News:

And we're back!

Main Menu

Pope Benedict XVI 'is to resign'

Started by Martinus, February 11, 2013, 06:03:35 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

dps

Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:29:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 01:27:06 PM

Good grief.

I didn't make a shitstorm out of this, Fahdiz did.

Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.

garbon

Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:24:18 PM
It wasn't a bar to trust. Fahdiz brought that up, that was the misrepresentation. It was a bar to mistrust. An inability to satisfy that condition means mistrust, and ability to satisfy it doesn't result in trust. He turns the conditions I set upside down and then says they are stupid. When I point this out he says he doesn't care and thats not what he was talking about anyways; which is what I was telling him.

I don't see how those are different. A bar to trust means that if a person fails to meet said condition, you can't trust them (and thus mistrust them) - it says nothing about whether or not that means you would trust them if they met the condition.

Or are you saying that there are people you trust even if they don't meet that condition?
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Viking

Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:29:58 PM
Quote from: Barrister on February 12, 2013, 01:27:06 PM

Good grief.

I didn't make a shitstorm out of this, Fahdiz did.

Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.

My command of English is more than sufficient. Fahdiz brought up the bar to trust when I wasn't talking about that. Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

PDH

*sigh*  yet another topic about the Pope derailed by grammar nazis.
I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth.
-Umberto Eco

-------
"I'm pretty sure my level of depression has nothing to do with how much of a fucking asshole you are."

-CdM

fhdz

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 01:50:23 PM
I don't see how those are different.

They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.

And if Viking wants everyone to be completely internally consistent before "trusting" them, then that's his problem rather than mine. It must be a strange planet on which he lives, because it doesn't appear to be the one where the rest of us reside.
and the horse you rode in on

garbon

Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 01:50:23 PM
I don't see how those are different.

They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.

Yeah, I agree with you. That's why I feel like there must be something different he is trying to say.

But otherwise yeah I agree with the part I cropped out.
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

garbon

Quote from: PDH on February 12, 2013, 01:56:21 PM
*sigh*  yet another topic about the Pope derailed by grammar nazis.



But one can still be sexy without (as well as one can still be unsexy even if they meet that condition). :)
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

fhdz

Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.

:D

Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. :D I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.
and the horse you rode in on

garbon

Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:09:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.

:D

Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. :D I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.

It should be considering how long he lived here. :P
"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

fhdz

Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:14:54 PM
If someone doesn't clear a bar to trust, it means that you'll automatically distrust them.  Clearing the bar doesn't automatically mean that you'll trust them.  It's what you and fahdiz both said.  Why are you arguing that point with him?  He's not disagreeing with you there.  His disagreement with you is that he thinks the particular bar you set is silly.  If you want to argue, agrue that it's not silly insead of arguing the semantics of "bar to trust"--which you and he don't disagree on.

Yes.

Viking, everyone else seems to get it. Perhaps the issue isn't all the rest of us.
and the horse you rode in on

Barrister

Quote from: Ralph Waldo Emerson
A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds
Posts here are my own private opinions.  I do not speak for my employer.

Eddie Teach

To sleep, perchance to dream. But in that sleep of death, what dreams may come?

Viking

Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:04:46 PM
Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 01:50:23 PM
I don't see how those are different.

They're semantically different and functionally identical, which is exactly what I was getting at.

And if Viking wants everyone to be completely internally consistent before "trusting" them, then that's his problem rather than mine. It must be a strange planet on which he lives, because it doesn't appear to be the one where the rest of us reside.

Well on my planet there are three categories

- Untrustworthy
- Trustworthyness not yet established
- Trustworthy

BS'ing about your faith puts you in the Untrustworthy category, not BS'ing about your faith doesn't put you in the Trustworthy one.

Does this make it clear to you? This is one of the issues that comes up in every single religion flame war we have here. They are flame wars because I don't think my opponents make any serious attempt (with the exception of JR) to understand me before constructing strawmen and attacking them. The issue is the one of doubt and uncertainty, it exists in my "world" the tentative, the unclear and the unknown are real categories and the fundamental difference between me and the religious is that they put god in those boxes and claim certainty and think that I put not-god in those boxes and claim certainty. That is very specifically not the case for me.

First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.

derspiess

Quote from: dps on February 12, 2013, 01:44:51 PM
Your command of English is normally really good, but I'm just going to put this down to it not being your native language.

Yeah, that's a good way to defuse the situation :P
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Viking

Quote from: garbon on February 12, 2013, 02:11:22 PM
Quote from: fahdiz on February 12, 2013, 02:09:45 PM
Quote from: Viking on February 12, 2013, 01:52:46 PM
Fahdiz' other point about how setting the ability to coherently explain and justify ones belief as a bar to trust being silly is stupifyingly stupid.

:D

Yep, it's stupid to expect that the vast majority of human beings harbor internal inconsistencies and that such things aren't of necessity impediments to trust. :D I wouldn't, by the way, question your quality of English. It's quite good. I've no issue with it.

It should be considering how long he lived here. :P

I count my 3 years in Australia as cancelling out 3 of my years in England, leaving me with 3 English and 5 American years.

Though I sometimes see obvious translation errors creep in, errors in english that happen when I keep grammar and word order from the language I first had the though in. Depending on topic I'll think in English, Icelandic or Norwegian <- note the strange word order? That thought was first thought in Norwegian and the word order is much more natural in Norwegian.
First Maxim - "There are only two amounts, too few and enough."
First Corollary - "You cannot have too many soldiers, only too few supplies."
Second Maxim - "Be willing to exchange a bad idea for a good one."
Second Corollary - "You can only be wrong or agree with me."

A terrorist which starts a slaughter quoting Locke, Burke and Mill has completely missed the point.
The fact remains that the only person or group to applaud the Norway massacre are random Islamists.