3

11/1/2006 4:17:13 PM

Quote :

"people actually expect Kerry to be careful about what he says, being a respected senator and all, which makes such a comment all the more shocking"

I think people are surprised he made a comment that actually carried an opinion, since before nobody really knew what the hell his stance was on anything

11/1/2006 4:54:51 PM

i like how republicans are flocking to this story like moths to a light, when they are responsible for the world being so fucked up right now

11/1/2006 5:14:26 PM

yeah its not like the last few decades' worth of political administrations around the world caused the current state...its clearly just bush and other current republicans

11/1/2006 5:18:57 PM

yes Reagan fucked it up too.

11/1/2006 5:23:11 PM

^^^ and the dems flock to any story they can get about the conservatives

they all do it

fact of the matter this time around is, Kerry fucked up

his opinion of the people that serve this country shined through in his comment

11/1/2006 5:34:13 PM

its not like kerry doesnt have a history of this...

11/1/2006 5:43:13 PM

kerry will not be remembered and im sure he isnt happy about that

11/1/2006 5:47:28 PM

guys...this is all politics...but....that said...kerry is so dumb...sooo very dumb...you just dont say things like this...

11/1/2006 5:50:56 PM

yeah kerry is pretty bad...i wanted him to lose in 2004 so bush would have 4 more years to fuck up- that way its guarenteed(hopefully) that dems win in 08

i didnt vote in 2004 cause a) i knew nc would be a repub state, and b)i didnt really like kerry and c)bush needed more time to make himself look bad(helping us in '06)

11/1/2006 7:03:30 PM

11/1/2006 7:20:52 PM

Consider that the assertion "If you're stupid and lazy, you'll end up in Iraq" does not entail the assertion "If you've ended up in Iraq, you're stupid and lazy"

Perhaps the only people who think that (P => Q) entails (Q => P) are either stupid or lazy.

11/1/2006 8:14:42 PM

You're right in a sense of sheer symbolic logic.

However, when it comes to our natural language, what he said lead to a natural inference (the one people drew from his statements). The confusion here isn't so much supplied by the listener, but by the conventions of our language when used informally.

11/1/2006 8:43:32 PM

He explained himself. He was trying to say that Bush is lazy and uneducated, and that's why we ended up in Iraq.

11/1/2006 9:04:52 PM

And we are expected to believe that a blue blood new england liberal doesnt thumb his nose at those who dont get the privaledge of going to college?

11/1/2006 9:23:33 PM

^^^ And what conventions would those be? It all seems like English to me, even if it's American English.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 9:24 PM. Reason : eh, punctuation, mate]

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 9:31 PM. Reason : need more ^, slow upload]

11/1/2006 9:23:57 PM

Quote :

"he is pretty much implying that only dumbasses serve in the military"

pretty much?

11/1/2006 9:28:26 PM

^^?

^^^Perhaps he feels that way, but would he come out and say it like that? I doubt it.

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 9:32 PM. Reason : And let's not forget, folks...Kerry served too.]

11/1/2006 9:28:55 PM

Quote :

"^^^ And what conventions would those be? It all seems like English to me, even if it's American English."

Well you're right that if you translate his English into its logical equivalent, that you can't really work in the "backwards" direction. (He says If P then Q, you cannot pin the statement If Q then P on him).

However, the way he phrased it, it seemed as if he wanted to equate P and Q in that sense. This, again, as I said, is a function of how we normally use English to construct sentences.

If you are a total dumbass, then you'd be a Republican!!! This sort of statement seems to imply that all Republicans are dumb asses. Is this how logic works? No, not at all. But it's the typical form of an "all dumbasses are republicans" argument that somebody would express in colloquial English.

So taken conversationally, the inference people drew from Kerry's comments were pretty well-justified. Logically correct? No. How English typically works? Yes

11/1/2006 9:48:29 PM

im amazed that you took the time to spell that out so well, i probably would have just gone and found a rusty nail to beat my head against.

11/1/2006 9:51:01 PM

Well I'm a Philosopher, so I'm really well-acquainted with the rusty nail.

11/1/2006 9:52:29 PM

touche

11/1/2006 9:53:12 PM

Quote :

"And we are expected to believe that a blue blood new england liberal conservative doesnt thumb his nose at those who dont get the privaledge of going to college?"

George Bush?

11/1/2006 9:55:18 PM

^^^^^ So, when someone says "If you drive a Porsche, you drive a car" Americans infer that anyone who drives a car drives a Porsche? No wonder the Iraq war is going so well. People who make those sorts of inferences should be kept away from sharp objects and high explosives.

11/1/2006 10:13:49 PM

No, that's not what Americans infer.

It doesn't apply to all "if, then" structures, only ones of a certain type. I'm sure this is done in Australian English as well, as many Aussies who I've met made jokes similar to Kerry's.

Again, English is a very context-driven language (moreso than most).

In some cases, when somebody says "If P, then Q", it's very obvious that they want to to draw the following conclusion: "oh and I mean to say that this works both ways."

It's a way of pinning the P qualities to the Q, even though it uses a similar structure to a logical construct. Again, this is a feature of the ambiguity of natural language. I've heard Australians, Americans, Brits, and South Africans use this collquialism.

"If you drive a Porsche, you drive a car" is a poor example to illustrate this trick of language. It's usually something emotionally charged that takes this form.

"If you're uneducated, then you're white trash." This seems to imply that all white trash is uneducated, though it's not true to logical form. Again, I cannot stress this to you enough, this is a feature of the English language. The fact that you try to make this an American problem is proof positive that you've got a very large American cock stuck in your mouth.

11/1/2006 10:21:15 PM

ahhhhhhh

11/1/2006 10:21:37 PM

Looks like his superior Australian education is failing him pretty hard on this one. I don't know how much more obvious I can make this.

11/1/2006 10:22:54 PM

11/1/2006 10:42:25 PM

Quote :

"this is republicans grasping for air before the Democrats win and put them in front of committees and hearings and punish them for creating most corrupt congress in the history of our country "

This works both ways. Democrats have been taking things that Bush says out of context for the lenth of his term. Whatever helps their party the most. Politicians are all pieces of shit. However, this quote is entirely too degrading to the people that protect this country. Even if it is true, you can't put these people down just to take a shot at your political opponent. I think blowing this up is more about pointing out that John Kerry is a piece of crap than pointing that out about the entire democratic party.


I used to be republican, but I swear I'm only voting for people who arent total idiots from now on. That could be difficult though.

Quote :

"^^^ and the dems flock to any story they can get about the conservatives they all do it fact of the matter this time around is, Kerry fucked up his opinion of the people that serve this country shined through in his comment "

[Edited on November 1, 2006 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ]

11/1/2006 10:57:21 PM

im not sure this belongs in this thread...but because he was just talking about this little incident...

Keith Olbermann has turned into the biggest hack i have ever seen...like...ever...

ok not ever....but he is just as bad as coulter or michael moore

11/2/2006 12:13:08 AM

I must confess that I am not up to speed on my Keith Obermann hackery so could you provide some quotes for the uninformed, please?

11/2/2006 12:17:28 AM

you spin me right round baby, right round

11/2/2006 12:29:57 AM

i don't see what the big deal is.

11/2/2006 1:29:33 AM

Quoth McDanger:

Quote :

"'If you're uneducated, then you're white trash.' This seems to imply that all white trash is uneducated, though it's not true to logical form. Again, I cannot stress this to you enough, this is a feature of the English language. "

Amusing, because

1.) It doesn't seem to imply that all white trash is uneducated to anyone who understands the meaning of the conditional. It merely asserts (and falsely, to boot) that everyone uneducated in white trash (taking the pronoun 'you' as an implicit universal quantification).

2.) If it's a feature of English, then it's a very odd feature indeed. You claim that competent speakers of English routinely misinterpret the semantics of their language, with the result that what they intend to imply is not the actual semantic entailment of their utterances. IOW, the surface grammar of the conditional masks the true structure of the utterance.

11/2/2006 7:52:16 AM

oh jesus christ dude

11/2/2006 7:55:49 AM

^^ I'm sorry that your political flavorings of the moment blind you to the well-known, well-practiced, well-understood, and well-used features of your native language.

Quote :

"1.) It doesn't seem to imply that all white trash is uneducated to anyone who understands the meaning of the conditional. It merely asserts (and falsely, to boot) that everyone uneducated in white trash (taking the pronoun 'you' as an implicit universal quantification)."

Again there are two meanings. One is the sentence taken as a logical proposition, and one as a charged emotional statement. Depending on the emotional content of the sentence, the speaker invites the listener to infer that the antecedent follows from the consequent.

Quote :

"2.) If it's a feature of English, then it's a very odd feature indeed."

Congratulations, you've discovered that English has very odd features!

Quote :

"You claim that competent speakers of English routinely misinterpret the semantics of their language, with the result that what they intend to imply is not the actual semantic entailment of their utterances. IOW, the surface grammar of the conditional masks the true structure of the utterance."

No, that's not what I'm claiming. I'm claiming that though the utterance has a structure similar to a logical argument, there are two (possibly more) semantic interpretations of the utterance. One is the logical one, which should be obvious. The semantics of logic are such as you've previous stated. However, the typical semantics of English, in this context, seem to suggest a different argument or intuition altogether. In essence, it entails something different.

In essence, English is highly driven by context. If you break down the sentence using the syntax of logic, come up with a logical argument structure, and evaluate using logical semantics, then yes... you'll end up with the conclusion you stated. However, like I said, the utterance is normal English, in this context, is not the same logical argument.

How the fuck do you not understand this?

11/2/2006 8:56:09 AM

how far do you guys have to twist logic to convince yourself that Kerry didnt fuck up

11/2/2006 9:50:05 AM

Kerry fucked up, no doubt. However, his point was still taken by me. Kerry's major malfunction is that he's a total prick, and Bush's major malfunction is far more grave and dear. I voted for Bush, but now I realize that I've made a mistake too.

11/2/2006 10:00:52 AM

Kerry fucked up, but not in the way that Republicans are saying he fucked up. That is the argument.

11/2/2006 10:03:49 AM

kerry fucked up

deal with it

11/2/2006 10:08:41 AM

ok then

he fucked up and let his arrogance and elitist condescending attitude show

he let that kennedy come out

BUT HE IS GONNA HELP ME BECAUSE I'M POOR AND HE CARES ABOUT ME AND MY CAUSE

yeah fucking right

he's a politician

11/2/2006 10:10:25 AM

11/2/2006 10:18:26 AM

Kerry fucked up. He was also telling the truth. The truth is fucked up. Loller

11/2/2006 10:27:51 AM

Quote :

"how far do you guys have to twist logic to convince yourself that Kerry didnt fuck up"

Actually the proper application of logic to this provides the conclusion that Kerry didn't fuck up. However, any reasonable English speaker knows that he did.

While my argument has been that he did, in fact, fuck up, your statement is patently false. It's not a twist of logic, but an application of it that yields JerryGarcia's conclusion. However, we know that this isn't how English works, so ... (continue ad infinitum)

11/2/2006 11:41:47 AM

Quote :

" his opinion of the people that serve this country shined through in his comment"

Kerry himself served this country. He was degrading himself too.

11/2/2006 12:01:23 PM

Kerry hurts the Democrats every time he opens his mouth. He doesn't have a clue how elitist he comes across as. Bush is just as elitist, but manages not to communicate it every time he opens his mouth.

[Edited on November 2, 2006 at 12:08 PM. Reason : .]

11/2/2006 12:07:18 PM

^Kerry really can't help it. He actually looks and sounds elitist. He could be poor as hell and he'd still come off that way.

11/2/2006 12:11:03 PM

wasnt it a botched joke.

is that what hes saying now?

11/2/2006 12:30:26 PM

"I actually did support the joke, before i was against it..."

11/2/2006 12:49:22 PM

I think this is good for the Democrats. This botched joke completely removes Kerry as a future canidate. This will allow the Democratic Party to focus their attention on someone more viable and worthy.

On the other hand, the GOP seems more and more corrupt each and everyday. I have no idea who I'm voting for, but I'm definitely not voting for anyone that was associated with the Bush Administration.

[Edited on November 2, 2006 at 12:51 PM. Reason : -]

11/2/2006 12:49:46 PM