Comment Relevance? (Score 1) 127
Who takes/administers "IQ" tests anymore? I can see these tests being utilized for identifying the mentally challenged (for whatever the reason), but are they used for anything else? Honest question.
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.
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!
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.
Dude, if you needed a CUDA card, the 980ti is DOGSHIT compared to a K2 GRID.
Only in double precision.
Quit fronting and admit you don't know jack about hardware.
His hardware choice might make perfect sense, depending on his use case. Perhaps you should lighten up a little.
Dynamically binding, you realize the magic. Statically binding, you see only the hierarchy.
