| |
In lugnet.loc.au, Dave Schuler writes:
> > > > > > 2. A usage that is wrong on the grounds of grammar and aesthetics.
> > > > >
> > > > > Parts one and three of this argument only hold true if you decide in
> > > > > advance that they're true.
> > > >
> > > > Absolutely, which why it's In My Humble Opinion.
> > >
> > > Fair enough, but you must agree that because of that circular reasoning
> > > the argument won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with it.
> >
> > I am so _not_ going to get in a cultural relativism argument over grammar
> > and aesthetics. I'm a liberal in principle and a conservative in practice
> > (except for anything from the seventies).
>
> Huh? The argument is circular whether viewed from a cultural relativist
> standpoint or not.
Okay. The decision in advance that "a usage is wrong" is subjective (and
legitimately so) from the relativist viewpoint. And you're right, it will
only appeal to people sharing those cultural norms of grammar and aesthetics
(hence the circularity). But within that culture there may be disagreement
on the precise boundaries of its norms, and people from another culture who
subscribe to different rules may alter their own views to be more like that
of the alien perspective. Treacherous swine.
> > Yeah, it's not really a disagreement. I know that some people see LEGO as a
> > singular noun. But to me it seems "wrong". And not just because TLC are
> > stinky IP obsessed whiners. More because it sounds like the kkind of
> > illiterate garble that some one who said "Laura and I really don't realize
> > how bright our children is sometimes until we get an objective analysis."
> > might say.
>
> I understand that you're working on very little sleep, but to proclaim
> someone's lexicon as "illiterate garble" just because it doesn't adhere to
> your aesthetic sensibilities is frankly arrogant. If I don't care for the
> way Australians select certain turns of phrase, is it okay for me to decry
> those turns of phrase as illiterate? And will I seem any more or less
> arrogant for doing so?
> Regardless, you're attempting to shelve the argument through ad hominem,
> and that's not really necessary or appropriate. You've made sound arguments
> based on grammar and trademark issues; no need to resort to insult to convey
> your points.
Sincere apologies to you Dave, and any other Lugnetters offended by what I
said. I try to be accepting of the variety of aesthetic sensibilities out
there, and I should have pointed out my target more clearly. The ad hominem
was directed at George Bush Junior. To my mind his life has been an object
lesson in how the scions of the powerful can achieve almost anything they
want despite a staggering deficiency in almost every human capacity except
smarminess.
> > If Americans voted for Dubya, do they deserve him?
>
> We're undertaking a campaign to ship him to Australia. 8^)
Fair swap for Paul Hogan I suppose...
--DaveL (who's hopefully a bit more coherent now)
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Treacleheads
|
| (...) Huh? The argument is circular whether viewed from a cultural relativist standpoint or not. (...) I understand that you're working on very little sleep, but to proclaim someone's lexicon as "illiterate garble" just because it doesn't adhere to (...) (24 years ago, 8-Nov-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
61 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
