Ahab Posted February 12, 2020 Author Posted February 12, 2020 2 minutes ago, pogi said: And there you have it! This shows your complete unwillingness to acknowledge that the word "intelligence" is used in different ways and it also highlights your arrogance in thinking you are the ultimate arbiter of truth. I kept trying to tell you that the word "intelligence' generally is not considered to have a moral component. You refused to accept that, even though it is true that it is used that way, defined that way, and assessed that way using IQ tests etc. Thank you. The record shows that I am the one who says that how I define intelligence is the way other people define it, meaning the way I define it is one of the many possible definitions that are all equally valid. You were the one who was saying it wasn't valid.
mfbukowski Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 (edited) 3 hours ago, Ahab said: And it's more about attitude than it is about semantics. Listening with a kind heart instead of to find fault would be very nice, too If a sentence is semantic nonsense no amount of kindness will make sense of it. "Twas brillig and the slythy toves did gyre and gimble in the sea" No amount of kindness will fix that sentence. And then debating for pages about whether or not the toves were actually slythy becomes rather foolish. I suppose the alternative is not get into nonsensical debates with those who make no sense, and love everyone anyway since we all spew nonsense occasionally at least. Edited February 12, 2020 by mfbukowski
pogi Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Thank you. The record shows that I am the one who says that how I define intelligence is the way other people define it, meaning the way I define it is one of the many possible definitions that are all equally valid. You were the one who was saying it wasn't valid. I never said your definition wasn't valid! I said "contexts matter". Your definition is perfect under certain limited scriptural and Latter-day Saint contexts, but not used by the general population. You are the one who refused to accept that your use of the word to mean "light and truth" does not match up with the common usage. On 2/11/2020 at 1:03 PM, Ahab said: Our Lord just shared a better way of defining what it is for us and we can use what he told us to build on an incomplete understanding of what it is. "Equally valid" definitions huh? Let the record show that Ahab lied. He did not consider all definitions to be equally valid. On 2/11/2020 at 1:27 PM, Ahab said: Doing something good is a sign of intelligence and doing something bad is not considered an intelligent thing to do...if something isn't considered to be a good thing to do, it isn't considered an intelligent thing to do, either. Notice your refusal to acknowledge how other people use and define the term. For most scientists, morality is not a component of intelligence. Many consider evil people to be highly intelligent. I demonstrated that as true, but you refuse to acknowledge alternative uses of the word. On 2/11/2020 at 2:51 PM, Ahab said: Then perhaps the general populace should consider it when telling others how intelligent they think someone is. Hence we have some people who think that when people do things that are evil, they are still somehow highly intelligent people. As if highly intelligent people can do evil things. As if there is no regard for morality when determining how intelligent someone is. Something that is commonly accepted as a standardized measure isn't necessarily right, though, is it. Nor it is necessarily good, or highly intelligent, either. Let the record show that Ahab actually acknowledges here that people use the word "intelligent" without a moral component, but he blows off the "general populace" off by saying, "as if..." "perhaps they should reconsider". He continues to reject standardized measures of intelligence as "not necessarily right...or highly intelligent". "Equally valid", that's funny! As is common with Ahab, there is a full display of superiority complex as the arbiter of all truth and intelligent things. Edited February 12, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 12, 2020 Author Posted February 12, 2020 (edited) 58 minutes ago, pogi said: I never said your definition wasn't valid! I said "contexts matter". Your definition is perfect under certain limited scriptural and Latter-day Saint contexts, but not valid for the general population. It is valid for the general population. I think what you mean to say is that not everyone defines it that way, but that doesn't mean the definition isn't valid. Quote You are the one who refused to accept that your use of the word to mean "light and truth" does not match up with the common usage. Because it actually does. Light is what helps someone to see something and truth is what is valid or real, so to say intelligence is light and truth simply means that intelligence is what helps someone to see what is valid or real. Quote "Equally valid" definitions huh? Let the record show that Ahab lied. He did not consider all definitions to be equally valid. Oh Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, What am I going to do with you? Do we need to go over what it means to say something is "valid" now? Valid means something is legally or officially acceptable....or what I prefer to say, what is real. That doesn't mean there is no good, better or best in regard to what is valid. I like some definitions more than I like other definitions but I still acknowledge that all of the valid definitions of intelligence are equally valid. Let the record show that Pogi doesn't seem to know what the word valid means. And that Pogi would prefer to call Ahab a liar than to admit that maybe he didn't understand me correctly. Quote Notice your refusal to acknowledge how other people use and define the term. For most scientists, morality is not a component of intelligence. Many consider evil people to be highly intelligent. I demonstrated that as true, but you refuse to acknowledge alternative uses of the word. Yeah, I just don't like those definitions as much, but if pressed I would admit that I consider those definitions to be valid as well. Quote Let the record show that Ahab actually acknowledges here that people use the word "intelligent" without a moral component, but he blows off the "general populace" off by saying, "as if..." "perhaps they should reconsider". He continues to reject standardized measures of intelligence as "not necessarily right...or highly intelligent". "Equally valid", that's funny! As is common with Ahab, there is a full display of superiority complex as the arbiter of all truth and intelligent things. You're being at least a little bit dramatic now, wouldn't you say? I just meant that people who call people intelligent when they do evil things should maybe reconsider if they really want to say people are intelligent when they do evil things. Technically, they may be able to get away with saying things like that, since technically according to how some people define intelligence it doesn't really matter whether or not people are good or evil, but considering how doing evil things is stupid because it means they are going to have to pay a price for their evil deeds, maybe they shouldn't say that people who do evil things are acting intelligently when they do those evil things. Seems pretty stupid to me, even if technically they might still have some intelligence and be intelligent even though they did or are doing those evil things. Edited February 12, 2020 by Ahab
Ahab Posted February 12, 2020 Author Posted February 12, 2020 (edited) 59 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: If a sentence is semantic nonsense no amount of kindness will make sense of it. Responding with kindness I meant. If a person responds in an unkind way to something they don't understand or can't make sense of, the unkind tone of the response will be noticed and the person who sparked the response will not feel the love. Know what I mean? Quote "Twas brillig and the slythy toves did gyre and gimble in the sea" No amount of kindness will fix that sentence. Sorry, dear, I don't know what you meant by that. Can you maybe rephrase that for me so that I can more easily understand what you mean? Quote And then debating for pages about whether or not the toves were actually slythy becomes rather foolish. Uh, what? I'm still not understanding what you meant when you used those words. Quote I suppose the alternative is not get into nonsensical debates with those who make no sense, and love everyone anyway since we all spew nonsense occasionally at least. Yeah that sounds good to me, as one possible alternative. Another alternative is to try to discuss something with someone with all parties to the discussion trying to understand what each other is saying, asking for clarification as needed. Edited February 12, 2020 by Ahab
pogi Posted February 12, 2020 Posted February 12, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ahab said: You're being at least a little bit dramatic now, wouldn't you say? No, I wouldn't. 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Oh Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, Pogi, What am I going to do with you? Do we need to go over what it means to say something is "valid" now? Valid means something is legally or officially acceptable....or what I prefer to say, what is real. Ahab (multiplied by 30), I thought you acknowledged that words can have different uses and definitions? So why are you pretending like there is only one way to understand the word "valid"? Why must you be so condescending instead of considering that I might have understood you to mean something else based on other "equally valid" definitions? But alas, I will accept your definition and use of the word "valid" in this context to mean "what is real" (whatever you mean by that....oh crap, here we go!). So, if what is valid is what is real, then why did you previously say that "I am defining intelligence by what it actually is", as if your definition is the only valid or "real" definition of intelligence, and other uses are therefore not-real intelligence? How can you then suggest they are both equally "valid" or according to you "real"? If they are both equally valid or real, why do you call people "stupid" for using the word in a valid and real way? 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Technically, they may be able to get away with saying things like that, since technically according to how some people define intelligence it doesn't really matter whether or not people are good or evil, but considering how doing evil things is stupid because it means they are going to have to pay a price for their evil deeds, maybe they shouldn't say that people who do evil things are acting intelligently when they do those evil things. Seems pretty stupid to me, even if technically they might still have some intelligence and be intelligent even though they did or are doing those evil things. Ahab , once again you ignore how other contexts make other uses and definitions of the word very useful. It doesn't really seem sincere when you say that all definitions are "equally valid", but then call people "stupid" for using those definitions. 1) That's not very nice, 2) it is yet another display of your superiority complex, and 3) you pretend to want to listen more, find common ground, respond with kindness, and learn from others, etc. etc. etc. Well, that just looks like a lot of hot-air to me. Edited February 12, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 13, 2020 Author Posted February 13, 2020 22 minutes ago, pogi said: Ahab (multiplied by 30), I thought you acknowledged that words can have different uses and definitions? I do, as they are used and understood. 22 minutes ago, pogi said: So why are you pretending like there is only one way to understand the word "valid"? I wasn't. I was simply pointing out a valid definition and showing how it is valid 22 minutes ago, pogi said: Why must you be so condescending instead of considering that I might have understood you to mean something else based on other "equally valid" definitions? Condescending? Me? You said I didn't consider valid definitions to be equally valid I told you I did. You called me a liar. Why did you call me a liar instead of considering that maybe you might have misunderstood me? 22 minutes ago, pogi said: But alas, I will accept your definition and use of the word "valid" in this context to mean "what is real" (whatever you mean by that....oh crap, here we go!). So, if what is valid is what is real, then why did you previously say that "I am defining intelligence by what it actually is", as if your definition is the only valid or "real" definition of intelligence, and other uses are therefore not-real intelligence? I didn't say my definition, or rather the definition I was using, was the only valid definition. And I am still not saying that. Are you ready to drop down on your knees and ask for forgiveness now? No, I didn't think so. 22 minutes ago, pogi said: How can you then suggest they are both equally "valid" or according to you "real"? If they are both equally valid or real, why do you call people "stupid" for using the word in a valid and real way? I explained that already and I said that I still considered the evil definition of intelligence... the definition that says it doesn't matter if someone is evil or not... to be an equally valid definition of intelligence. Whether it's a good definition or an evil definition, they're all equally valid. 22 minutes ago, pogi said: Ahab , once again you ignore how other contexts make other uses and definitions of the word very useful. Ignored what? What are you saying I ignored? I don't think I have ignored anything we have been talking about. 22 minutes ago, pogi said: It doesn't really seem sincere when you say that all definitions are "equally valid", but then call people "stupid" for using those definitions. 1) That's not very nice, 2) it is yet another display of your superiority complex, and 3) you pretend to want to listen more, find common ground, respond with kindness, and learn from others, etc. etc. etc. Well, that just looks like a lot of hot-air to me. Once again you don't seem to have correctly understood what I told you. Oh well. Given your attitude I don't feel like discussing anything with you again for a while. I hope you will have a good evening. And if I never see or hear from you again, a good life too.
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Responding with kindness I meant. If a person responds in an unkind way to something they don't understand or can't make sense of, the unkind tone of the response will be noticed and the person who sparked the response will not feel the love. Know what I mean? Sorry, dear, I don't know what you meant by that. Can you maybe rephrase that for me so that I can more easily understand what you mean? Uh, what? I'm still not understanding what you meant when you used those words. Yeah that sounds good to me, as one possible alternative. Another alternative is to try to discuss something with someone with all parties to the discussion trying to understand what each other is saying, asking for clarification as needed. The "funniest" part was that I "misquoted" and "misspelled" the intended nonsense. Its intention is to explore the nature of nonsense. That in turn is a examination of language itself, and how we create meaning from a few squiggles on a page. This is a famous poem which sounds meaningful, but is not. It is like arguing about definitions https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42916/jabberwocky
Ahab Posted February 13, 2020 Author Posted February 13, 2020 17 minutes ago, mfbukowski said: The "funniest" part was that I "misquoted" and "misspelled" the intended nonsense. Its intention is to explore the nature of nonsense. That in turn is a examination of language itself, and how we create meaning from a few squiggles on a page. This is a famous poem which sounds meaningful, but is not. It is like arguing about definitions https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42916/jabberwocky Arguing about anything is like arguing about anything else. It's all arguing. Definitions are still meaningful, though, if you know what they mean and refer to.
mfbukowski Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Arguing about anything is like arguing about anything else. It's all arguing. Definitions are still meaningful, though, if you know what they mean and refer to. I think it's far more complex. but there's no point arguing. We have been over it a few times before, time to agree to disagree . Have a good one. Edited February 13, 2020 by mfbukowski
Ahab Posted February 13, 2020 Author Posted February 13, 2020 14 hours ago, mfbukowski said: I think it's far more complex. but there's no point arguing. We have been over it a few times before, time to agree to disagree . Have a good one. I don't see how anyone could reasonably think it is any more complex than that. All we need to communicate with someone else is to understand what they mean when they say something to us, and vice versa for them, and that is what definitions are for. I'll tell you what, though. I won't agree to disagree with you, and I don't think you should agree to disagree with me either, but I will agree to stop arguing with you. Just send your request to: You, Ahab, and any other name you are known by Wherever you are Unless or until I change my mind
pogi Posted February 13, 2020 Posted February 13, 2020 (edited) 18 hours ago, Ahab said: I explained that already and I said that I still considered the evil definition of intelligence... the definition that says it doesn't matter if someone is evil or not... to be an equally valid definition of intelligence. Whether it's a good definition or an evil definition, they're all equally valid. Now I am stupid and evil (as I do mostly use that definition in most contexts)? This just keeps getting better! Edited February 13, 2020 by pogi
Ahab Posted February 13, 2020 Author Posted February 13, 2020 11 minutes ago, pogi said: Now I am stupid and evil (as I do mostly use that definition in most contexts)? This just keeps getting better! You seem to have misunderstood me again but I don't think it would help you much if I tried to clarify things for you. We should probably wait a while before we talk to each other again.
Recommended Posts