How do you know this, for a fact? The planet Earth could remain "lucky" for the rest of the life of the solar system.
Remain lucky? You've got to be kidding. The Earth has never been lucky. Giant space rocks have been hitting the Earth on a regular basis since it came into existence. What makes you think that will somehow magically change? Have we run out of asteroids already? The chance that the Earth will never again be hit by a large extraterrestrial body is so infinitesimal, that for all practical purposes it is zero.
So yes, it is inevitable that another giant space rock is going to fall out of the sky at some point.
Knowing of the risk of an asteroid impact during the 1600s, would you ask that they devote considerable resources to prevention?
What do you mean by "considerable"? Would 1% of one year's worth of the world's economic output in the 1600s be "considerable" in your mind? Does 1% meet your definition of "massive amounts of resources"?
Today, Gross World Product is currently around 75 trillion dollars per year. Let's say the cost to build and test an asteroid defense system is two billion dollars over ten years, or two hundred million dollars per year. Two hundred million dollars is what, 0.0002857% of yearly GWP? Have I got that right? Someone better check my math on that.
Assuming my math is correct, do you really think 0.0002857% of the world's economy for ten years would be so damaging that it would cause hardship for...well, anyone?
Just because someone is in a military role that doesn't expose them to enemy fire doesn't make that person a coward. By your definition, every military force on earth has a large proportion of cowards in their service.
Humanity would live through a similar impact today.
Ah, an optimist. Nothing wrong with hoping for the best, but it's foolish not to plan for the worst.
The survival of humanity is not the same as the survival of human civilization. Doing nothing may not cause human extinction, but it will certainly expose our civilization to great risk. And in this case, being prepared for the worst is a relatively low cost proposition when compared to the cost of re-building civilization from scratch.
That's the difference between a rational fear and an irrational fear.
what reasonable precautions are we taking?
Scanning the sky. But not building large-enough rockets.
What makes you think that our current rockets aren't big enough, and what makes you think we're not currently building bigger ones?
In any event, you seem to think we're currently taking at least *one* reasonable precaution (scanning the sky). How many more precautions do we have to take before you'll no longer consider asteroid strikes to be "Yet Another Irrational Fear"? When we reach your magic number, would you then consider it appropriate to devote public money to the effort?
Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.
I do try to avoid politically charged discussions, although I am sucked into them every once in a while. : )
and it is my position that the paper how many ever phases it has... is bullshit.
I certainly won't disagree with you on that point.
""I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [iop.org] ""
quote from you. You're arguing his paper is not full of shit.
Sigh.
First, I was simply providing an example in support of Namarrgon's admonition to review source documents rather than strictly relying on popular media sources.
Second, I used the Cook abstract because it contained a citation YOU ASKED FOR.
Third, how anyone can claim with a straight face that this sentence: "I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:" represents an endorsement of the paper's conclusions is beyond me.
Perhaps your little break from this discussion wasn't long enough, because you're still not thinking very clearly.
Is this supposed to be a reply to my post? I'm not defending any paper, I've not called anyone a "denier", and I don't care about someone's paper that wasn't accepted.
What I am doing is calling into question the claims of the author of the Forbes piece you cited.
I'm also challenging your apparent contempt for peer review. If there's a better way to get good science, you haven't identified it.
I'm also calling you out on your insinuation that scientific misconduct/fraud/sloppiness/whatever is rampant in climate science.
Finally, I'm supporting poster Namarrgon's advise on citing source documents whenever possible - instead of citing sources that have such a low signal to noise ratio, it's difficult to get to the underlying science.
What your incoherent ramblings above have to do with anything I've said is beyond me. Maybe you should take a break for a while.
I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
The forbes article said nothing about it and neither did your subsequent citations.
Thereby demonstrating the folly of relying on opinion pieces written by lawyers masquerading as scientists to support your arguments.
Cite your source please.
See above.
Absent this information your argument boils down to ad hominem.
It comes as no surprise that you don't know what constitutes an ad hominem attack.
You either didn't read the Forbes article you linked to, or you didn't comprehend it.
The article's author, James Taylor, claims that the survey conducted by the paper's researchers didn't ask the right question:
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.
Taylor does also claim that the papers composing the data of phase I of the study were misclassified - but he relies solely on the analysis of "investigative journalists" at the crank site Popular Technology to support his position. Further, both Taylor and Popular Technology conveniently ignore the fact that phase II of the study had the authors of the papers self-classify.
Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:
snip
NOBODY said the peer review process is perfect. But as GP correctly states, it's the best we've got. You seem to think that just because some academic fraud exists, that it's therefore having a substantial impact on climate science. That's a pretty extraordinary claim...got anything to back it up?
As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.
That's not what GP was saying. Jesus. Namarrgon is saying that before YOU or some other guy on the internet starts pontificating about this or that scientific research, YOU should at least read the abstract of said research. But since you're happy to rely on opinion pieces and pop science articles that are chock full of hyperbole and distortion, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Namarrgon's wise advice is falling on deaf ears. At least in your case.
And that is frequently what is going on.
According to who? You? On what credible data do you base that extraordinary claim? Another James Taylor opinion piece in Forbes?
No one should have been bailed out - including the homeowners.
That's debatable. In any case, the fact remains that the big banks WERE bailed out, and everyday homeowners were left hung out to dry.
PopeRatzo's observation that banks/homeowners could have been bailed out together for the same amount (or less) than bailing out the banks alone has merit.
Bailing out homeowners rewards those who bought when they shouldn't and does nothing but build resentment for those of us that rented until we could afford to buy.
Your resentments aside, you seem to absolve the banks of their responsibility in the mortgage fiasco and lay the blame on those that took out loans they couldn't afford. Thing is, it used to be that no matter how stupid the lendee was, a bank loan officer would deny a loan if there wasn't convincing evidence that the lendee could meet the obligations of the loan. For some reason, banks didn't do that anymore. Why do you think that happened?
Actually my criticism included that specific cliche, and my later examples referred to that specific cliche, and demonstrating a kernel of truth in that specific cliche refutes the assertion that the cliche is stupid.
None of the above was in a reply to nadaou, it was in reply to me. You do realize that I'm not the one labeling the cliche as "stupid", don't you? If you had actually challenged nadaou on his use of the word "stupid" at the time he used it, then your excuse above might have some validity. But you didn't, so it doesn't.
So we can go with dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, or some guy's literary device website.
Ironically, "beating a dead horse" is also an example of figurative language. However, your continued waste of words on an already settled matter indicates you may not understand the idiom's meaning. Kinda like the Forest/Trees thing.
He was implying cliches shouldn't be used because they are inherently stupid.
You're seeing things that aren't there. nadaou was quite clearly referring to the AC's use of a specific cliche, not cliches in general. Further, if one takes the word stupid to mean unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, obtuse, or doltish, AC's post certainly qualifies.
In any event, refuting the claim "using cliches is stupid" isn't the same thing as rufuting "using cliches weakens an argument" or "cliches contain no truth". Those are the positions you've been prattling on about, and the word "stupid" is nowhere to be found in your original post or in any of your subsequent posts - until now.
an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.
I never said one definition is superior to another, I merely pointed out that *some* definitions indicate that the use of cliches could be meaningless and therefore detrimental to a coherent argument.
But since I've already acknowledged your position that cliches contain an element of truth, I'm not sure why you've dug up a dead horse in order to beat it some more.
No, not at all. The reason you are in the trees is that you are failing to distinguish between defending the original AC and rejecting the notion that use of a cliche implies falsehood. Those are different things.
...which isn't the meaning of the idiom, yet you keep using it. But perhaps I'm mistaking your ignorance for malice. After all, your response to my post equated my simple question with creationist idiocy.
The relevant one would actually be my original response where I did *not* include that first sentence, only the second. Can you imagine the reason?
When I look at your original response, what I see is you refuting an argument that nadaou didn't make. Nowhere in nadaou's post does he claim that cliches weaken an argument or that cliches don't contain a nugget of truth. The only reason I could imagine why you decided to insert the issue into the discussion was that you were somehow trying to defend AC's rather pathetic post. Obviously I mistook your attempt to educate us all about the nature of cliches for something else.
Actually, no. The "love it or leave it" meme was employed by a much older demographic historically.
I was using "obstinate adolescents" figuratively - i.e., as a proxy for "weak minded". Sorry you failed to recognize that.
Again, you have deluded yourself. I was only interested in the later of the two sentences and your apparent reaction to suggest a cliche lacks a kernel of truth. Trees.
Yeah, and I recognized your point about cliches/truth in my previous post, so there's no need for you to continue to be argumentative about it. But like I said above, the reason you decided to go off-topic and preach to everyone about the nature of cliches remains unclear.
BTW, you should probably stop with the "forest for the trees" idiom. You're applying it erroneously. You're stating (correctly) that I was asserting that you were making an argument that you weren't, and that I claimed there was no kernal of truth in some cliches. As you note, those are two different things, but this is clearly not a case of me focusing on details at the expense of the bigger picture.
No, I expect that it would be more accurate to say that cliches lose their impact from overuse.
Re-wording a definition to better fit your position doesn't really convince me of anything. But hey, I've obviously been mistaken about a lot of things, so maybe I'm wrong about this as well.
What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not.
I tend to agree, but if you look at the post in question
"You're goddamn right we are the good guys. If you love China so much, then go live there."
...there's no argument there to devalue. There's an unsupported claim followed by a cliche. That's it.
Generally, using tired language doesn't weaken an argument. In this specific case however, the AC made a two sentence post with the last sentence composed entirely of a cliche typically employed by obstinate adolescents. There's no argument made, there's nothing that amounts to "figurative language", and there's nothing even remotely close to "truth".
But by all means, continue to imbibe AC's two sentence post with a much depth of thought and "truth" as you like.
ps - you should take note that many definitions of "cliche" describe them as phrases that are overused to the point of losing their original meaning. Seems to me that using meaningless phraseology could weaken an argument after all.
Your statement is on the same intellectual level of creationists who take the biblical genesis to mean the world is 6,000 years old. The cliche, like the biblical story, is to be taken as figurative language not a literal truth.
Well I guess you are inclined to credit AC with the use of "figurative language". I'm inclined to judge his post as having no intellectual merit whatsoever, and it appears as though I'm not the only one with that opinion.
BTW, your "creationist" troll was a little clumsy.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
LOL, How is there any truth to the statement "If you love China so much, then go live there"? Such a statement is on the same intellectual level as "if you love China so much, why don't you marry it?" No truth there either.
I firmly believe if we didn't have hollywood, journalists, and a long tradition of marketing and advertising goons, you'd see the same sort of oppressive state apparatus as you do in China and Russia.
At the rate we're going, it won't be long before our state apparatus is indistinguishable from the others.
Or the government could not do that and allow the situation to continue. There's no law of physics that guarantees that government will act as above.
mmm...you're the one claiming that "[it] requires extraordinary intervention, such as killing you." in order for the government to get people to modify their behavior. I gave you an example of how the government can change people's behavior with simple financial disincentives.
The ubiquity and effectiveness of this government mechanism is beyond debate, isn't it? Are you really still claiming that government has to take drastic measures to change people's behavior? Or do you think that the use of fines qualify as extraordinary intervention? Either way sounds like BS to me.
And even in that situation, they haven't precluded the tragedy of the commons.
You must be confusing me with with the other poster. I couldn't care less about the tragedy of the commons.
And surprise, the father's account in TFA corresponds to your Far Side cartoon precisely - perhaps even more precisely than the splatter to the logarithmic spiral.
As punishment for my daughter's carelessness, I told her that she had to help me input data from the photograph. She claimed that this punishment was "cruel and unusual," but she did it anyway.
Slashdot Mirror
How do you know this, for a fact? The planet Earth could remain "lucky" for the rest of the life of the solar system.
Remain lucky? You've got to be kidding. The Earth has never been lucky. Giant space rocks have been hitting the Earth on a regular basis since it came into existence. What makes you think that will somehow magically change? Have we run out of asteroids already? The chance that the Earth will never again be hit by a large extraterrestrial body is so infinitesimal, that for all practical purposes it is zero.
So yes, it is inevitable that another giant space rock is going to fall out of the sky at some point.
Knowing of the risk of an asteroid impact during the 1600s, would you ask that they devote considerable resources to prevention?
What do you mean by "considerable"? Would 1% of one year's worth of the world's economic output in the 1600s be "considerable" in your mind? Does 1% meet your definition of "massive amounts of resources"?
Today, Gross World Product is currently around 75 trillion dollars per year. Let's say the cost to build and test an asteroid defense system is two billion dollars over ten years, or two hundred million dollars per year. Two hundred million dollars is what, 0.0002857% of yearly GWP? Have I got that right? Someone better check my math on that.
Assuming my math is correct, do you really think 0.0002857% of the world's economy for ten years would be so damaging that it would cause hardship for...well, anyone?
I can't think of a greater coward in military service than a drone pilot. Except maybe an ICBM crew.
You have a strange definition of coward".
Just because someone is in a military role that doesn't expose them to enemy fire doesn't make that person a coward. By your definition, every military force on earth has a large proportion of cowards in their service.
Humanity would live through a similar impact today.
Ah, an optimist. Nothing wrong with hoping for the best, but it's foolish not to plan for the worst.
The survival of humanity is not the same as the survival of human civilization. Doing nothing may not cause human extinction, but it will certainly expose our civilization to great risk. And in this case, being prepared for the worst is a relatively low cost proposition when compared to the cost of re-building civilization from scratch.
I just take reasonable precautions.
That's the difference between a rational fear and an irrational fear.
what reasonable precautions are we taking?
Scanning the sky. But not building large-enough rockets.
What makes you think that our current rockets aren't big enough, and what makes you think we're not currently building bigger ones?
In any event, you seem to think we're currently taking at least *one* reasonable precaution (scanning the sky). How many more precautions do we have to take before you'll no longer consider asteroid strikes to be "Yet Another Irrational Fear"? When we reach your magic number, would you then consider it appropriate to devote public money to the effort?
Very well... keep in mind that I'm arguing with like 20 people in this thread and you're apparently literally the only one that hasn't taken a side one way or the other.
I do try to avoid politically charged discussions, although I am sucked into them every once in a while. : )
and it is my position that the paper how many ever phases it has... is bullshit.
I certainly won't disagree with you on that point.
Cheers!
""I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract: [iop.org] ""
quote from you. You're arguing his paper is not full of shit.
Sigh.
First, I was simply providing an example in support of Namarrgon's admonition to review source documents rather than strictly relying on popular media sources.
Second, I used the Cook abstract because it contained a citation YOU ASKED FOR.
Third, how anyone can claim with a straight face that this sentence: "I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:" represents an endorsement of the paper's conclusions is beyond me.
Perhaps your little break from this discussion wasn't long enough, because you're still not thinking very clearly.
you're defending cook's paper
LOL, please quote what I said in support of Cook's paper.
so...yes.
so...yes..you're taking a break? That's probably a good idea.
Your paper is bullshit.
Is this supposed to be a reply to my post? I'm not defending any paper, I've not called anyone a "denier", and I don't care about someone's paper that wasn't accepted.
What I am doing is calling into question the claims of the author of the Forbes piece you cited.
I'm also challenging your apparent contempt for peer review. If there's a better way to get good science, you haven't identified it.
I'm also calling you out on your insinuation that scientific misconduct/fraud/sloppiness/whatever is rampant in climate science.
Finally, I'm supporting poster Namarrgon's advise on citing source documents whenever possible - instead of citing sources that have such a low signal to noise ratio, it's difficult to get to the underlying science.
What your incoherent ramblings above have to do with anything I've said is beyond me. Maybe you should take a break for a while.
You cited no link to this phase 1 versus phase 2.
I'm so very glad you pointed this out, because it perfectly illustrates why you should be reading, at a minimum, the paper's abstract:
"We analyze the evolution of the scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming (AGW) in the peer-reviewed scientific literature, examining 11944 climate abstracts from 1991–2011 matching the topics 'global climate change' or 'global warming'. We find that 66.4% of abstracts expressed no position on AGW, 32.6% endorsed AGW, 0.7% rejected AGW and 0.3% were uncertain about the cause of global warming. Among abstracts expressing a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the consensus position that humans are causing global warming. In a second phase of this study, we invited authors to rate their own papers. Compared to abstract ratings, a smaller percentage of self-rated papers expressed no position on AGW (35.5%). Among self-rated papers expressing a position on AGW, 97.2% endorsed the consensus. For both abstract ratings and authors' self-ratings, the percentage of endorsements among papers expressing a position on AGW marginally increased over time. Our analysis indicates that the number of papers rejecting the consensus on AGW is a vanishingly small proportion of the published research."
The forbes article said nothing about it and neither did your subsequent citations.
Thereby demonstrating the folly of relying on opinion pieces written by lawyers masquerading as scientists to support your arguments.
Cite your source please.
See above.
Absent this information your argument boils down to ad hominem.
It comes as no surprise that you don't know what constitutes an ad hominem attack.
And yet it happened:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/ja...
You either didn't read the Forbes article you linked to, or you didn't comprehend it.
The article's author, James Taylor, claims that the survey conducted by the paper's researchers didn't ask the right question:
As is the case with other ‘surveys’ alleging an overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, the question surveyed had absolutely nothing to do with the issues of contention between global warming alarmists and global warming skeptics.
Taylor does also claim that the papers composing the data of phase I of the study were misclassified - but he relies solely on the analysis of "investigative journalists" at the crank site Popular Technology to support his position. Further, both Taylor and Popular Technology conveniently ignore the fact that phase II of the study had the authors of the papers self-classify.
As an aside, pointing to an opinion piece on Forbes written by James Taylor, a lawyer at the Heartland Institute, hardly lends weight to ANY argument. Mr. Taylor claims to be a "scientist by training" because "I successfully completed Ivy League atmospheric science courses". His employer, Heartland Institute, has likened climate scientists to Unabomber Ted Kaczynski, murderer Charles Manson and Cuban dictator Fidel Castro.
Also this notion that peer review catches all frauds is laughable:
snip
NOBODY said the peer review process is perfect. But as GP correctly states, it's the best we've got. You seem to think that just because some academic fraud exists, that it's therefore having a substantial impact on climate science. That's a pretty extraordinary claim...got anything to back it up?
As to your point about reading the abstracts. That's not enough. You need to actually have the study itself vetted. And peer review does not do that.
That's not what GP was saying. Jesus. Namarrgon is saying that before YOU or some other guy on the internet starts pontificating about this or that scientific research, YOU should at least read the abstract of said research. But since you're happy to rely on opinion pieces and pop science articles that are chock full of hyperbole and distortion, I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that Namarrgon's wise advice is falling on deaf ears. At least in your case.
And that is frequently what is going on.
According to who? You? On what credible data do you base that extraordinary claim? Another James Taylor opinion piece in Forbes?
No one should have been bailed out - including the homeowners.
That's debatable. In any case, the fact remains that the big banks WERE bailed out, and everyday homeowners were left hung out to dry.
PopeRatzo's observation that banks/homeowners could have been bailed out together for the same amount (or less) than bailing out the banks alone has merit.
Bailing out homeowners rewards those who bought when they shouldn't and does nothing but build resentment for those of us that rented until we could afford to buy.
Your resentments aside, you seem to absolve the banks of their responsibility in the mortgage fiasco and lay the blame on those that took out loans they couldn't afford. Thing is, it used to be that no matter how stupid the lendee was, a bank loan officer would deny a loan if there wasn't convincing evidence that the lendee could meet the obligations of the loan. For some reason, banks didn't do that anymore. Why do you think that happened?
Damn. I have no mod points and you're already at a well deserved +5. Great post.
Oh..."Rant" with a capital "R". Got it! ;-)
Typical Anti Ayn Rand rant.
So a two sentence post (with one of the two using only one word) qualifies as a rant? Nice.
Actually my criticism included that specific cliche, and my later examples referred to that specific cliche, and demonstrating a kernel of truth in that specific cliche refutes the assertion that the cliche is stupid.
None of the above was in a reply to nadaou, it was in reply to me. You do realize that I'm not the one labeling the cliche as "stupid", don't you? If you had actually challenged nadaou on his use of the word "stupid" at the time he used it, then your excuse above might have some validity. But you didn't, so it doesn't.
So we can go with dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, after dictionary, or some guy's literary device website.
Ironically, "beating a dead horse" is also an example of figurative language. However, your continued waste of words on an already settled matter indicates you may not understand the idiom's meaning. Kinda like the Forest/Trees thing.
He was implying cliches shouldn't be used because they are inherently stupid.
You're seeing things that aren't there. nadaou was quite clearly referring to the AC's use of a specific cliche, not cliches in general. Further, if one takes the word stupid to mean unintelligent, ignorant, dense, foolish, dull-witted, slow, simpleminded, vacuous, vapid, idiotic, imbecilic, obtuse, or doltish, AC's post certainly qualifies.
In any event, refuting the claim "using cliches is stupid" isn't the same thing as rufuting "using cliches weakens an argument" or "cliches contain no truth". Those are the positions you've been prattling on about, and the word "stupid" is nowhere to be found in your original post or in any of your subsequent posts - until now.
From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cliche
So what? From Wikipedia
an expression, idea, or element of an artistic work which has become overused to the point of losing its original meaning or effect, even to the point of being trite or irritating, especially when at some earlier time it was considered meaningful or novel.
I never said one definition is superior to another, I merely pointed out that *some* definitions indicate that the use of cliches could be meaningless and therefore detrimental to a coherent argument.
But since I've already acknowledged your position that cliches contain an element of truth, I'm not sure why you've dug up a dead horse in order to beat it some more.
No, not at all. The reason you are in the trees is that you are failing to distinguish between defending the original AC and rejecting the notion that use of a cliche implies falsehood. Those are different things.
...which isn't the meaning of the idiom, yet you keep using it. But perhaps I'm mistaking your ignorance for malice. After all, your response to my post equated my simple question with creationist idiocy.
The relevant one would actually be my original response where I did *not* include that first sentence, only the second. Can you imagine the reason?
When I look at your original response, what I see is you refuting an argument that nadaou didn't make. Nowhere in nadaou's post does he claim that cliches weaken an argument or that cliches don't contain a nugget of truth. The only reason I could imagine why you decided to insert the issue into the discussion was that you were somehow trying to defend AC's rather pathetic post. Obviously I mistook your attempt to educate us all about the nature of cliches for something else.
Actually, no. The "love it or leave it" meme was employed by a much older demographic historically.
I was using "obstinate adolescents" figuratively - i.e., as a proxy for "weak minded". Sorry you failed to recognize that.
Again, you have deluded yourself. I was only interested in the later of the two sentences and your apparent reaction to suggest a cliche lacks a kernel of truth. Trees.
Yeah, and I recognized your point about cliches/truth in my previous post, so there's no need for you to continue to be argumentative about it. But like I said above, the reason you decided to go off-topic and preach to everyone about the nature of cliches remains unclear.
BTW, you should probably stop with the "forest for the trees" idiom. You're applying it erroneously. You're stating (correctly) that I was asserting that you were making an argument that you weren't, and that I claimed there was no kernal of truth in some cliches. As you note, those are two different things, but this is clearly not a case of me focusing on details at the expense of the bigger picture.
No, I expect that it would be more accurate to say that cliches lose their impact from overuse.
Re-wording a definition to better fit your position doesn't really convince me of anything. But hey, I've obviously been mistaken about a lot of things, so maybe I'm wrong about this as well.
Cheers!
OK, understood.
Still lost in the trees I see.
Still trolling I see.
What I was arguing against was that cliche use somehow devalues an argument. It does not.
I tend to agree, but if you look at the post in question
"You're goddamn right we are the good guys. If you love China so much, then go live there."
...there's no argument there to devalue. There's an unsupported claim followed by a cliche. That's it.
Generally, using tired language doesn't weaken an argument. In this specific case however, the AC made a two sentence post with the last sentence composed entirely of a cliche typically employed by obstinate adolescents. There's no argument made, there's nothing that amounts to "figurative language", and there's nothing even remotely close to "truth".
But by all means, continue to imbibe AC's two sentence post with a much depth of thought and "truth" as you like.
ps - you should take note that many definitions of "cliche" describe them as phrases that are overused to the point of losing their original meaning. Seems to me that using meaningless phraseology could weaken an argument after all.
Your statement is on the same intellectual level of creationists who take the biblical genesis to mean the world is 6,000 years old. The cliche, like the biblical story, is to be taken as figurative language not a literal truth.
Well I guess you are inclined to credit AC with the use of "figurative language". I'm inclined to judge his post as having no intellectual merit whatsoever, and it appears as though I'm not the only one with that opinion.
BTW, your "creationist" troll was a little clumsy.
> If you love China so much, then go live there.
That's such a classically stupid cliche of a line, you should be embarrassed to use it.
Cliches are overused lines. Overuse does not imply falsehood. In fact cliches often express a truth, they just express the truth in a tired unoriginal unartistic manner. Yet, a truth is a truth.
LOL, How is there any truth to the statement "If you love China so much, then go live there"? Such a statement is on the same intellectual level as "if you love China so much, why don't you marry it?" No truth there either.
I firmly believe if we didn't have hollywood, journalists, and a long tradition of marketing and advertising goons, you'd see the same sort of oppressive state apparatus as you do in China and Russia.
At the rate we're going, it won't be long before our state apparatus is indistinguishable from the others.
Or the government could not do that and allow the situation to continue. There's no law of physics that guarantees that government will act as above.
mmm...you're the one claiming that "[it] requires extraordinary intervention, such as killing you." in order for the government to get people to modify their behavior. I gave you an example of how the government can change people's behavior with simple financial disincentives.
The ubiquity and effectiveness of this government mechanism is beyond debate, isn't it? Are you really still claiming that government has to take drastic measures to change people's behavior? Or do you think that the use of fines qualify as extraordinary intervention? Either way sounds like BS to me.
And even in that situation, they haven't precluded the tragedy of the commons.
You must be confusing me with with the other poster. I couldn't care less about the tragedy of the commons.
As punishment for my daughter's carelessness, I told her that she had to help me input data from the photograph. She claimed that this punishment was "cruel and unusual," but she did it anyway.
A well written net neutrality law would have been better than the FCC bringing ISPs under their wing.
Yeah, that's one thing the US Congress excels at - enacting well written laws.