I have realized over the years that it is wise to be naturally skeptical of any opinion that is strong, either positive or negative. People who have an appreciation for gray areas, even if they ultimately do have a preference, tend to be a lot more emotionally balanced than those who maintain a very strong stance on something. I have noticed this so consistently over the last 15 years that I now consider it a fundamental benchmark by which I can gauge my ability to work or socialize with someone in general, on any topic, over the long term.
Be careful about what you dislike
51–60 of 176 posts
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#52Headline: Engineer cries Political Arguments are not 'valid'; Forks off own nation.
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#53Earlier quoted context omitted.
The distinction between current and habitual actions also exists in standard English, of course: "Cookie monster eats cookies" vs "Elmo is eating cookies". I'm not sure whether this is quite the same as the distinction the comments you are replying to are talking about. They're talking about a less absolute way of using "is" to ascribe attributes, rather than actions. More like the distinction between "John is an ang…
The thing is that 'to be' is a special verb in English, so the distinction between "John is being angry" and "John is angry" isn't there, and "John is angry" could mean either current or habitual anger. You can't argue that because a distinction exists for 'to eat' it also exists or is understood the same for 'to be'. English admits the sentence "Big bird does eat cookies" but not "John does be angry".
In the first case, I read both as temporary states, and the only way to express it as a habitual state would be to make a more complex construction such as 'John is an angry person.'
As for the second case, I think the usual way to achieve that effect in English is to use a frequency qualifier, such as in "John is sometimes angry," to modify the transitory state into a habitual one.
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#54Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "is being" construct also exists by using the two verbs ("estar a ser") but it's not the same. Basically in order of permanence: ser -> a mostly permanent characteristic estar -> a current characteristic that could change in the future estar a ser -> a characteristic of the specific interaction
Is that last one like, "I am to be married on Saturday"?
Not really, that's just a future tense. Here's the correspondence instantiated:
"I am tall" -> "sou alto" (ser)
"I am broke" -> "estou falido" (estar)
"I am being boring" -> "estou a ser aborrecido" (estar a ser)
What english doesn't have as easily without context is the distinction between the first two forms because it has a single verb for both.
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#55Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't that a bit like "is" vs. "is being"?
Not exactly; you would never say, "I am being hungry". You just say, "I am hungry" -- with the exact same form you'd use for, "I am amazing."
While there isn't a single word change, you can not merely say "I am hungry" to express a habitual state of hunger. Used without qualification, hunger is a transitory state. To express habitual hunger you could add a frequency qualifier, such as 'I am often hungry.'
On the other hand, "I am being amazing" is a perfectly valid construction, because 'amazing' by default describes a habitual state rather than a transitory one, and 'being' changes it to a current action rather than a habitual state.
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#56Paul Graham in one of his best text explained similar concepts writing "I finally realized today why politics and religion yield such uniquely useless discussions"
Highly worth read: http://paulgraham.com/identity.html
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#57I'm fascinated by the topic of English Prime: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E-Prime It introduced me to the idea that 'is' should be treated very carefully. Any assertion outside of strict formal languages that use it are half-truths at best. It also introduces heightens the emotional tone of a discussion. If you say "John is foo" you tend to create the impression that John will always and has always been foo. Foo-ne…
The irregular nature of "to be" in English comes from it being a blend of three different roots with a somewhat similar division you're talking about (but certainly not as clear, division was more about tense than duration).
The fallacy you're talking about I consider a specific instance of the labeling problem. If someone is marginally in a group and you apply the label of the group on the individual, suddenly it seems ok to use attributes of the group to reason about the individual. One jumps from specific to general and back to specific again without acknowledging the loss of information from the abstraction layers. Often comes up in post hoc rationalisation of harsher criminal punishment, for example. John is a criminal; we need to be tougher with criminals; therefore we need to be tougher with John - without regard for the specifics of John's case.
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#58This brings to mind a fantastically lucid comic about the utility of questions vs answers:
http://kiriakakis.net/comics/mused/a-day-at-the-park
After all, the an opinion is just an answer to the question, "What do I think of this?"
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#59Earlier quoted context omitted.
In that case, can you explain how Canadian and European legal systems are so insufficient for seeking legal recourse for legitimate grievances that companies need to be able to sue either government in international tribunals? Because that's ostensibly the argument for ISDS, and I don't see how it applies to Western liberal democracies with properly functioning courts. The argument against is cases like the Philip Mo…
>Philip Morris v. Uruguay A bad example. Let's use one were the plaintiff actually was successful. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/ottawa-pay...
I was thinking Vattenfall vs. Germany. It's ongoing, but interesting because Vattenfall is wholly owned by Sweden.
http://spectrum.ieee.org/energywise/energy/nuclear/swedish-e...
Re: Be careful about what you dislike
#60I naturally see both sides of almost any argument, and my personality is such that I would rather synthesize the arguments of both sides into a final position via dialectic.
I have lost almost every major argument I've had in a corporate environment.