Re: Authorities


Duly noted. Thanks.

Pete.

TOP POST no more below.

"Rick Smith" <ricksmith@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:11fl41pf0gito51@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
>
> "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:dddh8d$1pnh$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:3lt40aF14658jU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> > One of the reasons Chuck was offended by my original post is because he
>> > believed I was stating matters of opinion as matters of fact. That was
>> fair
>> > enough, but he then went further and decided that there was implicit
>> > contempt in the posts.
>>
>> Just to be clear, I believe that to describe an action as "stupid", based
> on
>> the common understanding of the meaning of the word (as well as the M-W
>> definition) as dim-witted or having characteristics of the actions
> expected
>> of a dim-witted person, carries implications about the person taking
>> those
>> actions. There are a wide variety of other equally-pejorative adjectives
>> one could use that don't carry the pejorative characterization of the
>> *person* taking the action that "stupid" does.
>>
>> M-W Ninth Collegiate lists the synonyms "STUPID, DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB
>> mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. STUPID implies a
>> slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or
>> temporary ... ". *All* these terms have implications directed toward
>> people. If you didn't *mean to communicate* what the term "stupid"
>> communicates, then perhaps another term that more accurately reflected
> your
>> intent might have been more suitable!
>>
>> < None of that was ever intended by me.
>>
>> Yes, I understand that now, and have for a while. What you intended
> wasn't
>> as accurately reflected in what you actually wrote as you might have
> hoped.
>>
>> > I am forced to wonder whether he would have had the same opinion if we
> had
>> been sitting in
>> > a bar discussing it over a beer.
>>
>> Yes, I think I would have, if (as appeared to be the case in the course
>> of
>> the thread) the insistence that there is no possible context in which the
>> described actions could be described as anything but "stupid". And if
>> you
>> think I've been overly sensitive about the use of "stupid" you should
>> have
>> seen how I'd have reacted back when I still was doing stuff like "sitting
> in
>> a bar discussing it over a beer"! I tend to stay out of bars and pubs
> and
>> the like these days. "Over coffee", maybe!
>>
>> > Would my body language and tone of voice have made a difference to his
>> interpretation of my meaning?
>> > I'm inclined to believe it would have. (But, obviously, I can't prove
>> it...)
>>
>> Might well have; I do think I'd have at least responded with something
> like
>> "Stupid is a pretty harsh word, don't you think?"
>>
>> I might even have gone on to amplify it with an example like: What if
> the
>> *reason* a particular person did it that way was that that's the way the
>> application architect told him he wanted it, and that if he didn't do it
>> that way he was going to lose his job, and along with that the medical
>> benefits he was planning on to cover the upcoming birth of his child?
>> I'd
>> contend the behavior of a person who stomped out of the office in a huff
>> Never To Dark On Their Door Again rather than offend his own
>> sensibilities
>> would objectively be considered at least as unreasonable as the behavior
> of
>> a person who did what his employer told him to do! Which one's taking
>> the
>> "stupid" action?
>>
>> > Are we so conditioned by the adversarial approach to argument that we
>> always
>> > expect the worst? Is it always a contest? I honestly don't know.
>>
>> It certainly wasn't my intent here. But as I'm sure you've seen in
> another
>> current thread (about whether unsigned items always have an *explicit*
> sign
>> on all meaningful architectures) I will question a categorical statement
>> when I see that there's a "local" truth, and not a "universal" one,
>> underlying the statement.!
>>
>> > I do know that relying only on rigid definitions is limiting and risky.
>>
>> True enough, but as others have pointed out when I use a word the way *I*
>> define it, rather than the way I have good reason to believe *others
>> understand* the word, it is *I* that am failing to communicate my intent,
>> not my audience that is failing to make the proper assumptions.
>>
>> > Context is much more important than I realised previously.
>>
>> So, I would argue, is ensuring that we don't use terms "idiopathically"
>> (taken in its non-pejorative current dictionary sense, rather than its
>> etymological one), particularly for terms that others might find
> pejorative!
>
> One problem I have seen in Merriam-Webster Online is
> that it sometimes does not carry the same sense of words
> as when I learned them and, therefore, how I understand
> them. The Random House College Dictionary, Revised
> Edition, I use is from 1975 and more closely reflects my
> understanding, when I read a word, and my intent, when
> I use one.
>
> Though the term, 'value judgment', did not occur to me until
> yesterday, I had recognized that, when Mr Dashwood used
> 'stupid', it was an opinion, a 'value judgment', and not an
> 'absolute fact'. Merriam-Webster Online provides a
> 'technical' definition of 'value judgment' but the RHCD met
> my expectations.
>
> <
> http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=value+judgment&x=22
> &y=17 >
> value judgment:: a judgment assigning a value (as good or bad)
> to something
>
> Random House College Dictionary, 1975
> value judgment : an estimate of the worth or goodness of
> something or someone.
>
> Usage for 'stupid' : Stupid implies natural slowness or dullness
> of intellect, or sometimes, a benumbed or dazed state of mind;
> it is also used to mean foolish or silly : well-meaning but stupid;
> rendered stupid by a blow; It is stupid to do such a thing.
>
> Mr Stevens, that '[stupid] is also used to mean foolish or silly',
> as in 'It is stupid to do such a thing', simply reflects usage as
> it was in, perhaps, the late 60's and early 70's. For my part,
> I can think of no way to unlearn the past, it seems contrary
> to the leaning process. Having said that, I do agree that using
> words that more accurately reflect such 'value judgments' is
> a good thing to learn.
>
>
>
>



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Authorities
    ... >> believed I was stating matters of opinion as matters of fact. ... > Just to be clear, I believe that to describe an action as "stupid", based ... > *reason* a particular person did it that way was that that's the way the ... Though the term, 'value judgment', did not occur to me until ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)
  • Re: OT Shocking News From Washington
    ... representatives who are expected, as our public servants, to do our ... Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; ... I think you are misjudging Mr. Bush. ... I do not think he is as stupid as ...
    (rec.music.classical.recordings)
  • Re: Building up to Epic
    ... I recognize that people do do stupid things, but I still find it irritating, especially when done by someone the reader is identifying with. ... My feeling though, is that a dumb choice made in the height of the action is acceptable, esp if the characters recognize it was dumb later. ... in wisdom and judgment, but the loss of judgment seems ... I represent that remark, both the feeling that my character might do stupid things during stressful periods, and and an unfortunate excess of experience with readers who can't accept this. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Building up to Epic
    ... do do stupid things, but I still find it irritating, ... in wisdom and judgment, but the loss of judgment seems ... I never mind a character, even an intelligent character, doing ... Being under pressure will do that. ...
    (rec.arts.sf.composition)
  • Re: Authorities
    ... >> believed I was stating matters of opinion as matters of fact. ... I can see an action as being stupid without making any judgement ... I sometimes find your posts pompous and pedantic (not so much of late - ... > Never To Dark On Their Door Again rather than offend his own sensibilities ...
    (comp.lang.cobol)