Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: .  (Read 5856 times)

John Galt

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #30 on: April 04, 2006, 10:46:07 PM »
breadboy, stop stalling. where is that post you've been promising?

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #31 on: April 05, 2006, 08:28:34 AM »
This is supposed to reduce me to a quivering mass? The OED tactic? misapplied?? Again, you're wrong:

Obtuse - Lacking quickness of perception or intellect.

I think you've demonstrated that quite clearly.


Patronize - To treat in a condescending manner.

I think that's been established as well.

Condescend - To descend to the level of one considered inferior; lower oneself.

Oh, what's that bolded word? care to define "consider" for me? Here's a little gift to save you the trouble: consideration =/= actuality.

Ass.

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #32 on: April 05, 2006, 11:03:04 AM »
Just go with the second part of that definition (of course consider isn't modifying the action and means "to regard as" so my point still stands), it can be actual :)

Are you saying you'll change your mind on this subject because you don't like me?

You're taking this way too seriously. You patronized me, I patronized you, you got mad about it and told me to stop patronizing you, I pointed out that you did the same thing, and now your using "fucktard."

This really isn't that serious.

No, I'm saying that I just don't like you, period. It happens. Don't flatter yourself as to think I'd change my views based on a silly internet message board.

Also: fucktard is a lovely word. I learned it here on LSD and I plan to use it judiciously.  :P

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #33 on: April 05, 2006, 12:38:05 PM »
I notice you didn't mention a few of your previous points  ;)

To which points were you referring? I'll kindly oblige.

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #34 on: April 05, 2006, 01:15:59 PM »
To descend to a nonexistent lower level is not to descend at all--it is only the illusion of descent in the mind of the condescender.

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #35 on: April 05, 2006, 01:23:21 PM »
What the heck are you talking about?

Consider doesn't modify anything--it is the action. You consider me inferior. That does not make me inferior. Hence, your descent to my nonexistent lower level is equally nonequistent.

(When did this become about grammar?)

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #36 on: April 05, 2006, 01:41:29 PM »
What the heck are you talking about?

Consider doesn't modify anything--it is the action. You consider me inferior. That does not make me inferior. Hence, your descent to my nonexistent lower level is equally nonequistent.

(When did this become about grammar?)

1. You used obtuse in the first place which lead to the consider discussion.
2. You're right, consider doesn't modify anything (wrong word choice on my part), but it does address something that as far as the word is concerned actually occurs. It doesn't matter if it necessarily happens in real life, the point of using consider in the definition for condescend it to say that one is desesending to the level of another regarded as inferior. You don't tell someone to stop patronizing you because you think that you yourself are stupid.
3.
Quote
When did this become about grammar?

Quote
Oh, what's that bolded word? care to define "consider" for me? Here's a little gift to save you the trouble: consideration =/= actuality.


No, you tell someone to stop patronizing you because they mistakenly think you are stupid. That's what I was doing.

You are being much more civil now. What caused the change?

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #37 on: April 05, 2006, 01:48:30 PM »
I've always been civil (and a little condescening in a nice way). :)

I'd reply to the former, but I'd say it's sufficiently convoluted to the point where I can't say its more than both of us posting our opinions on partial answers to previous posts.


Actually, no, you started out being rather nasty and bull-headed.

As to convoluted arguments, well, what do you expect when it's a matter of linguistics? Just as Saussure.  ;)

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #38 on: April 05, 2006, 02:00:51 PM »
So where does that put me on your nice/fucktard continuum?

Well, at the moment you are still on the fucktard side because you've only become level-headed when not arguing about intellectual matters. Plus, I don't know you that well, so I have no counter-evidence other than the few pages in this thread.

magnumalv

  • Guest
Re: Sowell on AA
« Reply #39 on: April 05, 2006, 02:06:36 PM »
<--atheist  ;D