|
sissymaidlola -> RE: Non-smoking smokers! (5/30/2005 8:06:39 AM)
|
Oh, boy, perverseangelic, you really are a masochist, aren't you? Back for more, eh? <giggles> sissy Has to admit, he did feel a little bad after making that last post against you because you are an intelligent lass and, for the most part, sissy does enjoy your posts here. They are normally thoughtful and constructive. And sissy would have been only too happy to dismiss your last post as a temporary mental aberration on your part and forget all about it. But now this latest piece of piffle has gone and dug you in much further - sissy really wishes you had left well alone! If sissy was too harsh on you last time, then you have surely earned that earlier wrath this time around.
When sissy emphasized in bold red font the text at the end of his last post, it really wasn't his intention to also emphasize the dig at you that was embodied in it (and he apologizes for that) ... it was solely his intent to highlight the satire of his post so that no numpties would subsequently rush to post against it saying (1) how bad serial killing was and that sissy should be ashamed of himself killing all those nice innocent people like that; and (2) that occasional smoking and murder are hardly comparable, and that sissy needs to chill out! As you can see, despite the bold red font, sissy got a response from a class (2) numpty; and sissy is giving dark~angel the benefit of the doubt as to her not being a class (1) numpty! <sissy grinning at dark~angel> So big kudos to you for realizing that the post was actually about language usage and NOT smoking habits NOR a callous justification of murder or serial killing!
quote:
I'm sorry, but I think you're not allowing for the varriance of the english language. There are, and there must be degrees.
There are plenty of wonderfully rich and diverse nuances and variations in the English (BTW please note the capital "E") language, and sissy has made posts on this very board lauding that richness and variety within his favorite language ... unfortunately, NONE of that "variance" (to use your word, if not your spelling if it) applies to the verb "TO BE"! Either you ARE something or you ARE NOT something. End of discussion. There is no frequency rate, level of skill set, nor degree of intensity associated with the verb "TO BE"!
quote:
Some verbs, as I see it used, are used to describe habitual actions. For example. The phrase "I am a swimmer" conontativly means you are one who regularly swims, probably competitivly. I swim once a year. I am not a swimmer. I swim, yes. I do not fit into the category of "swimmer."
The key phrase here WRT what you wrote is, "as I see it used." That's all very well that that is how YOU see it used ... however, YOU DO NOT define the English language for the rest of the billions of English speakers and writers in the world, thank God! If sissy writes, "John is a swimmer," and YOUR perception from that is that John is a competitive swimmer who swims at least 5 hours each day, then YOU have just read a whole lot more detail into what was written based on your own personal biases than can be rationally justified. To make any assumption whatsoever about how frequently John swims, how intensely John swims, the skill with which John swims, or how long it is since John last swam based on those three words as written by sissy is purely a case of YOU reading FAR TOO MUCH into the words that are presented to YOU based on YOUR own biases and expectations. This process is normally referred to as BAD COMPREHENSION and it accounts for 95% of the flame wars that erupt on message boards.
quote:
Many would say that "a swimmer" is a very different thing from "one who swims."
Really ??? And which particular lunatic asylum do these MANY people reside in ???
quote:
The problem is that people aren't always agreed on what it takes to make one fall into a category. What "a swimmer" is depends on who you ask. Ask the swim team at my school, and you'll get a different answer than if you ask my roommate. The same goes for the category of "smoker."
ABSOLUTE BUNKUM!!
If someone swims then they ARE a swimmer, and if someone DOES NOT swim then they ARE NOT a swimmer! End of matter. Now, if someone is a swimmer then what kind of swimmer they are is open to different independent interpretations. One person, according to their own perspective, might think them a frequent swimmer, another person, according to their different perspective, might think them an infrequent swimmer. Similarly, one person might think them a competitive swimmer, another person might instead think they are only a recreational swimmer, and so on. But the relativity applies ONLY to someone that IS a swimmer (everyone agrees on that much, they just differ in their opinion of how much of a swimmer, or what type of a swimmer, or how good of a swimmer, etc.) and it does NOT embrace anybody that IS NOT a swimmer. That is the basic fallacy of your reasoning - or lack of reasoning - here. Just because the term "swimmer" may be subjective, leading to all kinds of variations of interpretation over what type of "swimmer" they really are, does NOT mean that there is any valid confusion over what constitutes a "swimmer" versus a "non-swimmer"! That distinction is totally objective ... if they swim they ARE a "swimmer" and if they don't swim they ARE NOT a "swimmer" ... see how easy this is?
quote:
This thread was about, in my understanding, discussion as to what critera one must fufill to fall into the category of "smoker." Obviously, this isn't something that's agreed upon. However, it -isn't- about a black and white usage of verbs.
The poll was about the relative levels of smoking. That is what there is disagreement over. Not smoking DOES NOT even come into it. It was assumed by Goddess Dusty Gold that most intelligent people can tell the difference between a friggin' "smoker" and a friggin' "non-smoker"! Unfortunately, She didn't allow for your own existence! There are four options in this poll. Please point out to sissy the "I'm not a smoker" option?
quote:
Just as "someone who swims" is different than "a swimmer" in connotative meaning "someone who smokes" is different than "a smoker."
Really ??? And which particular lunatic asylum do YOU reside in ???
quote:
As I see it, someone who smokes a cigarette a month is someone who smokes, not a smoker.
And someone that kills another person every month is just someone that kills, they are not a killer! [sm=lol.gif]LMAO
quote:
Most assuredly, I smoke. I do -not- fall into the category of "smoker" because as I see it, one of the criteria of "smoker" is regular, frequent use of cigarettes.
There is nothing in the definition of the word "smoker" that implies regularity of smoking nor frequency of smoking ... that, my dear, is ALL IN YOUR HEAD. Stop using your own personal bias to read more into words than is actually there. A "smoker" smokes as opposed to not smoking. That's it! Period. Show sissy a definition of the word "smoker" where specific frequency and regularity of smoking are quantified as part of that definition.
quote:
You're defining the category of smoker as "someone who has, at any time, smoked a cigarette."
First of all, sissy is NOT defining anything here. He is using standard dictionary definitions of the word. Here is just one of them:
smoker noun
1. One who smokes tobacco.
2. A device, such as a stove, that emits smoke.
3. A smoking car.
4. An informal social gathering for men.
sissy Is using definition 1. for the purposes of this discussion. You are the one who is making all the crap up here by claiming that quantified frequency and regularity of smoking are both part of that definition of the word "smoker." Now you have the audacity to say that sissy is including a time element in the definition that he is using. Stop imposing your own biased preconceptions on lola. Please show sissy exactly where he has stated that a "smoker" is "someone who has, at any time, smoked a cigarette."
quote:
Fine, but again, language is -not- as black and white as you're trying to make it. Simply because it's used by such a variety of people, there are shades of meaning and connotative interpretations of words.
Language does indeed have plenty of shades of meaning, and if you actually read AND COMPREHENDED sissy's posts before responding to them, you will have seen him say the following:
quote:
Because "smoking" is a relative term that varies with different individuals, any qualification of the term is really a waste of time. Whether You tell sissy that You are a light, medium or heavy smoker the onus is still on sissy to determine exactly what that means ... one person's "heavy smoking" is someone else's "light smoking" etc.
You will have also have seen him predict your own arrival on this thread:
quote:
In answer to Your poll question, ANY amount of smoking makes You a smoker, Ma'am - as You are finding from most people's posted responses on this thread. It appears to be a peculiar belief of some smokers that low amounts of smoking allows themselves to be called non-smokers! [:D]
quote:
Language, in this kind of use, -can't- be black and white.
WRT the distinction between a "smoker" and a "non-smoker" language is ABSOLUTELY BLACK AND WHITE. It is only WRT the meaning of the term "smoker" that the shades of gray come in.
quote:
Yup. "smoker" means "someone who smokes." Cool. The cultural category of "a smoker" is up for debate.
Finally, we get to agree on something! Just a minute, you said above ...
quote:
Just as "someone who swims" is different than "a swimmer" in connotative meaning "someone who smokes" is different than "a smoker."
Now you are saying: "smoker" means "someone who smokes." Well, make up your mind, perverseangelic, which is it? Shall sissy toss a coin here? See what happens when you spend all your time hanging out with doofuses like EmeraldSlave2 and dark~angel ? OK, OK, Lordandmaster, what is the correct plural of "doofus" ? ... doofii? ... doofes? ... dooferides?
quote:
I think you're missunderstanding how the English language -does- work.
I beg your pardon? What's the deal with your condescension and patronization? You are only 22 years old. You have been using language barely 20 years ... and at an adult level of speaking, barely 4 years. sissy is pushing 50. That means he's been using the English language nearly two and half times as long as you, and at an adult level of speaking, almost eight times as long as you! Could it just possibly be that it is you that is the one that is "missunderstanding (sic) how the English language -does- work" here?
quote:
You're insisting that words only have one meaning and one type of usage and that those meanings don't change depending on the context in which the word is used.
No I'm not. You are imposing your own preconceived ideas on sissy again! Stop doing that!
quote:
I am -not- asserting that words have no meaning. Not by a long shot. I'm simply saying that words, in addition to what the dictionary says, -also- cause individuals to think other things. They have shades of meaning on top of and in addition to the literal definition. These words that also describe categories are like that.
sissy Has news for you, perverseangelic, and you are not going to like to hear this, but words don't have any ANY meaning outside of the dictionaries. Language is a social construct, which means that we all contribute a little bit to its overall evolution. But the job of the lexicographers and dictionary compilers is to capture at the backend where the language has evolved to at any given point in time. The English dictionaries capture the consensus of the meanings of all words in the English language. The only problem with this process is that there is a time lag between when a new word or term enters the language (e.g., web browser) and when it finally gets added to the dictionaries, or how soon the dictionaries capture the fact that the meaning of a word has now morphed due to popular misusage. sissy Is not exactly sure how long that time lag is ... it's probably somewhere in the order of about ten years. But we are not discussing any words that fall into that envelope of new assimilation here. The verb "TO BE" is one of the oldest verbs in the entire English language!
The "shades of meaning that are on top of and in addition to the literal definition" are ALL in YOUR MIND. You need to clear your mind of preconceived ideas when reading, and when you come across a word that you don't understand, look it up in one of those pesky dictionaries that you despise so much, rather than just guessing at its real meaning or assigning your own meaning to it. That way you will learn what words actually mean (rather than you imposing your own meanings on them) and this will improve your overall reading and listening comprehension.
quote:
(Obivously, this isn't the case with all verbs, as you demonstrated with your "kill" example, but it -is- true for those that have different meanings as a category than as a simple verb.)
The only difference in how the verb "kill" works versus the how verb "smoke" works is purely in your own head!
quote:
Incedentally, no denial. I smoke. I enjoy it a great deal. I know myself well enough to know that to totally deny myself something I enjoy would do more harm than good in the long run because my self control isn't perfect. I'd rather indulge and do limited harm than try to tell myself I can't at all and eventually break down and do a lot more harm. Yes, I'm admiting to a lack of self control. I'm self-aware enough to know that that's one area I really suck in.
No, sissy no longer believes you are in denial over your smoking. Many smokers that claim that they are not smokers are indeed in denial. But this is not the case here. This is all a linguistic difference of opinion as all of the foregoing shows. Furthermore, sissy feels you are being far too hard on yourself WRT describing yourself as having lack of self-control ... at least, regarding your smoking. You seem to have it under fine control to the point where you can indulge the pleasure that you enjoy a great deal while at the same time not becoming a slave to nicotine addiction. That is actually being much more in control than totally denying yourself the pleasure on the basis that any kind of indulging will ultimately lead to uncontrollable addiction.
Once again, sissy apologizes for the bold red font insult at the end of his prior post and he would happily go in and modify it, but unfortunately it has already been quoted by M., so that would appear as if sissy was trying to deny that he had posted it in the first place, so now that is no longer an option here. The comment wasn't really aimed at you and you alone, but also everyone else on these boards that have recently demonstrated that they hold the false notion that they have the right (and the knowledge) to redefine the English language for their own purposes. That is an arrogance ... and it is usually always the people with a proven poor grasp and understanding of the intricacies of English (via their body of prior posts) that feel they have the right to try and redefine it for the rest of us. Take care, hon.
sissy maid lola
[image]local://upfiles/21203/7550AAD373274EA8911F0BC3852D002C.jpg[/image]
|
|
|
|
