Think about it like this... I've studied music since I was 6 or 7. I've had musical instruments as long as I can remember, I've taken university level classes on music theory. I can talk fermata and glissandi and harmonic minor scales ... but put me on a stage in front of an audience with my best instrument and you'll quickly see that I'm not a music expert, despite decades and many many hours of practice. It isn't a definition, it's a performance test.
Likewise, no matter how Shelby studied, if he try to start a civil war and couldn't he would not be an expert on civil war. It isn't a definition, it's a performance test.
Karl tried to start a business - tried to be a capitalist. He failed. Therefore he isn't an expert on capitalism. That's not due to my definition, it's due to his demonstrated lack of performance.
No.Because I didn't follow you down your path, accepting your definition of terms, I'm labelled "illogical" and "anti-intellectual". You were actually pretty quick to jump on that high horse.
I pointed out the lack of logic when, as a response to this, "A must B. C did not B. Therefore, C is not A", you characterized that as, "Your argument is that A cannot D." That's a totally illogical leap, and it was yours. I even tried to correct your error in gentler terms before resorting to the direct observation that you aren't being logical. When you cannot see that you are misusing logic, or are not being logical at all, I must assume that you are ignorant of logic.
As for anti-intellectual, I only mentioned that when, rather than respond to the logic or content of my statements, you began attacking my intellectualism in a demeaning way. "You write long posts," "you think you are some kind of genius", etc. The fact that those attacks seemed reasonable to you indicates that you are prejudiced against intellectuals, just as use of racial epithets indicate that the user is prejudiced against other races.
I didn't leap on any horse. I read and responded to your posts.
Last edited by Him; 02-07-2013 at 05:11 PM.
Shrug. I have been trying to be transparent. I don't think truth twists though...a statement is true or not true. A are B, C are A, therefore C are B is true. A are B, C are B, therefore C are A is not true. As for lots of words, yeah, you'd think I'm used to being paid by the word or something. Styles differ.
Griff's cholesterol primer
bloodorchid: paleo and primal are not low carb
Winterbike: What I eat every day is what other people eat to treat themselves.
There are facts (observable), truths (provable), and opinions (like assholes). It doesn't make sense to call something a truth unless it can be proved, any more than to call an opinion fact.
P.s. it's usually "have you stopped beating your wife?" AKA a loaded question. The "stopped" form is preferred because if they say they haven't, it implies they still beat their wife.
Of course it helps if the person you use that on has ever been married.