- 6,171
- 1,275
Re: Do You Use The "F" Word In Real Life?
Don't answer: Obviously I'm just throwing your own pointless questions back at you. I know what your statement meant. Yes, it's unrigorous, inaccurate, unsupported, and could be pecked at a thousand different ways, but there's no point, really, is there, because I know what you meant to convey. Unfortunately, you're not treating me with the same logical charity.
Why are you bothering to ask these questions? You don't seem to be aware of the pitfalls of informal polls, scientific papers (particularly in a soft science like sociology), or the myopia that might result from immersion. Ask someone why they do a certain thing and you might get an accurate answer, but you might also get obfuscation, rationalization, political correctitude, or "Who gives a F***?" Ask a sociologist, you might get someone whose research you consider beautiful, or you might get someone who hacked an idea together to publish least they perish. No source is automatically reliable. What you're down to is your personal ability to assess whether or not I'm an accurate observer. You'll need some reading comprehension for that. My remarks are coming back to me from you distorted in queer ways.
So, I'm not persuaded I should rethink my assessments in favor of yours. You're offering unappetizing logical fallacies, poor reading comprehension, emotional reasoning, jumped-to conclusions, and self contradictory logic.
Here's an example:
Here's another:
Where did this observation come from? Did you talk to internet users and ask them if they were feeling what it seemed like they were feeling? Did you make your own deduction based on what they told you? Did you get this observation from scientific research? Are you just speculating?...it's also hard to judge somebody else's emotions over the Internet.
Don't answer: Obviously I'm just throwing your own pointless questions back at you. I know what your statement meant. Yes, it's unrigorous, inaccurate, unsupported, and could be pecked at a thousand different ways, but there's no point, really, is there, because I know what you meant to convey. Unfortunately, you're not treating me with the same logical charity.
I don't think so. If I'd said something you already agreed with, you wouldn't stop and peck at it based on not knowing how I came to the conclusion. Your reaction was based on something more potent, not that I know what it was.My reaction was based on the fact that I had no idea where your conclusions came from.
This is all ad hominem logical fallacies. The accuracy of an observation is independent of where or who it came from:Where did your observations come from? Did you talk with blue-collar workers and teenagers, who then told you why they use F***? Did you talk with them, then make your own deduction based on what they did tell you? Did you get your observations from scientific research? Were you just speculating?
If I had, would their self reporting automatically be reliable?Did you talk with blue-collar workers and teenagers, who then told you why they use F***?
If I had, would it automatically be unreliable?Did you talk with them, then make your own deduction based on what they did tell you?
If I had would that automatically make it reliable?Did you get your observations from scientific research?
If I had been, would that automatically make it inaccurate?Were you just speculating?
Why are you bothering to ask these questions? You don't seem to be aware of the pitfalls of informal polls, scientific papers (particularly in a soft science like sociology), or the myopia that might result from immersion. Ask someone why they do a certain thing and you might get an accurate answer, but you might also get obfuscation, rationalization, political correctitude, or "Who gives a F***?" Ask a sociologist, you might get someone whose research you consider beautiful, or you might get someone who hacked an idea together to publish least they perish. No source is automatically reliable. What you're down to is your personal ability to assess whether or not I'm an accurate observer. You'll need some reading comprehension for that. My remarks are coming back to me from you distorted in queer ways.
It would be, yes. However, that isn't what you offered. Instead you started right off declaring my observations must be either a joke, or conclusion-jumping devoid of evidence or reasoning. An utterance on your part high in emotion, low in logic. Yet, despite the rigor you're apparently demanding of me, your objections to what I said are based on 1.) you jumping to completely erroneous conclusions about my history with blue collar workers and teenagers, and, 2.) lo and behold, nothing better than your personal experience with your friends. So, instead of saying, "My observations are different, " you reacted with an unwarranted confidence that mine were inaccurate and yours were spot on. All without the polls and scientific research, etc. you claim would convince you about mine. How can I take you seriously?This is GD, and I don't expect everything to be backed up by published papers. However, if it's only backed by your observations, "My observations are different" would be a perfectly valid counterargument.
So, I'm not persuaded I should rethink my assessments in favor of yours. You're offering unappetizing logical fallacies, poor reading comprehension, emotional reasoning, jumped-to conclusions, and self contradictory logic.
Here's an example:
This demonstrates both poor reading comprehension and a strawman fallacy. I did not say or imply people are doing this. You read my remarks too quickly or sloppily, or did something that amounted to poor reading comprehension, leading to the strawman where you hold up something I didn't say and then correct it.What I'm doubting is your assumption that people are constantly thinking about how the way they speak reflects their inner psyche. In all likelihood, they're simply following the convention set by their peers without thinking too hard about it.
Here's another:
This makes no sense whatever. The rule is: do not use profanity. If kids are "perfectly happy to conform to the rules" they won't use it even when authority is absent. You can't describe someone who breaks the rule as "perfectly happy to conform to the rules" can you? I hope you can see my logic in characterizing use of the word as signaling to others that you're not under the thumb of the man. Second time I've explained it. Those who are under the thumb of the man don't use profanity even when the man is absent. If the profanity comes out as soon as the adults are gone, it's clearly garden variety, low grade, teenage rebelliousness. Unless you all are spilling acid on yourselves and falling off your bikes non-stop.The word is a generic way of expressing frustration/bewilderment, and even teenagers who are perfectly happy to conform to the rules use it in this way.