Are you serious? You seem to be taking some charity with your conclusions. Did I call America "shit" or America "shitty"? Nope.
What I did do was point out the grammatical and linguistic functions at work, and I used a different word to illustrate this relationship. IOW, I was pointing out how the relationship between an adjective and an object noun aren't always clear, that there is a lot of subjectivity between them, depending upon how the words are used.
In your mind, because I replaced the word "America" with "shit", that must necessarily mean that I think "America=shit" or "American=shitty". In reality, all I did was choose a word in order to better illustrate the grammar at hand.
And just to be clear--since we're talking about grammar and definitions--I have absolutely no problems with nations, continents, cultures, governments, peoples, or anything else of that like. My primary objection is against the state (i.e. a monopoly over the aforementioned things). If you can somehow equate "America" with the "state" without the use of adjectives or propositions, then I might give you my ear on this subject. Until then ...
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas -- unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
The name is a misnomer. And a harmful one, because it interferes with understanding the process that is really occuring. What is really occurring is a search of a constrained program space. Let's say you want to be able to identify images of hot dogs . You begin with a plausible program for doing so, that is able to also search the space of nearby programs that might get better results on the problem. You then (in "supervised learning") provide scores that indicate how well one of these possible programs has done on solving the problem. After doing this for some time you settle upon a program that solves the problem "well enough." This is a great technique that can produce truly impressive results on a wide class of problems, such as identifying images of hot dogs. But notice that, except for the phrase in scare quotes, there is no "learning" in the description. Calling this "learning" is importing ideological baggage that just obscures what
I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
"Is there anything more shitty than shit?"
ReplyDeleteWhen put this way ...well, adjectives are fun.
Odd that even blog commenters who call America shit choose to live there. Copraphagous perhaps.
ReplyDeleteAre you serious? You seem to be taking some charity with your conclusions. Did I call America "shit" or America "shitty"? Nope.
DeleteWhat I did do was point out the grammatical and linguistic functions at work, and I used a different word to illustrate this relationship. IOW, I was pointing out how the relationship between an adjective and an object noun aren't always clear, that there is a lot of subjectivity between them, depending upon how the words are used.
In your mind, because I replaced the word "America" with "shit", that must necessarily mean that I think "America=shit" or "American=shitty". In reality, all I did was choose a word in order to better illustrate the grammar at hand.
And just to be clear--since we're talking about grammar and definitions--I have absolutely no problems with nations, continents, cultures, governments, peoples, or anything else of that like. My primary objection is against the state (i.e. a monopoly over the aforementioned things). If you can somehow equate "America" with the "state" without the use of adjectives or propositions, then I might give you my ear on this subject. Until then ...
Did I mention your name Joseph Fetz? I believe you just drew a natural conclusion from the juxtaposition of short, epigrammatic comments. As did I.
ReplyDeleteYou just showed me that you're entirely full of it. Congrats and goodbye.
DeleteWell I guess the answer to Dylan's question is....blowin' in the wind?
ReplyDelete