151 réponses à ce sujet

[Swagger7]

[quote]esper wrote...

And here we have some of the good argument for the author (Hope the quote doesn't mess up):

[quotes Swagger7]

[/quote]

Why thank you! 

[quote]esper wrote...

There is a difference between critic and value. And a lot of critiques are indeed not good. Since most recipients of a narrative are consuming the narratives as an individual (even if your watch in a group your enjoyment of it is your own) the individual interpretation is the most important. However, I will still say for it to be valid you need concrete proof. Such as saying that and that in the narrative supports my understanding, and that and this shows the weakness in it.

But even if I am on perception side, mostly. I do not completely miss Word of God. If Word of God says that the work is meant to be an analouge over sexual frustration for example then it is an analoge over sexual frustration. However, if Word of God is so inflexible I do reserve the right to insist that the author failed to make their intent come across.

And I don't think you can add and intent that is not there contextually. If you read some old Knights Romances (from 'the middle age', must not be confused with romantic littarature. they were not), chance that they are athetish propaganda simply do not exist, because the idea of atheism was not really viable at the time,

[/quote]

This is true.  When I think of literary critics I tend to go right to the ones who come up with what they think the meaning is, completely ignore the author, and don't say "This is how the work makes me feel".  They pass their interpretation off as if it were objectively true rather than just their opinion.  My favorite example is the one Isaac Asimov cited, where he attended a class on one of his books and stood up at the end to explain to the English Lit professor that his interpretation was not the one that he (Asimov) had intended.  The English professor then proceded to tell Asimov that he wasn't qualified to explain the meaning in his own work because he hadn't had the proper training in literary criticism!  I know most literary critics aren't like that, but the few that are drag down the image of all the rest.

(I tried to find Asimov's original retelling of that tale to make sure I didn't misremember anything, but I couldn't, so any mistakes in the above are due to my faulty memory.  If anyone knows where to find it let me know.)


EDIT:  While looking for that account I came across an excellent article by Asimov explaining how science slowly refines what we know becomming less and less wrong through the application of new data.  It's worth a read for anyone who is curious about such things, and it provided the sig quote I have now.

http://chem.tufts.ed...vityofwrong.htm

Modifié par Swagger7, 05 janvier 2013 - 01:38 .

[Swagger7]

Emzamination wrote...

Swagger7 wrote...


Oh certainly.  That would be the case had they all actually agreed with/understood her actual position and defended it, like Youth4Ever did.  Most of her supporters completely avoided any of the arguments however, and seemed to be taking her side just because they thought those of us who disagreed were just being mean or not taking the effort to understand what she was saying.  They were defending the poster and not the content, which is why I took the opportunity to poke fun at them.  You of all people should know how annoying it is to have your intellectual discussion interrupted by what amounts to heckling from the stands.  (I'm referring of course to some of the commentators in the variious atheism threads who never actually addressed the arguments you made.)

Of course, it's also very annoying to be unjustly labelled a xenophobe with a "superiority conplex" when one is merely trying to explain something. (glares at pants witch and Emzamination)  When people stoop to that level in an argument, is it so wrong to have a little fun at their expense? 

Again, I exempt Youth4Ever, and anyone else who was actually discussing the topic, from my teasing.

No need to glare at me, I did agree with and argue nizaris position. However since you yourself claimed not to understand her position, your judgement on a correct definite interpretation of her argument is a moot point, only nizaris could answer that. 

Anyways I stand by what I said. Your comment was calling her ignorant of her own statements on the grounds that you're the native english speaker and by right, you should know the meaning of anything in english better than Esl because it's your language. It was a snide remark attempting to establish her as the ignorant other and establish yourself as the superior in terms of english because you speak it more. How you came to the conclusion that speaking & understanding the language are one in the same, I don't know.

I think youth4ever put it perfectly "You're telling her she doesn't understand a topic or defintion she
clearly does because she isn't a native speaker. You're misunderstanding
her and attempting to make her look ignorant and that is unjust"

You show this even further when you ridicule her calling for the nizaris apologist to make sense of a statement you personally didn't understand, as others went on to argue her point. D-move bro. (also kudos on the ego stroke, yeah. saw what you did there, impressive.)

So many things to clarify, where to begin?

The glaring at you wasn't because you failed to defend her actual position.  I admit that you did address the topic.  You weren't one of the "Nizaris Apologists" I was referring to.  I specifically exempted Youth4Ever, because of her work on the topic, but I had no desire to go through the thread and make a list of all those who participated and those who didn't.  So consider yourself one of those exempt from my teasing post.  The "glaring" was due to you coming into an argument, making no effort to understand my comment or ask for clarification, and accusing me of having a "superiority complex".

I had no trouble understanding the argument she was making.  There were others confused by it, but not I.  I simply disagreed with her conclusions, and was trying to explain to her what the word actually meant.  If I was a little gruff in so doing it was only because Nizaris has proven time and time again on this forum that she will stubbornly refuse to accept almost any correction at all no matter the evidence shown.  (If you don't believe me track down the mage staff thread where she stubbornly kept insisting that only old men used staves as weapons at any point in history while about five of us were attempting to explain the history of the quarterstaff to her.)  I find it incredibly hypocritical for you to accuse me of not trying to understand her when I in fact did, while at the same time refusing to understand the intent of my post about English, when I've already explained it to you.

I was not "calling her ignorant of her own statements on the grounds that you're
the native english speaker and by right, you should know the meaning of
anything in english better than Esl because it's your language."  The "our" in that statement did not refer solely to native English speakers, it referred to people who are proficient, the same way that I would refer to history as "our field of study" if I was talking to someone who wasn't trained in the historical method.  I can see why you thought "our" was exclusive to "native speakers" since they were both in the same sentence, but my actual intent was to basically say "native speakers and others proficient in English".  I'll admit that I shouldn't have worded it that way.  Had I realized that it would cause offense I would have rephrased it.  That still doesn't excuse you from completely ignoring my clarification of what I meant while at the same time accusing me of failing to make the effort to understand Nizaris's claims.  I'm fully cognizant that non-native speakers can have a firm grasp of English.  You yourself are a good example of that.  However, as someone who has studied other languages (French and German) I am also aware that native speakers have valuable input and knowledge of the language that is very helpful when one is learning a language.  That was what I was trying to convey.

Next charge:  I really have no desire to make Nizaris feel ignorant, and I'm not some petty bully who needs to put others down intellectually to feed my ego like you seem to be making me out to be.  I saw what I believed to be a mistake and attempted to correct it.  When other people do this to me, I thank them.  I am perfectly aware that in many areas I am more ignorant than the average person, and when I completely put my foot in my mouth in those circumstances, I make sure to defer to anyone who is more experienced.  By the way, the comment that peeved you off was the result of getting miffed after my attempts to explain were seemingly ignored due to stubbornness.  I was essentially making a last ditch attempt to explain why she might want to take my points seriously.  Could I have stated it better?  Yes, I'll admit that.  Did my wording justify your initial response?  I'm not so sure of that, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.  Did it justify your continued anger after I explained it?  Nope.

And now: I was not ridiculing her with the "Nizaris appologists" phrase.  I did ridicule her statement with my "What?" followed by a parade of smilies but I think that was completely justified.  Ridicule is the act of pointing out the ridiculous, and those claims were pretty ridiculous.  It is also the last tool for getting a stubborn person who refuses to listen to evidence to reexamine their beliefs.  That post was completely ridiculous.  This wasn't because I didn't understand her.  It was because I happen to have knowledge of the origins of several of the works of fiction she was talking about, and none of them included inspiration from Islamic end-times prophecy.  She wasn't misunderstood; she was incorrect.  If you see that as rude, you should know that Nizaris is someone who rarely shies aware from rudeness of her own in arguments on this forum.  Just look how many mod-edits she's received in this thread alone.  So, the part aimed at Nizaris was the first line, and nothing else.  

When I made fun of the "Nizaris Apologists" it was entirely aimed at those who, as I said before, were merely showing up to tell us how mean we all were for not understanding her points while not adding anything to the discussion.  It was rude.  It was intended to be rude (the only post of mine in this entire thread that was).  I took some exception to you accusing me of having a superiority complex, and I took great exception to pants witch calling me a xenophobe.  I was perfectly happy to get a jab in in return and so I did when the opportunity presented itself.

Final charge:  You said "(also kudos on the ego stroke, yeah. saw what you did there, impressive.)"  First off, I was not "stroking my ego", as I mentioned before.  However, I genuinely am not sure what you are referring to with the "I saw what you did there".  I won't answer your sentence without knowing what it is you are talking about.  Could you please clarify what you meant so that I might address your issue?

Honestly I really do hope we can clear this up.  While I certainly can't say I agree with everything you've said on the BSN I hold no person greivance with you, nor anyone else on this thread (Except pants witch. grrrrrr).  I would like to think I've explained myself clearly here and that you'll be able to see that I'm not the jerk you seem to think I am.