Generalizations

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
That "annoying train of thought" is called logic.

It's called burying a simplistic point in a mountain of irrelevent semantics. It only annoys thoughs that expected better from someone with the ambitious nom de plume of Logical Realist.

[blackice]

Devilmunchkin too true

[devilmunchkin]

If your friend had any other motive other than trolling (here) or flaming (FFZ) he may have had a warmer welcome.

how is that different from what you are doing???? he's presenting a serious thread .....
the likes of you and dino doc are trolling.

[blackice]

It's called burying a simplistic point in a mountain of irrelevent semantics. It only annoys thoughs that expected better from someone with the ambitious nom de plume of Logical Realist.

Sometimes blind people see more than you do...

[blackice]

how is that different from what you are doing???? he's presenting a serious thread .....
the likes of you and dino doc are trolling.

Control freaks come to mind..anyone else?

[Asher]

Originally posted by devilmunchkin
how is that different from what you are doing???? he's presenting a serious thread .....

And I'm presenting a serious reply.
If he wants anyone to actually look at what he's saying, he's got to add substance to his posts rather than flood them with words, definitions, etc. that make the midnight reads snap off to la-la land.

the likes of you and dino doc are trolling.

If I was trolling I'd talk about his mental condition.

[Logical Realist]

It's not logical to base entire arguments off a single dictionary definition's interpretation of a word to jump to conclusions.

What are you taking in college, btw?

Well dictionary.com is pretty good in regards to dictionaries, fair and up to date. And all dictionaries tend to be pretty uniform on these sorts of things anyways.

I don't have time to find every dictionary. Here I am generalizing on the 'a priori' assumption that all established dictionaries will be pretty similar.

[devilmunchkin]

am i? i'm sorry
hey..blackice....join the debate!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Logical Realist
Well dictionary.com is pretty good in regards to dictionaries, fair and up to date. And all dictionaries tend to be pretty uniform on these sorts of things anyways.

I don't have time to find every dictionary. Here I am generalizing on the 'a priori' assumption that all established dictionaries will be pretty similar.

Maybe you should consider paying several thousand dollars per year for a subscription at www.oed.com

You seem like you may be the only person in the world to actually use it.

blackice: I really enjoy how you're aligning yourself here. You apparently don't even understand what the thread's about, and are positioning yourself just to make personal attacks against the usual suspects (namely me). I know you don't like me. I don't like you. Move on, post something somewhat insightful (maybe in English this time), then move out.

[blackice]

And I'm presenting a serious reply.
If he wants anyone to actually look at what he's saying, he's got to add substance to his posts rather than flood them with words, definitions, etc. that make the midnight reads snap off to la-la land.
If I was trolling I'd talk about his mental condition.

You have I have yet to see it, as for the last part work it man check yourself in because you seem not to have a grasp on the reality of the situation. He is making a valid point. You are simply shooting down his methods. Substance you lack haroing you do...
Back to control freak...

[blackice]

hey..blackice....join the debate!

I'm in these kids think the world is in thier heads... expand boys LIFE IS BIG

[Asher]

Originally posted by blackice

And I'm presenting a serious reply.
If he wants anyone to actually look at what he's saying, he's got to add substance to his posts rather than flood them with words, definitions, etc. that make the midnight reads snap off to la-la land.
If I was trolling I'd talk about his mental condition.

You have I have yet to see it, as for the last part work it man check yourself in because you seem not to have a grasp on the reality of the situation. He is making a valid point. You are simply shooting down his methods. Substance you lack haroing you do...
Back to control freak...

I'm a control freak because I (like 99% of the world) really hate dry, dictionary-semantic type arguments?

Blackice, why don't you do us all a favor and type your replies in Word, run the grammar checker, then post them here. It's bad enough already, the last thing I want to do is figure out what you're trying to say. Could you also summarize what his argument is? I think it'll be really interesting to see what you think his point is.

[Ramo]

Look, you posted an entire thread defining a "generalization." This is extremely boring material, LR. Your post begs the question, "what's the bloody point!?"

[Logical Realist]

It's called burying a simplistic point in a mountain of irrelevent semantics. It only annoys thoughs that expected better from someone with the ambitious nom de plume of Logical Realist.

I don't see what makes my points simplistic or irrelevant. If anything it is you who have posted two liner pseudorefutations that I'd call simplistic. I think the semantics are relevant in that it is important to establish what "generalizations" are, in order to avoid confusion. If we are speaking with two different definitions in mind...we will get nowhere. The steps are simple cases of logical deduction, and generalizations are recognized as valid in most logic texts. It really is one of those most basic of matters in these books.

BTW, for the person who asked: I am studying philosophy and psychology. Or was, not in this semester for reasons I'd rather not discuss now.

[Asher]

The whole idea is simplistic, LR.

You're the type of person that likes the sound of his own voice. You use large words when smaller words are just as valid, you make long winded posts citing many sources clearly defining what you're talking about. People expect it's leading up to something, then you just stop. There's no real point to it, you're basically making an observation based upon definitions on whether generalizations are valid or not.

Which begs the question: What are you on? or... What is the point?