an idiot."
Wouldn't the thought that the other guy is an idiot HAVE to be present in his mind in order for him to hold the opinion that the other guy is an idiot? Where is the distinction? What is the difference?
quote:So "It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet" can be rewritten "It is disfavored society to hold the opinion that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet."
Yes. Wait.
What was I going to argue with again? I'd better go re-read the thread.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Oh.
Wait.
There're two pages here.
Wait.
I'm not getting involved in this. I don't need to read two pages of stuff just for the small joy of arguing about the changing nature of words and the slightly greater (but still small) joy of arguing in favor of the validity of new cultural interpretations of certain phrases.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: QUESTION: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic.
It's just -- I simply can't accept that.
It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
I don't think he really answered the question. Putting that aside...
When the President of the United States says, from the podium, that something is unacceptable, I would argue that a common understanding suggests he presumes to speak for more than himself. For the American people, or a majority of them, if not for some abstract notion of western democratic nations or civilization as a whole.
There's also a certain tilt of language that's used to imply more than "it is reasonable to believe that" or "it is commonly believed that", but rather "it is immoral that you would consider this" or "it is foolish to consider this"... To head off reason with appeals to the herd mentality that fears ostracization more than irrationality.
It's a lousy trick, but it happens a lot.
Posted by Icarus (Member # 3162) on :
I think it is foolish to equate our military with the terrorists. *shrug*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:but Dag is clearly not willing to do that with me.
You are the one who refused to discuss it. You accused me of engaging in "is too/is not" when I had posted lengthy explanations, and you had simply said, "That's not how it's used."
Please don't try to pretend that you were interested in discussing the issue you actually posted about, nor that you treated me with anything approaching respect with "is too/is not."
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I never said they weren't personal attacks. When you say, for example, that you doubt someone's intellectual integrity, that's a personal attack.
My clear impression, from numerous discussions, is that you consider statements fair game in a debate about ideas. You certainly make statements such as that time and time again.
quote:You think I made personal attacks on OSC, but, because you claim that I said they weren't personal attacks, then you making similar on me aren't personal attacks? Even if I did argue as you say I did, that doesn't change the fact that you considered what I said to be personal attacks and therefore, logically...you weigh the same as a duck.
No. When someone has made it clear that they consider statements acceptable that I would otherwise consider to be discourteous, and that they are not shy about making them, I will use statements of that kind when engaged in debate with that person. When that person insists that the statements are about the ideas and not the targeted individual, I will use that definition in debate with that person, because that person will not consider such things discourteous.
You are, of course, also being wildly inconsistent here. You now claim that those were personal attacks you made on OSC. This seems to suggest that you think such things are acceptable in discussions on the board. So now why do you use that as an excuse to end the conversation?
After unsuccessfully "ending" the conversation on the previous page with a mischaracterization of the prior conversation?
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:
quote:"I think that you are an idiot" is more often used to mean "I hold the opinion that you are an idiot" than "a thought is present in my mind that you are an idiot."
Wouldn't the thought that the other guy is an idiot HAVE to be present in his mind in order for him to hold the opinion that the other guy is an idiot? Where is the distinction? What is the difference?
Having that thought in your head is necessary for holding that belief, but not sufficient.
For example, I just thought/imagined the idea that Mother Teresa was really Hitler with sex change. While I did think of if, I never really thought that.
"Thought that", of course, being synonymous with "believed that" in that sentence. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
*pats seat next to her* You can be in my clique, Squicky. Matt likes you.
-----
Well, that didn't get a response. I was wondering about the clique comment, though. It can't be because of identical views - I think Dag and Icky are on opposite sides all the time. I wonder if it's because of the sake forum? Maybe I've missed the secret Hatrack thread. I don't know - I was just wondering where that came from.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)