Where is Asher's Mac Attack?

[Asher]

Put down the thesaurus and post a reply.

[Whaleboy]

How about this thread, for starters?

I'm a computer user currently using Windows XP and OSX and have at various points run different distributions of Linux with different desktops, as well as FreeBSD and NetBSD.

One doesn't need to be taking a degree in computer science to comment on the useability of an operating system .

I don't consider university degrees to be at all relevant to deciding who is an intellectual. It's not something taught, as I've said (and something you should have caught on to), so why would it be?

Being an intellectual does not necessite a university degree, that is true, but I think most people would agree that to a great extent, a degree in a humanities subject like philosophy or history would necessitate someone being an intellectual or not. Whether they are a bad intellectual or a good intellectual is an entirely different and somewhat subject question that probably has more to do with whether or not you agree with them, than the hoops they've had to jump to get that degree.

Websters has "intellectual" as meaning:

Main Entry: 1in·tel·lec·tu·al
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Creative use of the intellect is something required in Philosophy and many other subjects, and so automatically those people who are doing so (and a degree or other qualification is useful to verify that fact and establish a standard) should be considered intellectuals should they not?

Especially ones in fields as flimsy as Philosophy

What's flimsy about Philosophy?

[Whaleboy]

simply weird way of finding programs not on the Dock to launch.

For programs that aren't on the Dock, do you not use the same method to launch them? It's like the difference between icons on the desktop, and the "Run" dialogue box.

MacOS X is frustrating to most Windows users, Windows is frustrating to most MacOS X users. I don't get why you are arguing this, this should be common sense to anyone who can exercise critical thinking.

You find using OSX frustrating because its internally inconsistent? I would disagree with that, consider Spotlight... a way to consistently locate your files when doing different tasks.

Not having a start menu would be externally inconsistent, but then that's a mute point as previously discussed since anyone with an ounce of intuition can grasp an intuitive interface.

[Whaleboy]

Put down the thesaurus and post a reply.

It would seem my typing speed isn't quite up to yours as I was busy replying to your previous post.

If you're bumping the thread 3 minutes after your previous thread, that's pretty desperate!

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
I'm a computer user currently using Windows XP and OSX and have at various points run different distributions of Linux with different desktops, as well as FreeBSD and NetBSD.

One doesn't need to be taking a degree in computer science to comment on the useability of an operating system .

No, but it's clear you don't understand some of the basics of the discipline, yet here you are arguing about it. For one, the term is "usability", not "useability".

Being an intellectual does not necessite a university degree, that is true,

Here we have another example of you being a pseudo-intellectucal: you're using a word that isn't required to state something pretty simple. You're making your language overly complicated to try to pass on the idea that you're an intellectual.

but I think most people would agree that to a great extent, a degree in a humanities subject like philosophy or history would necessitate someone being an intellectual or not. Whether they are a bad intellectual or a good intellectual is an entirely different and somewhat subject question that probably has more to do with whether or not you agree with them, than the hoops they've had to jump to get that degree.

Websters has "intellectual" as meaning:

Main Entry: 1in·tel·lec·tu·al
Function: adjective
1 a : of or relating to the intellect or its use b : developed or chiefly guided by the intellect rather than by emotion or experience : RATIONAL c : requiring use of the intellect
2 a : given to study, reflection, and speculation b : engaged in activity requiring the creative use of the intellect

Creative use of the intellect is something required in Philosophy and many other subjects, and so automatically those people who are doing so (and a degree or other qualification is useful to verify that fact and establish a standard) should be considered intellectuals should they not?

Since I consider "intellect" to be a primary requirement for "intellectual", I'm perhaps a bit more discerning than you are. I don't think there are "good intellectuals" and "bad intellectuals" -- it is not a spectrum. There are intellectuals and there are pseudo-intellectuals.

Pseudo-intellectuals are people who perhaps have a good study ethic and memory, so they do well in school. They take courses such as Philosophy and think it makes them an intellectual.

But in the end, when they have repeatedly proven themselves to miss the obvious and generally act like an idiot in debates, I do not think they are intellectuals.

What's flimsy about Philosophy?

In one word: arbitrary.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
For programs that aren't on the Dock, do you not use the same method to launch them? It's like the difference between icons on the desktop, and the "Run" dialogue box.

I was forced to navigate using some large windows through a folder hierarchy. The best example I can think of is "Xcode", which I had to find. I looked under "Applications", and couldn't find it. Turns out, despite Xcode being an Application, it was under "Tools" or something else that didn't make any sense. I had to ask the resident Mac user where it was.

You find using OSX frustrating because its internally inconsistent? I would disagree with that, consider Spotlight... a way to consistently locate your files when doing different tasks.

No, it's externally inconsistent -- it's different than Windows or even Gnome/KDE. I find it frustrating because it's pretty different than what I'm used to, wihch is actually the whole point of the argument.

This is what pseudo-intellectuals frequently do, by the way: they overcomplicate a simple discussion for the sake of having an argument (they'll frequently call it something like "academic discourse" to make it sound even fancier).

The point is simply this: when you're not familiar with an interface, it can be frustrating to use. It's even worse when you are familiar with a different interface for accomplishing the same tasks.

Whether you, individually, have no problems with this isn't the point.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
It would seem my typing speed isn't quite up to yours as I was busy replying to your previous post.

If you're bumping the thread 3 minutes after your previous thread, that's pretty desperate!

I have a short attention span.

[Whaleboy]

No, but it's clear you don't understand some of the basics of the discipline, yet here you are arguing about it. For one, the term is "usability", not "useability".

Ahhh! a computer scientist correcting me on spelling, how thoughtful!

you're using a word that isn't required to state something pretty simple.

Actually it's more economical to type....

"does not necessitate"

vs.

"doesn't mean you have to"

You're making your language overly complicated to try to pass on the idea that you're an intellectual.

If you find my language complicated, then make for the dictionary! I think it's a pretty poor show if you're making judgements about someone's intellect based on their casual typing.

Pseudo-intellectuals are people who perhaps have a good study ethic and memory, so they do well in school. They take courses such as Philosophy and think it makes them an intellectual.

Since "intellectuals" by your logic would presumably also have a good study ethic and memory, your first point is frivilous. Your key argument seems to be pseudo-intellectuals delude themselves into thinking themselves intellectuals, and intellectuals are considered to be so by consensus.

If pseudo-intellect is a delusion and intellect is a judgement, then the two are not mutually exclusive. You would have to then provide evidence for the former as opposed to the latter, and I dont think your childish attempts at being a spelling nazi and your sweeping statements of opiniofact such as "acting like an idiot", quite cut it . Likewise is your pretention that you are an expert on the distinctions between intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, because of course you know all the signs .

In one word: arbitrary.

Ditto art, politics, music, etc.

The point is simply this: when you're not familiar with an interface, it can be frustrating to use. It's even worse when you are familiar with a different interface for accomplishing the same tasks.

You're repeating yourself.

I have a short attention span.

Evidently. Patience to think about things before you open your mouth is a useful skill.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
Since "intellectuals" by your logic would presumably also have a good study ethic and memory, your first point is frivilous. Your key argument seems to be pseudo-intellectuals delude themselves into thinking themselves intellectuals, and intellectuals are considered to be so by consensus.

If pseudo-intellect is a delusion and intellect is a judgement, then the two are not mutually exclusive. You would have to then provide evidence for the former as opposed to the latter, and I dont think your childish attempts at being a spelling nazi and your sweeping statements of opiniofact such as "acting like an idiot", quite cut it . Likewise is your pretention that you are an expert on the distinctions between intellectuals and pseudo-intellectuals, because of course you know all the signs .

[Asher]

Originally posted by Whaleboy
If you find my language complicated, then make for the dictionary! I think it's a pretty poor show if you're making judgements about someone's intellect based on their casual typing.

No, it's part of the definition of pseudo-intellectual. If that's casual typing, I would be rather terrified for you.

Since "intellectuals" by your logic would presumably also have a good study ethic and memory, your first point is frivilous.

This is a perfect example, again. Why would you assume intellectuals have good study ethic and memory? That is not a requirement at all to be an intellectual, IMHO. I don't even see how they follow.

Your key argument seems to be pseudo-intellectuals delude themselves into thinking themselves intellectuals, and intellectuals are considered to be so by consensus.

Again, a perfect example. I've never said anything about consensus electing "intellectuals".

A true intellectual wouldn't be making strawmen with such regularity.

Ditto art, politics, music, etc.

Indeed, those are flimsy disciplines as well. Thanks.

You're repeating yourself.

It's called emphasis for someone who clearly can't comprehend.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I hope you're laughing at him constructing strawmen and then going to town on them repeatedly.

[Asher]

Intellectuals are intelligent people who are capable of discovering things on their own.

Pseudo-intellectuals are people usually with good memory and a strong desire to have everyone believe they are intellectuals. You are truly a textbook example of this, down to your language, consistent strawmen, and bragging about it.

[KrazyHorse]

I have to echo Asher's feelings regarding Whaleboy. I've seen him post a lot of semi-informed bull**** in his day...

[Whaleboy]

No, it's part of the definition of pseudo-intellectual. If that's casual typing, I would be rather terrified for you.

Show me your definition. What purpose is there in a debate of trying to highlight someones style of language? Are you trying to embarrass and discredit me in front of Apolyton because I don't write like you speak?

This is a perfect example, again. Why would you assume intellectuals have good study ethic and memory? That is not a requirement at all to be an intellectual, IMHO. I don't even see how they follow.

How can one learn any discipline, any art or science if you're not prepared to remember what you've learned, and if you're not prepared to put the effort in to perfect your skill?

A good memory and study/work ethic applies to plumbers, lawyers, writers, greengrocers, if they're good at their jobs.

Indeed, those are flimsy disciplines as well. Thanks.

Then it begs a question. What is a flimsy discipline and what is your problem with it?

It's called emphasis for someone who clearly can't comprehend.

Indeed, I can't comprehend it so much I even answered it 15 posts ago!

[Whaleboy]

consistent strawmen, and bragging about it.

?

I have to echo Asher's feelings regarding Whaleboy. I've seen him post a lot of semi-informed bull**** in his day...

Link?