A little Dialogue between Red and Teo about forum and debate etiquette

Off-topic talk on music, art, literature, games and forum games.
User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Re: A little Dialogue between Red and Teo about forum and debate etiquette

Post by Red » Sun Feb 17, 2019 4:02 pm

You don't even know what that is either. :roll:
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
You are using kind of a circular logic here, aren't you?
"Linguistics is a soft science, therefore it's bad science. Why is it a bad science? Because it's a soft science."
I implied no such thing. Stop with the straw-manning.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Out of curiosity, what makes you think the science in Croatia is worse than in the rest of the world?
Your education system, mostly. Now, of course, you still cling to your ideas of your textbooks being reliable, but a lot of scientific 'facts' in there are demonstrably wrong.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
What do you mean you've studied multiple sciences? My friend, to fully understand even a single science today, you need to dedicate your life to it. You certainly wouldn't have time to be this active on the Internet forums.
I said STUDIED. That doesn't automatically imply that I think I understand them. I'm not like you.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
But one example of you using vulgarisms. You are so used to using them you don't even notice when you use them.
ONCE. I used a vulgarism ONCE (and it's even more hilarious that you said I used vulgarisms before I actually used a vulgarism). Unless you count 'piss' (it wasn't even meant to ridicule you), I did not use a single vulgarism other than 'Fucking' in this entire thread.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Have you forgotten how much you thought you knew?
Now, this is ad-hominem.
NO, it is not. I'm telling you to look at your PAST mistakes, and to LEARN from them. Once you can comprehend the fact that you aren't as competent as you think you are, you can start learning.

Even then, just because you accept you were at fault in the past DOESN'T make you automatically immune from making the same mistakes again. You also have to be open to the fact that you aren't infallible, and you are prone to making similar mistakes in the here and now if you don't keep an eye out.

You illustrate my point perfectly with this gem:
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Yes, I used to believe weird things (that airplanes don't exist...), because I used the wrong methodology (asserting massive conspiracies for no reason). So what? I am not using the same methodology any more. What I believe right now has very little, if anything, to do with what I used to believe.

Be honest, you probably also used to believe stupid things. You probably believed in God and in Santa Claus at some point in your life. What does that have to do with what you believe right now? Nothing, right? Well, the same applies to my former conspiracy theory beliefs.
Thanks for that admission of your own fault, but don't project that onto me.

I do acknowledge that I accepted crazy ideas, and I know that even though I don't buy into these things, I am still not immune from accepting crazy ideas. That's why every idea I come up with, no matter how fond of it I am, I hold it with a degree of skepticism until SCIENTIFIC evidence comes along, or if I'm able to verify it myself. If the facts are inconsistent with it, I discard or revise it, regardless of how reluctant I am.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
You and Brimstone believe that science works certain way and are basing your tyrannical political theory on that. That's what matters now.
It would be funny if it weren't so sad.

What 'tyrannical political theory'? Elaborate this for me. I didn't know @brimstoneSalad and I shared some tyrannical political theory.

Oh, you mean government? So you still buy into conspiracy theories, such as the big bad government being out to get you? :twisted:
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Let's say so. You are using a thesaurus to find insults, right?
Look, man, if you suck at English, don't project that onto me. Sorry that I know big words off the top of my head! :lol:
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 17, 2019 3:20 pm
Well, you are obviously not giving me a good example of how I should behave.
Example? I am trying to TEACH you. I think you are immune to being taught somehow.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am

You don't even know what that is either.
That your argument is incomprehensible to somebody who knows what he is talking about?
Your education system, mostly.
And we often perform better than the US on the International Science Olympiads.
That doesn't automatically imply that I think I understand them.
Yet, in the other thread, you seem to have implied that, you seemed to have implied to have understood how those sciences you've "studied" worked.
I used a vulgarism ONCE
Look at what you've written in the other thread. It's full of insults and vulgarisms, but you don't realize that.
Oh, you mean government? So you still buy into conspiracy theories, such as the big bad government being out to get you?
I am not asserting a conspiracy, I am saying that politicians are mistaken to think that laws can improve our society. See the difference?
Example? I am trying to TEACH you.
Then you should practice what you preach!

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:38 am

teo123 wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am
That your argument is incomprehensible to somebody who knows what he is talking about?
You have to clarify what you're saying here, because I have no idea what you're saying and neither do you.
teo123 wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am
And we often perform better than the US on the International Science Olympiads.
No, you don't according to Wikipedia. The only field you outperform the US is in Geography, but Croatia is not even on the lists for most of the other sciences.

You are either lying or have been lied to by your government, and I'm guessing it's the latter.

And even then, it doesn't excuse the fact that your science textbooks are filled with bullshit (don't they teach about how the great flood was an actual occurence?), and you study Theology in public school.
teo123 wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am
Yet, in the other thread, you seem to have implied that, you seemed to have implied to have understood how those sciences you've "studied" worked.
Once again you show your incompetence in regards to the English language.

I never implied such a thing. You're either being blatantly dishonest or have a very selective reading ability.
teo123 wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am
Look at what you've written in the other thread. It's full of insults and vulgarisms, but you don't realize that.
You are so stupid. Seriously, this statement has such a high level of stupidity it's hard to find the words to respond to it.

You've probably have forgotten by now, but when you said
"I can see how it's rude on your part to make a post filled with vulgarisms..."
You were responding to my post that contained ZERO vulgarisms. I'm not sure why I didn't expect you to be referring to a debate we had over a MONTH ago, but of course you'd trace back that far.

Rule of thumb; when you are going to make a statement like that in response to another statement, make sure it pertains to the statement you are referring to, unless you clarify otherwise.

And even in that other thread, I only used at most 10 vulgarisms (and it was mostly due to rudeness on YOUR part; you were honestly trying my patience). And by the way, using a vulgarism doesn't automatically make something 'rude,' since it's often used for emphasis.

That all make sense?
teo123 wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am
I am not asserting a conspiracy,
It is a conspiracy when you label it as a ' tyrannical political theory' and I think most people would be able to see how (I've met Anarchists who don't think the government is tyrannical, just a problematic institution) this is a conspiracy, by labeling government as this thing that doesn't allow freedom, you just have to follow their command no matter the circumstance. Maybe your government is, I'm not sure, but in the Civilized world, we have certain unalienable rights that the government is not allowed to infringe.

There are valid criticisms to be made of first-world government systems, but calling them tyrannical isn't one of them.
teo123 wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am
I am saying that politicians are mistaken to think that laws can improve our society. See the difference?
Are you really still advocating for the whole 'Murder should be legal' thing? Seriously?
teo123 wrote:
Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:05 am
Then you should practice what you preach!
Oh, so if I act condescending towards you, that invalidates my point?

And just to clarify, I'm rather polite to the other members of this forum. Those who want respect give respect. You don't give much.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am

Sorry for not responding for a while, somebody asked me to write another research paper about linguistics.
Red wrote:You have to clarify what you're saying here, because I have no idea what you're saying and neither do you.
Red wrote:Maybe you should do the same; instead of assuming they are sound laws, humour the possibility that they are not so no one wastes any of their time?
I was referring to that nonsense you wrote.
Red wrote:The only field you outperform the US is in Geography
So, you admit it, we outperform the US in social sciences, even in such an incredibly unfair contest? And by unfair, I don't mean it's unfair towards individual competitors (which it might also be, the tasks on the International Olympiad in Informatics have very little to do with what's needed to make actual programs), I mean it's not a fair way to judge the education systems of various countries. Here are some reasons:
a) Croatia has 4'000'000 people, while the United States has 300'000'000 people. So, by chance alone, it is more likely that the best student of informatics is in the US than in Croatia.
b) Don't you find it telling that around half of the US medalists on the Science Olympiads have neither English names nor English surnames?
c) Apart from the International Olympiad in Philosophy, having English as your native language is clearly beneficial.
Red wrote:I never implied such a thing.
Yes, you have, many times in other threads and also right in this thread:
Red wrote:
Teo123 wrote:A much better (but about as off-topic) question would be what makes you think you understand scientific methodology better than I do. (...)
Because I've actually studied it, along with other (hard) sciences?
Clearly you implied that you've studied those sciences properly and that you understand the basics of how they operate. Since you now admit that you don't actually understand how they operate...
Red wrote:And by the way, using a vulgarism doesn't automatically make something 'rude,' since it's often used for emphasis.
There are much better words to use for that. Using vulgarisms for emphasis is ambiguous at best, since you can't know (especially over the Internet) if somebody is using them for emphasis or to be insulting.
Red wrote:you just have to follow their command no matter the circumstance.
Which is what is happening, for instance, with taxes. If you refuse to pay them, you end up in jail. And if you refuse to go to war, you might even get killed by your own government.
Red wrote:Are you really still advocating for the whole 'Murder should be legal' thing? Seriously?
Well, yes. Because I think that's what social sciences are saying.
Red wrote:Oh, so if I act condescending towards you, that invalidates my point?
If we are talking about politeness, yes.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Sun Feb 24, 2019 2:32 pm

teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
Sorry for not responding for a while, somebody asked me to write another research paper about linguistics.
:lol: Okay Mr. Self-Important, any other things you're up to these days? You must be far too busy to waste much time on us laymen.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
I was referring to that nonsense you wrote.
I said clarify. Clarify how the 'Not even wrong' concept applies to what I was saying.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
So, you admit it, we outperform the US in social sciences,
It's social science, not social sciences. Singular. Other countries still beat you in Physics, biology, chemistry, etc.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
even in such an incredibly unfair contest?
:roll: And yet you were boasting about your country being better than the US? This is funny to me. Once you realized that the US actually beats you in these Olympiads, all of a sudden they're unfair! :lol: Now that's what I call cognitive dissonance.

I don't really care about whether or not the Olympiads are fair, and I don't really use that as a measure of the quality of science education in each country. I just find it funny how you were using it as a metric to show how your country is better at science, but then claim it as unfair when you realize you were wrong.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
Yes, you have, many times in other threads and also right in this thread:
Red wrote:
Teo123 wrote:A much better (but about as off-topic) question would be what makes you think you understand scientific methodology better than I do. (...)
Because I've actually studied it, along with other (hard) sciences?
Clearly you implied that you've studied those sciences properly and that you understand the basics of how they operate. Since you now admit that you don't actually understand how they operate...
No I didn't. I said I understand scientific methodology more than you. That does not mean I think I have a deep understanding of it.

For instance, I don't have a deep understanding of evolution, but compared to a creationist, I'm an expert.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
There are much better words to use for that. Using vulgarisms for emphasis is ambiguous at best, since you can't know (especially over the Internet) if somebody is using them for emphasis or to be insulting.
What words would offer such emphasis? 'Heck' and 'Fudge' are lame and underwhelming words to use. And in a lot of contexts, it's easy to tell when someone uses profanity as a means of insult or emphasis (maybe not for you, since English is not your first language).
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
Which is what is happening, for instance, with taxes. If you refuse to pay them, you end up in jail.
Are you against taxes now too?

Whether or not tax evasion should be punished in the same way any crime is punished is a different story (hell, you can even debate as to whether we should ditch punishment and focus on more rehabilitation, as Norway does). But getting rid of government altogether because you don't like how they handle such transgressions is completely asinine. I told @Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz this in the other thread; Getting rid of something entirely is not a good idea, if the principle behind it is good. Fix, don't destroy.

But the thing is Teo, everyone benefits from taxes. I like having roads and transportation, and people not paying taxes hurts more people in that they can't use transportation to get to work, or benefit from social programs. Taxes are how we purchase civilization, and while it may suck to have to pay them, the good they produce far outweighs the bad. People not paying their taxes hurts everyone.

It's definitely important to maximize the utility of taxes, and discussion on that is more important and sensible. Government has put certain rules into place so we as a society don't fall into chaos (a concept you don't seem to understand). If everyone were altruistic by nature, then that'd be great, and we can shift our focus towards a society that accommodates that. But we can't have our heads in the clouds, otherwise nothing useful will get done.


teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
And if you refuse to go to war, you might even get killed by your own government.
:roll: No, that doesn't happen. If you are a draft dodger, you will either be sent to jail or have to pay a hefty fine, or both. They don't kill you for something like that.

The usage of the death penalty is a completely different topic anyway and is a heavy subject.
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
Red wrote:Are you really still advocating for the whole 'Murder should be legal' thing? Seriously?
Well, yes. Because I think that's what social sciences are saying.
So congrats, you haven't learned anything!
Red wrote:Oh, so if I act condescending towards you, that invalidates my point?
teo123 wrote:
Sun Feb 24, 2019 3:22 am
If we are talking about politeness, yes.
How so?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm

You must be far too busy to waste much time on us laymen.
This doesn't have much to do with you being a layman. I am also a layman, I am not and likely never be a professional linguist.
But I don't have much time for people who are both very ignorant and unwilling to learn, like you are.
I have more time for people like BrimstoneSalad, who are trying to make rational arguments and are at least somewhat willing to learn, although they are obviously quite ignorant.
And I would have much more time for people like Jebus, who abstain from making meaningless, baseless and insulting assertions about things they don't understand, if they made more responses (which they didn't, probably because of people like you breaking the thread).
Clarify how the 'Not even wrong' concept applies to what I was saying.
Because somebody who knows about the field can't make sense of what you are saying.
And yet you were boasting about your country being better than the US?
I wasn't even aware of Croatia being good at the Geography Olympiad, I was actually referring to the few times Croatia outperformed the USA on the Informatics Olympiad.
I don't really use that as a measure of the quality of science education in each country.
So, then, what do you use? Literacy rate? Croatia clearly outperforms the US on that one.
I said I understand scientific methodology more than you.
OK, I take it haven't published any paper in a peer-reviewed journal. I have published a few of them. They may be "soft science journals" (whatever that meant), but something is better than nothing. Suppose you are wrong about how "hard science" works. How would you know that? You wouldn't, right? Yet, if I were wrong about how linguistics works, my papers wouldn't be accepted.
since English is not your first language
OK, let's suppose I indeed speak English badly (and I don't think that's the case). Doesn't it make more sense to praise my effort to learn English to the level I have learned it than to make fun of me? Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to learn a foreign language to a degree that you can have a conversation such as this one in it?
people not paying taxes hurts more people in that they can't use transportation to get to work
Oh, please don't bring up this tired old "Libertarians, who is gonna build the roads?" gotcha!
or benefit from social programs
And who benefits from social programs the most? Probably the big sugar industry.
No, that doesn't happen. If you are a draft dodger, you will either be sent to jail or have to pay a hefty fine, or both. They don't kill you for something like that.
Do you have any idea how many Croats were killed by their fellow Croats just because they wouldn't fight in the Yugoslav Wars? The army commanded by Branimir Glavas killed at least a hundred his fellow Croats (they were notorious for brutal punishments, such as forcing people to drink sulfuric acid) during the Battle of Osijek alone. And how many Serbs were killed by their fellow Serbs because they wouldn't fight for the ideology of Slobodan Milosevic in the Yugoslav Wars? More than one hundred in the Battle of Vukovar alone. There are statistics that show that at least 3000 Serbs were killed by their fellow Serbs because they weren't willing to fight for the ideology of Slobodan Milosevic. There was also an attempted assassination on the singer Dorde Balasevic just because he was a pacifist, and his daughter was badly injured and later died. And this all happened less than 30 years ago. Are you telling me nothing of that happened?
So congrats, you haven't learned anything!
I've learned quite a lot about social sciences since that last time. Both Jebus and BrimstoneSalad (in his latest post in the thread) admitted that my knowledge of linguistics is impressive. It's just that, if you keep insisting that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, there is not much more to talk about.
How so?
And if you don't accept logic, there is not much more to talk about either.

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Fri Mar 01, 2019 4:15 pm

teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
This doesn't have much to do with you being a layman. I am also a layman,
It was sarcasm, twit.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
But I don't have much time for people who are both very ignorant and unwilling to learn, like you are.
You're projecting again, to a hilarious degree this time.

I have a little tiny bit more humility than you, but whatever.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
I have more time for people like BrimstoneSalad, who are trying to make rational arguments and are at least somewhat willing to learn, although they are obviously quite ignorant.
Right back to your Flat Earth ways. Imagine for a moment the possibility that you are just as ignorant now about this subject as you were about Flat Earth. Remember how much you thought you knew about physics?
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
And I would have much more time for people like Jebus, who abstain from making meaningless, baseless and insulting assertions about things they don't understand, if they made more responses (which they didn't, probably because of people like you breaking the thread).
You should read this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=17&t=4184
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
Because somebody who knows about the field can't make sense of what you are saying.
Regarding what?
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
So, then, what do you use? Literacy rate? Croatia clearly outperforms the US on that one.
You'reFuckingStupid.jpg
You'reFuckingStupid.jpg (12.93 KiB) Viewed 764 times
Why would I use literacy rate? There are many other things I can use, such as textbook contents, or simply the ranking of the US in terms of scientific achievement (AFAIK it's leading the world in that regard).
https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php

Again, even if the US wasn't on top, you country doesn't really appear on the map.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
OK, I take it haven't published any paper in a peer-reviewed journal. I have published a few of them. They may be "soft science journals" (whatever that meant), but something is better than nothing.
Irrelevant. Publishing a scientific paper (a SOFT one, and IN CROATIA), doesn't mean you know how scientific methodology works. If that were the case, there wouldn't be so much pseudoscience plaguing journalism (even in the US).

Look at this fake health article someone deliberately published to show how easy it is to let bullshit slip into journals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Boha ... late_study
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
Suppose you are wrong about how "hard science" works. How would you know that? You wouldn't, right?
What are you talking about?

I've viewed both sides: I actually was once that guy to dislike the 'Hard' and 'Soft' science ideas, until I actually looked into it. Can I be wrong? Possibly. You, however, are not providing any convincing reason or evidence.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
Yet, if I were wrong about how linguistics works, my papers wouldn't be accepted.
Yes, they would.

Given how linguistics is a soft science anyway, it's hard to tell between fact and crap, allowing more types of articles to be published since it's a field that isn't entirely developed yet.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
OK, let's suppose I indeed speak English badly (and I don't think that's the case).
Of course you don't. :roll:
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
Doesn't it make more sense to praise my effort to learn English to the level I have learned it than to make fun of me? Do you have any idea how much effort it takes to learn a foreign language to a degree that you can have a conversation such as this one in it?
I'm only doing it due to your lack of humility. Refer to rule #3:
The Rules wrote:Post in English (it's OK if it's a second language), and please try to use mostly proper grammar and spelling (we're not grammar nazis, but it needs to be readable). If it becomes clear your English ability is not proficient enough to understand the posts of others written in clear English, and your behavior is one of arrogance and impatience rather than humility and a willingness to improve your English level to avoid the problem in the future, you may be warned or banned.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
Oh, please don't bring up this tired old "Libertarians, who is gonna build the roads?" gotcha!
Who would then?

Sure, a company can build and control those roads, but would they be free like they are now? No. I'd probably have to pay just to walk or drive on one, but I think most people like the idea of being able to walk outside on tax-payed roads any time without needing to pay a dime up front.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
And who benefits from social programs the most? Probably the big sugar industry.
What are you talking about? Is this some common libertarian argument? I've never heard this before. Elaborate here.

Are you referring to people who have diabetes? How do social programs benefit them?
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
Do you have any idea how many Croats were killed by their fellow Croats just because they wouldn't fight in the Yugoslav Wars? The army commanded by Branimir Glavas killed at least a hundred his fellow Croats (they were notorious for brutal punishments, such as forcing people to drink sulfuric acid) during the Battle of Osijek alone. And how many Serbs were killed by their fellow Serbs because they wouldn't fight for the ideology of Slobodan Milosevic in the Yugoslav Wars? More than one hundred in the Battle of Vukovar alone. There are statistics that show that at least 3000 Serbs were killed by their fellow Serbs because they weren't willing to fight for the ideology of Slobodan Milosevic. There was also an attempted assassination on the singer Dorde Balasevic just because he was a pacifist, and his daughter was badly injured and later died. And this all happened less than 30 years ago. Are you telling me nothing of that happened?
Well that's your backward country. In the slightly more civilized European countries and the US, that doesn't happen.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
I've learned quite a lot about social sciences since that last time. Both Jebus and BrimstoneSalad (in his latest post in the thread) admitted that my knowledge of linguistics is impressive.
Linguistics =/= Sociology/Political Science.

Ah yes, like father like son: You know a lot about one field (like your father knows a lot about Philosophy), so you assume you know a lot about others (in his case, medicine).
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
It's just that, if you keep insisting that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, there is not much more to talk about.
What do you mean 'falsify a law?' What does that even mean?

Laws can be flawed, I do not deny that: I do question the legitamacy of getting rid of them.
teo123 wrote:
Fri Mar 01, 2019 1:12 pm
And if you don't accept logic, there is not much more to talk about either.
How so?
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sat Mar 02, 2019 2:38 am

Red wrote:
teo123 wrote:It's just that, if you keep insisting that sound laws are somehow not falsifiable, there is not much more to talk about.
What do you mean 'falsify a law?' What does that even mean?

Laws can be flawed, I do not deny that: I do question the legitamacy of getting rid of them.
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/sound-law
So, you are either trolling to annoy me here, or you are one of those guys who pretend to be native speakers of English to make some point about politics but don't make half an effort (which would also explain your bad grammar).
Either way, you are not a person worth talking to.

teo123
Senior Member
Posts: 317
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2015 3:46 pm
Religion: None (Atheist)
Diet: Vegan

Post by teo123 » Sun Mar 03, 2019 5:37 am

I mean, like, @Red has strong opinions about how natural sciences and social sciences work, and (s)he is willing to argue for pages that linguistics is not a real science.
Now (s)he appears to be ignorant of the 5th-grade linguistics and to misunderstand my arguments because of that. This would be funny if we didn't waste hours and hours arguing.

How did you call the linguistic laws such as the Grimm's Law or the Third Slavic Palatalization at your school? We called them "glasovni zakoni", literally "sound laws".

User avatar
Red
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 2780
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2014 8:59 pm
Location: Toluca Lake

Post by Red » Thu Mar 07, 2019 4:59 pm

@teo123 I thought you were referring to laws in the legal sense, not the scientific (or phonetic) sense, so that threw me off. Instead of being rude, you should ask for clarification (like I did a few times before) instead of making assumptions. Asshole.

I could chalk that up to your English ability, but I suspect that you already knew I was referring to that, and you just want to make yourself seem like you're winning the debate. I do not wish to jump to conclusions though.

Anyway, I never said that phonetic laws cannot be falsified, that's just something you put into my mouth.
Learning never exhausts the mind.
-Leonardo da Vinci

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest