English Clarification please.
-
I told you, I'm not allowed to argue unless you've paid!
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
super wrote:
During online chat/discussion If make this statement "You are a moron" = That's a personal attack. but then if I say "Your statement is moronic" = Is this still a personal attack or not?
This question is moronic. (well? ;) )
-
Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
Not necessarily. I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
Still, I prefer to get straight to the point instead of beating around the bush. I don't mind some little offenses when this gets frustration out of the way and leads us to the actual problem. This really works well with the right people, but unfortunately most turn such things into personal wars.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
Still, I prefer to get straight to the point instead of beating around the bush. I don't mind some little offenses when this gets frustration out of the way and leads us to the actual problem. This really works well with the right people, but unfortunately most turn such things into personal wars.
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
Not necessarily. I *could* be arguing in my spare time.
Bad command or file name. Bad, bad command! Sit! Stay! Staaaay... AntiTwitter: @DalekDave is now a follower!
-
During online chat/discussion If make this statement "You are a moron" = That's a personal attack. but then if I say "Your statement is moronic" = Is this still a personal attack or not?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
-
A little more style, please. What happened to whacking a glove into someone's face and saying something like 'You, sir, are a scoundrel and a fool. Choose your weapons!'
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
Ah hah! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing??? Ah HAAAAAAHHH! Gotcha!
... such stuff as dreams are made on
Quote:
"Tellarites do not argue for a reason, they simply argue." - Sarek of Vulcan
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
A little more style, please. What happened to whacking a glove into someone's face and saying something like 'You, sir, are a scoundrel and a fool. Choose your weapons!'
I have lived with several Zen masters - all of them were cats. His last invention was an evil Lasagna. It didn't kill anyone, and it actually tasted pretty good.
-
During online chat/discussion If make this statement "You are a moron" = That's a personal attack. but then if I say "Your statement is moronic" = Is this still a personal attack or not?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
-
During online chat/discussion If make this statement "You are a moron" = That's a personal attack. but then if I say "Your statement is moronic" = Is this still a personal attack or not?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
-
In itself, not necessarily, though it may depend on the wider context under which the statement is made - i.e. what's been said before.
Here's some context:
- Dude purports to be against personal attacks and condemns people who are even mildly abusive (e.g. using the word 'fuck' in a sentence).
- Then dude personally attacks someone else, and then justifies it
Leftist, hypocritical codswallop, in other words. Personal attack here: Re: Intellectual Joker exasperating farrago of distortions[^] Justification in several places, but here's a notable one: Re: Intellectual Joker exasperating farrago of distortions[^] Just read those threads if you would like to see some so called "exasperating farrago". Do so at your own risk. :)
-
with all respect ... I respectfully disagree :) as he is asking very politely about the subject ... this question is not moronic at all ... ;)
Tachyonx wrote:
as he is asking very politely about the subject ...
Basic grammer explains what the subject is.
Tachyonx wrote:
with all respect ... I respectfully disagree :)
Noted and ignored, since there's no argument to be found :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
During online chat/discussion If make this statement "You are a moron" = That's a personal attack. but then if I say "Your statement is moronic" = Is this still a personal attack or not?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
super wrote:
English Clarification please.
This seems an absurd question. Why English? Tell me a language where the second statement is not an insult or a deliberate confrontation.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
-
During online chat/discussion If make this statement "You are a moron" = That's a personal attack. but then if I say "Your statement is moronic" = Is this still a personal attack or not?
cheers,
Super
------------------------------------------ Too much of good is bad,mix some evil in it
First one is accusing the OP of being an actual moron. The second is implying that the OP is acting like a moron via their statement. Both hurt the OP's feelings. OP runs to mommy, crying. "Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry."
-
First one is accusing the OP of being an actual moron. The second is implying that the OP is acting like a moron via their statement. Both hurt the OP's feelings. OP runs to mommy, crying. "Hush now baby, baby, don't you cry."
The discussion is actually about hypocrisy. The point was that the super portrays himself as someone who's truly nicey-nice, and condemns everyone who displayed even the mildest of aggression in an argument. However, he personally attacked someone and then went on a spree to justify it, and basically reduced it to an English/grammar question.
-
super wrote:
English Clarification please.
This seems an absurd question. Why English? Tell me a language where the second statement is not an insult or a deliberate confrontation.
Peter Wasser "The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts." - Bertrand Russell
In the Norwegian Parliament there has been lots of hair-splitting cases whether the President of the Parliament should reprimand a speaker for using unacceptable language or not. Characterizing another member of the Parliament is almost never accepted, while characterizing a statement, which everyone knows who made, as utter nonsense is much more likely to be accepted. Maybe "moronic" is so insulting that it wouldn't be accepted at all in our Parliament. But "nonsense" is certainly acceptable. Besides, there are a few recognized modifiers: You could e.g. say that claiming that schoolbags made of clear plastic improves security is, with all due respect, utter nonsense. The "with all due respect" really is the opposite ... You use it to indicate that you really have no respect, but since you explicitly indicate that you are aware that you are bordering on the respectless but will not cross the line, you may actually do that: Cross the line to the respectless. It is like "I usually have respect for the speaker before me, but this time... well..."
-
Here's some context:
- Dude purports to be against personal attacks and condemns people who are even mildly abusive (e.g. using the word 'fuck' in a sentence).
- Then dude personally attacks someone else, and then justifies it
Leftist, hypocritical codswallop, in other words. Personal attack here: Re: Intellectual Joker exasperating farrago of distortions[^] Justification in several places, but here's a notable one: Re: Intellectual Joker exasperating farrago of distortions[^] Just read those threads if you would like to see some so called "exasperating farrago". Do so at your own risk. :)
While I can see where you're coming from, there is a fundamental difference between characterizing a person and characterizing a concept; one is definitely a personal attack and the other is not. Of course if the sum total of a response is "that's moronic", then likely the respondent hasn't spent much time considering the concept and is reacting from a cultural or political dogma rather than a reasoned position. On the other hand, some things are just stupid. Pretty much anything said by a celebrity, for example.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics." - Benjamin Disraeli
