Should there be room for controversial views on PPR

Page 4 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Previous topic | Next topic

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 May 2011, 11:30 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

Yes, you did fail at word pedantry here. You stated that censuring required an official authority ...

I made no such statement!

Nevertheless, I honestly do greatly appreciate your own posts here as I yet pursue the mastery of pedantry!

Honestly.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 May 2011, 11:35 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

Seblantics ...

Ah, now I gotta go look up another word ... :wink:

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

10 May 2011, 11:36 pm

leejosepho wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Yes, you did fail at word pedantry here. You stated that censuring required an official authority ...

I made no such statement!

Nevertheless, I honestly do greatly appreciate your own posts here as I yet pursue the mastery of pedantry!

Honestly.

Then why did you link a wiki article quoting the legal context of the word? You clearly did that to make a point. This evasiveness is ridiculous.

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

10 May 2011, 11:36 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

Seblantics.

... is not a real word...? Do you mean 'semantics?' lol. Not to be a grammar nazi (oops, I failed at Godwin's Law on myself... :lol:

)

_________________
Opportunities multiply as they are seized. -Sun Tzu
Nature creates few men brave, industry and training makes many -Machiavelli
You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 May 2011, 11:38 pm

Vigilans wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Seblantics.

... is not a real word...? Do you mean 'semantics?' lol. Not to be a grammar nazi (oops, I failed at Godwin's Law on myself... :lol:

)

It's probably a mocking term, as in "semantics seblantics!".

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 May 2011, 11:39 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

... you've completely missed the point ...

I have not, and the fact the posting has slowed a bit here over these past few minutes causes me to doubt other people here have missed mine.

Whether or not anyone here might ever present a rebuke at any personal level is irrelevant to me.

Master_Pedant wrote:

... you clearly are over your head.

Nah.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

AceOfSpades
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 11 Feb 2006
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,754
Location: Sean Penn, Cambodia

10 May 2011, 11:45 pm

Master_Pedant wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Seblantics.

... is not a real word...? Do you mean 'semantics?' lol. Not to be a grammar nazi (oops, I failed at Godwin's Law on myself... :lol:

)

It's probably a mocking term, as in "semantics seblantics!".

That's right. I didn't come up with it myself though, it's a Harold and Kumar reference. It's from the interrogation scene where Kumar's father says "I am not Arab, I am Indian!" and then the interrogator is like "Hey, Chief, I'm not here to argue seblantics with you".

Vigilans
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jun 2008
Age: 37
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,181
Location: Montreal

10 May 2011, 11:46 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Vigilans wrote:

AceOfSpades wrote:

Seblantics.

... is not a real word...? Do you mean 'semantics?' lol. Not to be a grammar nazi (oops, I failed at Godwin's Law on myself... :lol:

)

It's probably a mocking term, as in "semantics seblantics!".

doh!

I enjoy purposeful mockery of grammar (I do love Trailer Park Boys) so disregard my earlier query, now I feel like a jerk

Last edited by Vigilans on 10 May 2011, 11:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Master_Pedant
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Mar 2009
Age: 34
Gender: Male
Posts: 4,903

10 May 2011, 11:48 pm

leejosepho wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Yes, you did fail at word pedantry here. You stated that censuring required an official authority ...

I made no such statement!

Nevertheless, I honestly do greatly appreciate your own posts here as I yet pursue the mastery of pedantry!

Honestly.

Okay, you didn't officially say "the word 'censure' by definition entails that the entity doing the rebuking is an authortative body" but you implied it. And by "implied it" I mean your entire post becomes meaningless if interpreted any other way.

leejosepho wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

People should be allowed to censure ...

Quote:

Censure (pronounced /ˈsɛnʃər/) is a process by which a formal reprimand is issued to an individual by an authoritative body.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure

Only moderators can do that here.

Said post entailed "only moderators can censure people". Now, does this make sense if...

It is equal to saying "only moderators are capable of severely criticizing members here" (the second sense of "censure")? If so, your statement is wrong as hell as posters regularly cricitize other posters here quite severely.
It is equal to saying "only moderators are an authoritative body so therefore only moderators can criticize people in the role of an authoritative body". In which case you are using the first definition of "censure" and either deliberately choosing to read by statement uncharitably by refusing to consider it most likely that I was using the second sense of censure or were just plain ignorant that there was a second meaning.

As a matter of fact, dictionary.reference.com gives the "just anybody strongly disapproving" meaning before the "official body strongly disapporving" meaning.

dictionary.reference.com wrote:

cen·sure /ˈsɛnʃər/ Show Spelled
[sen-sher] Show IPA
noun, verb, -sured, -sur·ing.
–noun
1. strong or vehement expression of disapproval: The newspapers were unanimous in their censure of the tax proposal.
2. an official reprimand, as by a legislative body of one of its members.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/censure

If any third parties are wondering why I'm continuing this debate, as the marginal cost exceeded the marginal benefit a long time ago, I will merely say that my rationality is very bounded.

_________________
http://www.voterocky.org/

Last edited by Master_Pedant on 10 May 2011, 11:50 pm, edited 1 time in total.

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

10 May 2011, 11:48 pm

AceOfSpades wrote:

leejosepho wrote:

Master_Pedant wrote:

Yes, you did fail at word pedantry here. You stated that censuring required an official authority ...

I made no such statement!

Nevertheless, I honestly do greatly appreciate your own posts here as I yet pursue the mastery of pedantry!

Honestly.

Then why did you link a wiki article quoting the legal context of the word?

Preceding that moment just a bit, I had just seen MP post a statement about "censure" and "censor" not being the same thing, and for me that was "new information" (I had not previously known). Being somewhat excited about the possibility of learning something, I went and did a search for the word "censure" to learn about its meaning ...

AceOfSpades wrote:

You clearly did that to make a point.

Nope. I had just learned a new word (since I had previously merely assumed "censure" and "censor" were synonymous), and then just like I always try to do anyway, I posted the excerpt as well as the link for a combined reason:

1) So other people would not have to take my word for anything (and go see for themselves);
2) So other people could see I was not trying to just "cherry pick" a given definition.

AceOfSpades wrote:

This evasiveness is ridiculous.

What evasiveness?! :roll:

I only post in complete candor and transparency!

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Bethie
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Jul 2010
Age: 37
Gender: Female
Posts: 2,817
Location: My World, Highview, Louisville, Kentucky, USA, Earth, The Milky Way, Local Group, Local Supercluster

11 May 2011, 12:01 am

Someone said there was a serious(ly delusional) case of theist persecution complex in this thread.

How can I help?

_________________
For there is another kind of violence, slower but just as deadly, destructive as the shot or the bomb in the night. This is the violence of institutions; indifference and inaction and slow decay.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

11 May 2011, 12:07 am

Bethie wrote:

Someone said there was a serious(ly delusional) case of theist persecution complex in this thread.

How can I help?

Do you handle assassinations?

(Just a random comment. Some days I think that this is probably the only thing that could help.)

leejosepho
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Sep 2009
Gender: Male
Posts: 9,011
Location: 200 miles south of Little Rock

11 May 2011, 12:43 am

Master_Pedant wrote:

Okay, you didn't officially say "the word 'censure' by definition entails that the entity doing the rebuking is an authortative body" but you implied it ...

No such thought was even merely in my mind.

Master_Pedant wrote:

... And by "implied it" I mean your entire post becomes meaningless if interpreted any other way.

Then maybe people need to begin becoming more cautious about their personal interpretations.

Master_Pedant wrote:

Said post entailed "only moderators can censure people". Now, does this make sense if...

... the people who have been accustomed to perceiving themselves as any kind of authoritative body here hear it?

Yes, I believe so.

Master_Pedant wrote:

As a matter of fact, dictionary.reference.com gives the "just anybody strongly disapproving" meaning before the "official body strongly disapproving" meaning.

Yes, and even I can/must admit to occasionally doing a bit of "cherry picking" when choosing one dictionary over another ... but that was not done in the matter presently before us here. And overall, I really should return to my former habit of at least first looking inside the old Webster dictionary right here in my machine ...

Quote:

Censure, n. (Webster)

1. The act of blaming or finding fault and condemning as wrong; applicable to the moral conduct, or to the works of men. When applied to persons, it is nearly equivalent to blame, reproof, reprehension, reprimand. It is an expression of disapprobation, which often implies reproof.

2. Judicial sentence; judgment that condemns. An ecclesiastical censure is a sentence of condemnation, or penalty inflicted on a member of a church for mal-conduct, by which he is deprived of the communion of the church, or prohibited from executing the sacerdotal office.

Master_Pedant wrote:

If any third parties are wondering why I'm continuing this debate, as the marginal cost exceeded the marginal benefit a long time ago, I will merely say that my rationality is very bounded.

In all sincerity: I actually respect both AG and you for that.

_________________
I began looking for someone like me when I was five ...
My search ended at 59 ... right here on WrongPlanet.
==================================

Fnord
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 6 May 2008
Gender: Male
Posts: 60,939
Location:

11 May 2011, 11:02 pm

Bethie wrote:

Someone said there was a serious(ly delusional) case of theist persecution complex in this thread. How can I help?

By finding out for yourself if the claim is valid or not.

I'd say 'not'; I am a Theist and I feel no persecution for it at all, even though I can not prove that my faith is valid.

Some folks feel persecuted when asked to provide evidence for their faith - likely because they know that 'faith' is little more than a deeply felt opinion, and nothing more. Some folks would rather claim persecution than admit that there is no real, valid evidence for God.

And there are even folks who take it as a personal attack when someone else claims to be an Atheist - it's as if the mere existance of Atheists specifically targets them.

Oh look ... I've gone and persecuted someone again ... if only I know who it was this time ...

:roll:

Page 4 of 4 [ 62 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4

Jump to:

Should there be room for controversial views on PPR Post Reply New Topic

Should there be room for controversial views on PPR