![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
jackSuppose one is posting to pro_scurvy[1], and someone says she doesn't have scurvy because she eats fruit. This statement is technically incorrect, there are fruits which don't help[3].
There are a variety of essentially unhelpful responses to this problem:
I don't understand, what are you talking about? If you're genuinely unaware that in this context "fruit" means "citrus fruit, or other vitamin C containing fruit" then I'm envious of your shelter from nonpedants, and it's not your fault, however, try to realise what's going on when people explain.
Hah! You have made an error of fact, however minor. Now we must ridicule you for that, instead of pursuing the interesting, widely relevant, and intellectually stimulating point previously under discussion. If you truly want to derail the discussion (eg. it's getting too personal), this is a good, if somewhat mean, way. However, recognise what you're doing, don't, as is too easy, do it automatically because you can.
Hah! I am more pedantic than you, thus you lose the argument. We win! Go scurvy! We've all been here. It's a rush. But recognise that, even if you've won in this way, your opponent and audience probably won't agree (unless you're in the carlton, in which case they'll either concede gratefully, or redound with an even more pedantic criticism of *you*), so don't try it unless convincing people is off your agenda.
What are you talking about? I demolish your point thusly: 518 separate links to unrefutable scholarly papers linking vitamin C to scurvy. You are an idiot for saying otherwise! Thrrrrp! This is essentially sarcasm. They made a small error: saying "fruit" instead of (probably) "citrus fruit", and everyone knows what they mean. But you take them literally, responding to what they said, not what everyone knows they mean.
I'm particularly annoyed by this, because I take my blows like a man when I make a mistake, but abhor being accused of stupidities I didn't perpetrate. You can go on for hours lambasting someone for something it sounded like they meant, but if they readily admit that they said it badly, and it's *not* what they meant, you're not really scoring points off them if you concentrate on refuting what they literally said, rather than their imbecility in saying it.
Whaaahay! We're bored of serious discussion, now we can argue about dictionary definitions instead! *does the horn-wiggling pedant dance* OK, sometimes this is fun for everyone, but be sure the people you're talking to agree. Otherwise, better may be:
<Very small voice>Do you mean citrus fruit?</> If so, [response to whatever they were actually talking about] Wait, this is probably the correct answer. I try to do this, though am not yet *good* at not hijacking the discussion. There's a couple of variants.
A small correction: you probably mean 'blah', sorry If you don't have anything else to say, but the error is egregious and non-accidental enough to need to make them aware they perpetrated it.
Ignore it completely. If they probably know the right answer but were just being sloppy, you could -- I know this is radical -- not jump upon the tiny mistake after all!
You didn't mean that, you mean "aardvarks are blue". But in fact, they're often a rainbow variety of colours, depending on the paint used... Up to the bit about aardvarks, this sounds like a reasonable rephrasing of the correct answers, but can be insidious. If you impute the wrong thing to them, it can be ages before the confusion is cleared up. Try to be clear what you're assuming they meant, so if by chance they meant neither what they said, not what it sounded like to you, they can explain, and not have everyone jump all over them for what you said they said.
Furthermore, if you do correct them, try to have your brief comment saying why it's wrong[4]. Both for their edification, and to make it clear to the audience who's right. And your correction might be wrong:
Me: I keep wondering if I were living in a dreaworld, could I know? That begs the question, *am* I sane?
You: It *does* invite the question, are you sane, but that's not what begging the question means. That would mean, you would be assuming you were sane or not in trying to deduce it, which is a fallacy.
Me: That IS what I meant.
[0] These are probably technically the same sentence, but I mean "the wrong ways of arguing" not "this is how to avoid an argument" :)
[1] The *weirdest* people I've come across[2], which is saying a lot amidst livejournal communities. It must be a spoof, mustn't it?
[2] Not like that.
[3] Note, pro_scury is just a hypothetical illustration, the people there aren't prone to this error, and it holds up whether or not dried dates are a good source of vitamin C. If I'm wrong, please post a side comment explaining, but as in a humorous way this post is making the point, please don't disregard the post entirely because of any factual error in the example chosen unless you truly can't conceive of any word which is used in some context technically incorrectly but generally understood, in which case make it clear that that is your objection. Thank you :)
[4] Humorous cranky editors link to a case where it's not necessary because the confusion is funny, and not in the way of the original discussion, whatever it was: http://community.livejournal.com/cranky_editors/318691.html
There are a variety of essentially unhelpful responses to this problem:
I don't understand, what are you talking about? If you're genuinely unaware that in this context "fruit" means "citrus fruit, or other vitamin C containing fruit" then I'm envious of your shelter from nonpedants, and it's not your fault, however, try to realise what's going on when people explain.
Hah! You have made an error of fact, however minor. Now we must ridicule you for that, instead of pursuing the interesting, widely relevant, and intellectually stimulating point previously under discussion. If you truly want to derail the discussion (eg. it's getting too personal), this is a good, if somewhat mean, way. However, recognise what you're doing, don't, as is too easy, do it automatically because you can.
Hah! I am more pedantic than you, thus you lose the argument. We win! Go scurvy! We've all been here. It's a rush. But recognise that, even if you've won in this way, your opponent and audience probably won't agree (unless you're in the carlton, in which case they'll either concede gratefully, or redound with an even more pedantic criticism of *you*), so don't try it unless convincing people is off your agenda.
What are you talking about? I demolish your point thusly: 518 separate links to unrefutable scholarly papers linking vitamin C to scurvy. You are an idiot for saying otherwise! Thrrrrp! This is essentially sarcasm. They made a small error: saying "fruit" instead of (probably) "citrus fruit", and everyone knows what they mean. But you take them literally, responding to what they said, not what everyone knows they mean.
I'm particularly annoyed by this, because I take my blows like a man when I make a mistake, but abhor being accused of stupidities I didn't perpetrate. You can go on for hours lambasting someone for something it sounded like they meant, but if they readily admit that they said it badly, and it's *not* what they meant, you're not really scoring points off them if you concentrate on refuting what they literally said, rather than their imbecility in saying it.
Whaaahay! We're bored of serious discussion, now we can argue about dictionary definitions instead! *does the horn-wiggling pedant dance* OK, sometimes this is fun for everyone, but be sure the people you're talking to agree. Otherwise, better may be:
<Very small voice>Do you mean citrus fruit?</> If so, [response to whatever they were actually talking about] Wait, this is probably the correct answer. I try to do this, though am not yet *good* at not hijacking the discussion. There's a couple of variants.
A small correction: you probably mean 'blah', sorry If you don't have anything else to say, but the error is egregious and non-accidental enough to need to make them aware they perpetrated it.
Ignore it completely. If they probably know the right answer but were just being sloppy, you could -- I know this is radical -- not jump upon the tiny mistake after all!
You didn't mean that, you mean "aardvarks are blue". But in fact, they're often a rainbow variety of colours, depending on the paint used... Up to the bit about aardvarks, this sounds like a reasonable rephrasing of the correct answers, but can be insidious. If you impute the wrong thing to them, it can be ages before the confusion is cleared up. Try to be clear what you're assuming they meant, so if by chance they meant neither what they said, not what it sounded like to you, they can explain, and not have everyone jump all over them for what you said they said.
Furthermore, if you do correct them, try to have your brief comment saying why it's wrong[4]. Both for their edification, and to make it clear to the audience who's right. And your correction might be wrong:
Me: I keep wondering if I were living in a dreaworld, could I know? That begs the question, *am* I sane?
You: It *does* invite the question, are you sane, but that's not what begging the question means. That would mean, you would be assuming you were sane or not in trying to deduce it, which is a fallacy.
Me: That IS what I meant.
[0] These are probably technically the same sentence, but I mean "the wrong ways of arguing" not "this is how to avoid an argument" :)
[1] The *weirdest* people I've come across[2], which is saying a lot amidst livejournal communities. It must be a spoof, mustn't it?
[2] Not like that.
[3] Note, pro_scury is just a hypothetical illustration, the people there aren't prone to this error, and it holds up whether or not dried dates are a good source of vitamin C. If I'm wrong, please post a side comment explaining, but as in a humorous way this post is making the point, please don't disregard the post entirely because of any factual error in the example chosen unless you truly can't conceive of any word which is used in some context technically incorrectly but generally understood, in which case make it clear that that is your objection. Thank you :)
[4] Humorous cranky editors link to a case where it's not necessary because the confusion is funny, and not in the way of the original discussion, whatever it was: http://community.livejournal.com/cranky_editors/318691.html
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 03:05 pm (UTC)[2] See? Hah! :)
[1] Though this is obscured by my carelessness.
no subject
Date: 2006-07-14 03:06 pm (UTC)