On-Topic Oh, the comparisons we make!

[bankside]

Oh if we only gave our volunteer moderators that same degree of latitude for their human foibles, palbert, and treated them with the same gentleness, our suspicions of their motives belayed!



(see? More good-natured satire and also a clearer example of what it looks like to mine other threads for disagreements, which I offer as a counterpoint to the innocuous case I posit in post 31.)





(still pretty funny though)

 

[palbert]

Bankside - plainer speech more befits the reader. Disguises are not my forte'. (Imitation accent aigu.)

 

[Centexfarmer]

Thread closed pending review.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Just for the record when it comes to comparisons I'm both a "bad witch," and "good witch" as a Moderator here.

Please proceed with the discussion at hand gentleman.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kuli - I find your self-discussion overly American academic. These are arguments I encountered in American undergraduate courses and in graduate school. What percentage of our membership has that training - assuming their curriculum offered that study. Without post-graduate requirement undergrad Logic was a "C." Then, how many have not had the benefit of any college training.

JUB spans the world and its members may not be "disciplined" as you and I. If they - or we - draw extravagant but odious comparisons we should reflect on the speaker's background as well as his words. Odious comparisons are part of mans' history: "All of Gaul is made of three parts" or "Carthage must be destroyed." Each a rhetorical exaggeration.

I suggest you belay your sternness and join in making JUB less viperish, but continue your instruction in gentler ways.

The things I've pointed out here, I learned in sixth grade. Yes, I had to point them out again when I taught reading comprehension in college, so I'm not surprised they endure somewhat -- what blows me away is that the errors seem to be the norm.

As for "academic"... I don't find trying to actually communicate and get others to do so academic; I call it extremely practical. I suspect that we've had threads where just these errors are so common that the threads go on easily five times as long as needed because people are talking past each other.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr I'm not sure I observe all the grammatical nuances you catalogue in the opening post, in part because in not sure the distinctions are always, or always fully, there.

I think the laws of grammar notwithstanding, the enormity of the comparison can prevail in the reader's mind.

Bankside's Law: Godwin's Law operates independently of any of Fowler's Laws.

BTW, the only Fowler's Law I'm aware of has to do with travel. How does Godwin's fit in?

 

[bankside]

BTW, the only Fowler's Law I'm aware of has to do with travel. How does Godwin's fit in?

I was suggesting that any comparison involving nazis, regardless of grammatical construct chosen, is likely to be perceived rather bluntly and falling within the scope of Godwin's Laws.

The Fowler I'm thinking of made his career being, jarringly, casually pedantic about the English Language:
A Dictionary of Modern English Usage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, notwithstanding whatever Fowler might have said about the particulars and nuances of a given sentence, I was merely pointing out that a Godwinesque framework would prevail.

 

[Kulindahr]

I was suggesting that any comparison involving nazis, regardless of grammatical construct chosen, is likely to be perceived rather bluntly and falling within the scope of Godwin's Laws.

The Fowler I'm thinking of made his career being, jarringly, casually pedantic about the English Language:
A Dictionary of Modern English Usage - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thus, notwithstanding whatever Fowler might have said about the particulars and nuances of a given sentence, I was merely pointing out that a Godwinesque framework would prevail.

In other words, blind bigotry trumps reason?

 

[bankside]

In other words, blind bigotry trumps reason?

An artist appeals to the animal emotion in his painting, and indeed though engineers have analysed every aspect of the Mona Lisa, what would its appeal be if that were all there was?

The author is painting on a canvas of his audience's emotions and propensities for interpretation.

It isn't blind bigotry. It is the reaction of the audience cooperating with the perceived intent of the author, which is "to provoke."

The author has a certain responsibility to know his audience and not rely solely on grammatical tomes to deliver all the justification he may require for his mode of expression.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

(Even in other threads. And I declare in advance that that practise would not constitute "mining other threads;" it is simply citing best practises.)

I thought the prohibition was mining other "forums"

 

[Kulindahr]

An artist appeals to the animal emotion in his painting, and indeed though engineers have analysed every aspect of the Mona Lisa, what would its appeal be if that were all there was?

The author is painting on a canvas of his audience's emotions and propensities for interpretation.

It isn't blind bigotry. It is the reaction of the audience cooperating with the perceived intent of the author, which is "to provoke."

The author has a certain responsibility to know his audience and not rely solely on grammatical tomes to deliver all the justification he may require for his mode of expression.

But blatant and widespread disregard of grammar conveys only that the author is incapable of speaking/writing in the language being abused.

Only those who have mastered how to do it properly have license to do it improperly, because only they who comprehend the rules can actually know what effect the abandonment of one of those rules has.

- - - Updated - - -

I thought it was for the "safe harbor" forums

In what way is a forum like a harbor? in what way is it like a safe one?

 

[bankside]

But blatant and widespread disregard of grammar conveys only that the author is incapable of speaking/writing in the language being abused.

Only those who have mastered how to do it properly have license to do it improperly, because only they who comprehend the rules can actually know what effect the abandonment of one of those rules has.

That would limit public speaking to skilled orators. mastery can be a cyclical thing, with lower stages of skill serving as foundations for the next level.

 

[Zingerific]

Kulindahr wanted me to post a comment I made in another thread here. So here you go:

On the original topic, I'm reminded of figures (on both the left and right) who shout "false equivalence!" at the top of their lungs when confronted by an argument by analogy. First of all, usually an argument is never provided, just an assertion. More importantly for our discussion, what's under attack is not an equivalence at all -- it's an analogy. I agree that a great many people don't know how to handle analogies. They automatically focus on what's different between the two items in the comparison, completely ignoring the point of the argument, which is to highlight their similarities. Of course, it's possible to object to an analogy, but simply saying "they're different!" doesn't do the trick.

 

[chance1]

^ we call that "leading the witness"