My grumbler moment / proper use of "fair"

[Jaron]

Reading grumblers posts (or should I say nitpicks?) about word usage and vocabulary reminds me of a professor I had last year.

We were having a class debate and someone said that some rule the school she was student teaching at was unfair to the kids.

The professor, this grizzled old man, suddenly sits up and his ears perk up. His nose twitches like a dog that has smelled raw meat in the vicinity.

He immediately enters a rant about how the proper use of the word fair is simply to designate that everyone plays by the same rules. Thus, by his reasoning the school rule was fair because it applied to everyone equally.

He then launches into a second rant about how the proper word to use in that situation is just. Again by his logic, just means the rule is somehow cruel or disadvantageous to the person or contrary to what we would consider the way things ought to be. THUS, he concluded a segregated society akin to what our nation had half a century ago was fair because the segregation laws applied equally to everyone. Some blacks couldnt go into whites only restrooms or eat in white only restaurants, etc. Black was black and white was white. However, it was not just nor virtuous.

He then enters into a THIRD rant about how he is scared that future teachers don't know the different between the two and is tired of people "waxing indignant" at his grammatical corrections of our weekly papers via email.


So my question for you all is:

1) Is he right? Or can fair and just be used interchangeably ? His logic seems sound to me but this was the first time I've ever heard this before and I'm nearly 30 years old.

2) Is grumbler possibly somewhere on the autism scale? Or is he just scarred by a career of having to endure correcting bad grammar, spelling and language and can no longer resist the urge to comment when he sees it. He seems particularly asinine to me about ignoring peoples arguments and instead attacking the construction of said arguments.

[crazy canuck]

You didn't use a semicolon at the end of subparagraph one.

[garbon]

[grumbler]

Reading grumblers posts (or should I say nitpicks?) about word usage and vocabulary reminds me of a professor I had last year.

We were having a class debate and someone said that some rule the school she was student teaching at was unfair to the kids.

The professor, this grizzled old man, suddenly sits up and his ears perk up. His nose twitches like a dog that has smelled raw meat in the vicinity.

He immediately enters a rant about how the proper use of the word fair is simply to designate that everyone plays by the same rules. Thus, by his reasoning the school rule was fair because it applied to everyone equally.

He then launches into a second rant about how the proper word to use in that situation is just. Again by his logic, just means the rule is somehow cruel or disadvantageous to the person or contrary to what we would consider the way things ought to be. THUS, he concluded a segregated society akin to what our nation had half a century ago was fair because the segregation laws applied equally to everyone. Some blacks couldnt go into whites only restrooms or eat in white only restaurants, etc. Black was black and white was white. However, it was not just nor virtuous.

He then enters into a THIRD rant about how he is scared that future teachers don't know the different between the two and is tired of people "waxing indignant" at his grammatical corrections of our weekly papers via email.


So my question for you all is:

1) Is he right? Or can fair and just be used interchangeably ? His logic seems sound to me but this was the first time I've ever heard this before and I'm nearly 30 years old.

2) Is grumbler possibly somewhere on the autism scale? Or is he just scarred by a career of having to endure correcting bad grammar, spelling and language and can no longer resist the urge to comment when he sees it. He seems particularly asinine to me about ignoring peoples arguments and instead attacking the construction of said arguments.

Well-done, J-Dawg!  This almost sounds like it really means something! 

I especially love the surrealistic blending of a pretended serious question with a pretended bleat about me.  In the last bit you sound very much like a poster whose name we wont use (but whose initials are Agelastus) making up reasons why I say what i say.

I'd say this is a nine on the scale of trolldom, and simultaneously a nine on the Onion scale.  We all knew you had it in you.

Well done, indeed. 

[Fate]

I would say yes, grumbler suffers from low level autism.

For example, an individual who shall remain nameless posted: "Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not themselves." The intent of the sentence is clear to a healthy human being who can speak English.

grumbler's response:

 
"Tea baggers are supposed to  throw the tea in the harbor, not throw the tea in themselves," or

"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw themselves in the harbor"?

The first is what is actually written, but the second is the only one that makes much sense.

Such a tortured interpretation of the nameless poster's sentence is highly revealing of grumbler's sad mental condition.

[DisturbedPervert]

I think I'd rather throw the tea in myself.  With a lemon.

[Alcibiades]

He then launches into a second rant about how the proper word to use in that situation is just. Again by his logic, just means the rule is somehow cruel or disadvantageous to the person or contrary to what we would consider the way things ought to be. THUS, he concluded a segregated society akin to what our nation had half a century ago was fair because the segregation laws applied equally to everyone. Some blacks couldnt go into whites only restrooms or eat in white only restaurants, etc. Black was black and white was white. However, it was not just nor virtuous.

Looks like he proved his own fallacy there really.

[grumbler]

I would say yes, grumbler suffers from low level autism.

For example, an individual who shall remain nameless posted: "Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not themselves." The intent of the sentence is clear to a healthy human being who can speak English.

grumbler's response:

 
"Tea baggers are supposed to  throw the tea in the harbor, not throw the tea in themselves," or

"Tea baggers are supposed to throw the tea in the harbor, not throw themselves in the harbor"?

The first is what is actually written, but the second is the only one that makes much sense.

Such a tortured interpretation of the nameless poster's sentence is highly revealing of grumbler's sad mental condition.

See, J-dawg?  You have already drawn the trolls near your flame.  Quick, throw some salt on it's tail, so it cannot fly away!

[The Brain]

I would say yes, grumbler suffers from low level autism.

I seriously doubt this.

[MadImmortalMan]

The professor is right.

[DGuller]

I would say yes, grumbler suffers from low level autism.

I seriously doubt this.

Agreed, I very much doubt that explains it.

[grumbler]

I would say yes, grumbler suffers from low level autism.

I seriously doubt this.

Agreed, I very much doubt that explains it.

Wait for this one to land, J-Dawg.

[dps]

1)  The distinction between the way the student used "fair" and the way the professor insists it should properly be used seems to mirror the distinction in constitutional law between substantive due process and procedural due process.  Whatever the merits of his position on the meaning of the word "fair" (which I would say are considerable) he seriously undermined his own position with his example, because Jim Crow laws didn't apply equally to everyone.   What was "separate but equal" in theory was in practice quite unequal. 

2)  I very much doubt that grumbler is autistic.

[Josquius]

All those kids are playing by the same rules but they're not in a box, there's kids in other schools they're competing against too. So even through that anal use of fair its valid

[Eddie Teach]

Agreed, I very much doubt that explains it.

He just enjoys arguments to an excessive degree.