Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Thad]

...see, I'm frankly embarrassed at being monolingual.  I've lived in Arizona all my life and I have a minor in linguistics, for fuck's sake; I should know more Spanish than it takes to order Mexican food.

[Brentai]

Some people don't have the capacity to learn more than one language, I decided after failing to learn Japanese for the fifth time.

Extreme hyperlexia probably factors into that.  You know, just maybe.

(Which implies that I could probably learn written Japanese no damn sweat, and to be honest, I never really tried it.)

[Classic]

Intro to linguistics textbooks say that if you acquire more than one language during the "critical period" (1-4 years? maybe 6?) you have an easier time learning new languages. I thought of it as building language slots.

I've heard tell of some freakish mutants who achieve ridiculous language finesse even past their 20s. But because I don't actually read, I've forgotten the famous author claimed to do so.

[Mongrel]

Don't worry too much.

My wife knows about 20+ languages and can pick new ones up fairly easily, though that's mostly written. She can get by in spoken Spanish, Japanese*, and occasionally a little German or French. She did NOT learn any new languages until she was at least in junior high, if not high school. But it's never done her much good.

I speak and write one other language, French, and it's gotten me every job I ever had that wasn't in a factory. In fact, it's the only thing I ever learned in my whole life that directly improved my economic chances vs. those of my peers. In my case, I think that learning early did make a huge difference in my ability to view language more objectively (so as to make learning other languages easy), and could probably pick up a couple more if I invested some time and effort into it (Spanish and Farsi are my first choices).

So, uh, I guess what I'm trying to say is, your mileage may vary.

*_{She's the only white person I've EVER met who learned Japanese for non-work, non-weeaboo reasons.}

[Arc]

failing to learn Japanese for the fifth time.

A valuable tool in language studies is to surround yourself with native speakers.

Thus, I will be air-dropping into Canadia in zero eight hours. Within time, their nearly inaudible dialect will be deciphered once and for all.

[Büge]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xg9UEUG6u5c

And when you get home, you can impress the ladies with your cod-fishing skills and appreciation for poutine.

[Mongrel]

Jayzeus! Evun awy counna hunnerstan thet!

[Friday]

Jesus Christ, are you people from Canada or Moonside?

[Kayma]

I didn't catch a god damn word of that.

Poutine, though, that's an idea I can get behind.

[Mongrel]

Actually my friends, true story:

Newfie, is the closest thing on earth to Middle English. The colony was founded in the late 1400's from stock that was already lagging behind in their linguistic changes, and the accent has been mostly stable since then. Though obviously they have plenty of new and amusing words. That's right kids, Chaucer sounded like the guys in that video.

Or, as Kate Beaton once put it...

[McFrugal]

You know what I hate about internet arguments?  People far too often use terms like "strawman" and "false choice" as a replacement for actually addressing the argument.  If someone's using what looks like a logical fallacy, it's just lazy to dismiss it offhand.  I like to think that in most cases, they actually have a legitimate point to make- despite going about it the wrong way- and aren't just trying to win by obscuring the facts.

When people do this, the argument becomes more personal, because instead of putting in a counterpoint you're just attacking the way the other person is arguing.

Oh, also I find the definitions of those debate-related terms to be needlessly vague, which only lends itself to the problem of overuse.

[Thad]

I like to think that in most cases, they actually have a legitimate point to make- despite going about it the wrong way- and aren't just trying to win by obscuring the facts.

Try arguing with Guild for a few months and then see how you feel.

You know what I hate about internet arguments?  People far too often use terms like "strawman" and "false choice" as a replacement for actually addressing the argument.

[...]

When people do this, the argument becomes more personal, because instead of putting in a counterpoint you're just attacking the way the other person is arguing.

The counterpoint to a strawman or a false choice IS to say that it's a strawman or a false choice.

Why would you try to argue a strawman somebody's just set up?  By definition, it is a point YOU ARE NOT TRYING TO ARGUE.

If someone's using what looks like a logical fallacy, it's just lazy to dismiss it offhand.

This is bizarro logic.

What's lazy is trying to dismiss or derail an argument using a logical fallacy.

Oh, also I find the definitions of those debate-related terms to be needlessly vague, which only lends itself to the problem of overuse.

This part I won't disagree with.

[McFrugal]

Hey Thad, I think you have a problem.

[Thad]

YOU ARE IN THIRD GRADE

[JDigital]

You know what I hate about internet arguments?  People far too often use terms like "strawman" and "false choice" as a replacement for actually addressing the argument.

I hate this. I remember when Stephen Downes Guide to the Logical Fallacies was like a secret resource that only a few clever people knew about. Now logical fallacies are thrown around by kids like Naruto attack names.

Strawman no jutsu!

It's completely in ignorance of the advice given on the site:

In your day-to-day life you will encounter many examples of fallacious reasoning. And it's fun - and sometimes even useful - to point to an argument and say, "A ha! That argument commits the fallacy of false dilemma."

It may be fun, but it is not very useful. Nor is it very enlightened.

The names of the fallacies are for identification purposes only. They are not supposed to be flung around like argumentative broadswords. It is not sufficient to state that an opponent has committed such-and-such a fallacy. And it is not very polite.

I've ranted before on these boards about misuse of logical fallacy. You cite and hypothetical example and someone calls "strawman", so you cite a real example and they say "false analogy". You cite an expert and they say "appeal to authority", so you call them an idiot and they say "ad hominem" and declare victory on those grounds.

[Thad]

Then maybe you should stop arguing by hypotheticals, analogies, and namecalling.

[sei]

Maybe you should stop begging the question.

[Niku]

"The Thad will look up and beg 'Save us!' and I'll whisper aglets."

[Mongrel]

Then maybe you should stop arguing by hypotheticals, analogies, and namecalling.

There's a Good Man I know, some of you may have heard of him.

He's the fellow who regularly wins any and all arguments brought to him, through sound reasoning, clear thinking, and solid evidence. He's so right that people who lose argments to him can go home three states away, wake up at 3:22 in the AM, pull back their second floor window blinds and behold! The Champion of Logic is there! And before he falls off the trellis (leaving naught but a few flecks of spittle), he is heard to shout "I'm still right you ignorant motherfucking primate!"

I don't know why people never listen to him. He's one of the most intelligent men I know.

[Thad]

Because video games are like underwear, duh.