Stigweard

As would be your right Now are we going to shake hands or spend some more time on the matts??

LOL if I was still a moderator I would vote to ban your ass just for saying this

Sorry matey I only came in with SB's new post in The Pit so I am ignorant as to the original starting point. I was responding to this comment: "To be clear about "women in general"...it may not mean the majority. Consider this: if 25% of all humans are serial killers that is a LARGE number. Large enough to say "human beings are serial killers in general". But it is not the majority of humans that do it, only a quarter. So I'm using the phrase in a similar way." As such I can't comment on what you are referring to.

Interesting to hear your premeditated emotional prejudice coming through which only serves to validate my earlier statements that you have, from the outset, been desperately floundering about trying to latch onto anything you could to establish some sort of "Got ya!" moment for yourself. And now, in the absence of anything constructive to say, you resort to mere mud-slinging. I brought a single element of said conversation up to the main forum as a poll and did a quiz on FB to get some statistical data which I was accused of not having. Up until your last post the conversation in this thread has had the respectful discourse befitting its place in the open discussion. Now if you wish to get this thread moved back down to The Pit so that you and I can speak more "liberally" with each other than I will happily ask a moderator to oblige. Otherwise I am sure we can find a way continue what has for the most part been a constructive investigation.

Which only proves the two usages of the phrase exist but gives no credence whatsoever to majority use one way or the other. Now I have previously and quite happily acknowledged the legitimacy of both usages, and you can see by my results that an error adjusted 55% vs 40% is not wide enough a gap to claim outright ascendancy of one over the other (though it would win you a General Election ). The point is that, why the hell, in the pursuit of delivering a clear argument, would you use a statement like "In general blah, blah, blah" when results like this poll shows that in all probability at least 55% of your audience would blatantly misconstrue your comments??? And you would have to then spend the next hour (or several days ) painfully explaining to them the "logic" behind your comments. What sort of fool narrator would self-sabotage a presentation like this??? And even if I knew that 55% of the audience was going to understand my generalization I would still be left with 40%+ who would likewise misconstrue my statements. The morale of the story is, if you want to get your point across clearly, avoid generalizations like the plague!!!! Heheheh!!!

All fair and correct points which indicate weaknesses in the poll. It is for these reasons that I have taken correct due diligence in pessimistically downgrading, via Standard Error Adjustment, the result from a 63.4% support to only a 55.9% support of my argument. Conversely for the same reasons I have raised the contrary argument from 36.6% to 40.9%. With these stringent methods in place I can declare statistical validity within the results.

Erm ... no ... Remember the question was, "What does "In General" mean to you?" It is asking them what they believe the phrase to mean within the context of how they have come to know and/or use said phrase. You simply cannot extract any evidence from these results that they may "know" it to be something different. I have provided my data that supports my statements as per requested/challenged, now the onus is on you to conduct your own research to support your assumption.

What's my point? Well firstly, as you know SZ, this topic rose up out of our spicey exchanges in The Pit. Specifically in response to this comment: Well now we have said data And yes it is a feeble sample size but, as you have seen, I have applied the best of scientific ethical procedures so that if anything the results are skewed pessimistically away from the original point I was trying to make. Which, to requote myself, was: "The word "general" and more specifically "in general," though yes indeed it can sometimes imply "many" rather than "most," is used in the majority of contemporary society to designate "most" rather than "many". Therefore if you use "in general" in an argument with the general public to mean "many" rather than "most" you immediately trip up your own argument because most people will take it as meaning "most"." That was and is "the point," and it is a point that I believe I have now made satisfactorily well. This has lead into further discussion of what is and is not reality ... a discussion that Marbles and I have played with in the past. It is the juxtaposition of reality "as it is" and reality "as it is perceived". If I recall we filled several pages with scintillating discussion over the reality of a chair

An update of the survey results: I have also run this as a quick quiz on FB as well to get some broader response. The combined results are: 45 : The majority of women act in a certain way 26 : Many, but not necessarily the majority, act in a certain way However, for the purpose of scientific ethical diligence, we cannot base judgement on this result due to such a small sample size. So instead we need to pessimistically adjust the results based on Standard Error Adjustment; we reduce the upper score and raise the lower by the SEA. x = sample size y = higher score z = lower score For the higher score: =SUM(y-(y*(1/SQRT(x+1)))) For the lower score: =SUM(z+(z*(1/SQRT(x+1)))) As such the pessimistically adjusted scores are: 39.7 : The majority of women act in a certain way = 55.9% of the sample 29.1 : Many, but not necessarily the majority, act in a certain way = 40.9% of the sample Therefore, acknowledging the weaknesses of this survey, we can approximate a statement: If you declare, "In general women act in a certain way," then you can expect that 55.9% of the audience you are talking to will believe you are in fact saying, "The majority of women act in a certain way".

Roger that, I shall wait and see what the next step from mods are then

LOL oh dear, still floundering around looking for a way to say "Got ya!" You are being rather too obvious. It's not whether or not I want to live in such a world, the fact that has been proven by both the survey I have run and the subsequent conversation that we are having is that we ARE living in such a world. People will and do assume beliefs regardless of what logic is presented to them. This is just the reality.

Bahahahah !!!! You still don't get it do you? It doesn't matter one bit whether I like it or not. You are so intent on trying to stick it to me from being upset from other threads that you have blinded yourself completely to the whole logic of this topic. Once again go back and read things properly with the logical basis that you are extolling because at the moment you are way off base.

I really detest people putting words into my mouth. Take a step back and actually read what I am saying rather than shooting off at the mouth with your distorted interpretations. Actually you are proving my point here because if you used pure logic and only commented on things as they are than you would never have arrived at your assumed belief of what I am saying. It is obvious that your preconceived filtering system and presupposed disagreement with me has skewed your view from the bare reality of what I am saying. Thank you for giving us an example of exactly the case that I am presenting.

How good to know. Oh for goodness sakes go back and read it in context would you. You obviously need me to spell it out to you. The group mind, in general, cares little for logic. People will latch onto any lie, either because they really want to believe or because they are afraid that it is true. Just look at the political circus and you will see proponents of all sides exploiting this fact of human nature. And look at religion and you will know that what I am saying is true What people believe to be reality IS reality for them. This is why I am saying that your insistence for logical predominance in this case is impotent and seed wasted on the ground. To the topic at hand, if the majority of the group mind believes that something said means a certain something than for that group this IS reality regardless of what may or may not be logically correct. Once that certain something is believed by the group then logical counter-debate has little chance of changing that belief. Look at Christianity, what a conglomerate mess of illogical notions and yet a third of the world's population subscribes to it. During the 17th or 18th century the Vatican sponsored a scientific inquiry into it's own religion hoping to counter the wave of science at the time. They had to cancel it real quick because their own researchers start getting heretical insights Anyway, the case is that when it comes to what people believe or don't believe quite often logic has very little to do with it. That is at least one of the point of this topic.

But that action can only be taken by authorities if the recipient chooses to press charges. Now I don't know why everyone is getting up in arms about what he said to Strawdog65 here's what he said to me: Now for me personally that actually is a fair comment. Even though center/Scotty was being a little too precious about own sense of self-importance and if he reacts so easily to someone pressing his buttons then he seriously needs to get the hell over himself. And if he is going to shape up like that then he's got to be prepared for this "wannabe taiji player" to most certainly shape the f**k up and oblige him to his request. But you are right Tyler that there is certainly a limit of what is acceptable in The Pit, your example is perfect. However center/Scotty's little rant in my view is no where near your extreme. Perhaps my time doing security at night-clubs has desensitized me that sort of talk. I understand that sort of chest-beating is not appropriate in the open forum, but The Pit is THE PIT and it was set up so gorillas like me and Scotty could go and pound on each other's skulls. AND it does clearly say "Unmoderated" which means no moderator should assume any mandate for action in there unless it very clearly has become illegal content. I personally don't think that is the case in this circumstance as it was just a couple of goons sharing some chest sweat, at least in my view. And seeing that the threat of violence was made at me I think I have a right to say what the "authorities" do about it.

LOL ... I understand what you are saying, truly. Just because the majority thought the earth was flat didn't make it so. Sure But what I am getting at is about human perception and associated behavior. The way humans engage reality is a collective hunch. If a mob of people are convinced you are a filthy pedophile then logic won't deter them from burning down your house. People will respond to what the believe to be true over what is true. Sometimes what is true matches what we believe to be true, but how rarely does this occur within society??

Oh blah, blah ... I don't give a sod about logically correct at all. Point in case is that if you stand up in front of a bunch of folks and say "In general blah blah blah" when in fact you meant "A significant many blah blah blah" then my little survey proves quite nicely that the majority of folks are going to in fact misunderstand you thinking you are in fact saying "The majority blah blah blah". At best they will misunderstand, at worse they will be offended. Stand up in front of a womens' group and say "In general women are fat mamas", and watch how quickly you will be socked with a handbag. In this case I will say that, from the point of view of delivering a message to an audience, if many believe so, it most certainly is so.

Oops ... double-post ... so I will just say "Bullshit!!" for emphasis.

OK you chaps have the right to moderate as you wish but I will still call "Bullshit!" on this action. 1. It clearly says "Unmoderated" so stop being frigging hypocritical and downright dishonest 2. Precedent has it that the way the receiver of said offense receives it has had a part to play in previous moderation decisions. Case in point, Cat had moderators intercede on her behalf because she felt offended over a comment. Therefore, because I have taken no offense whatsoever over center/scotty threatening me (in fact I kinda was warming up to a brilliant come back before Mal ruined my fun) then I demand that that is taken into account 3. Well ... it is still a bullshit decision because The Pit is "THE PIT" 4. I was clearly, and admittedly intentionally, provoking center into an unbalanced response (which I must take a certain amount of credit for the outstanding success of such a ploy ), therefore I am as much to blame as he is, therefore if you intend to stick to this decision I must insist that I receive the same punishment as he has. I am dead serious, either reinstate center's posting rights or suspend me as well!! 5. Still a bullshit decision!! >.<

Thanks for the responses. I have also run this as a quick quiz on FB as well to get some broader response. The combined results are: 28 : The majority of women act in a certain way 18 : Many, but not necessarily the majority, act in a certain way However, for the purpose of scientific ethical diligence, we cannot base judgement on this result due to such a small sample size. So instead we need to pessimistically adjust the results based on Standard Error Adjustment; we reduce the upper score and raise the lower by the SEA. x = sample size y = higher score z = lower score For the higher score: =SUM(y-(y*(1/SQRT(x+1)))) For the lower score: =SUM(z+(z*(1/SQRT(x+1)))) As such the pessimistically adjusted scores are: 23.9 : The majority of women act in a certain way = 52% of the sample 20.6 : Many, but not necessarily the majority, act in a certain way = 45% of the sample Therefore, acknowledging the weaknesses of this survey, we can approximate a statement: If you declare, "In general women act in a certain way," then you can expect that 52% of the audience you are talking to will believe you are in fact saying, "The majority of women act in a certain way".

Yup ... agreed and very nicely articulated.

This thread has arisen out of a lively debate over the philosophical / religious aspects of Taoism. I can see here that we are witnessing the inherent pluralistic nature of Taoism (i.e. Taoism has various monastic sects (Quanzhen, Longmen, Wudang, etc.) as well as philosophical and folk religious aspects). I know Marblehead maintains that Taoism was a philosophy which then became a religion. In one sense he may be correct in that Taoism wasn't "formalized" until late in the Han dynasty, well after the time of the philosophers Laozi and Chuangzi. However, he has still been unable to produce anything beyond his own opinion to give credibility to his claim. On the contrary, it can be seen that philosophical Taoism is the latecomer and is perhaps a Western distortion of true Taoism within the cultural Chinese context. Please review: THE TAOISM OF THE WESTERN IMAGINATION AND THE TAOISM OF CHINA: DE-COLONIALIZING THE EXOTIC TEACHINGS OF THE EAST Presented at the University of Tennessee 20 October 1997 Russell Kirkland

Bump

Bump

LOL indeed we did: The Relationship Between Religious and Philosophical Taoism Is your Taoism a "Religion"? Hehehe