A Lament

[Katwick]

it still doesn't change the fact that it's raining.

You call THAT Rain?

 

[Silly Bubbles]

You call THAT Rain?
View attachment 16169

One of them looks like having fun, it might be because of the insurance payout?
One of them is suffering, I feel sorry for her.

And yes, your opinion could be completely different but hopefully we'll agree that it rains a lot in that picture or whatever word you want to use to describe the same situation.

 

[ajqtrz]

@Silly Bubbles Which is why have so much confusion. People use the word "fact" as a summation of things. "It's a fact all X are idiots," is an example. A fact is verifiable. I look out the door and see drops of water falling from the sky. That's a sign that it's raining because is presents what is defined as rain to my senses. Lots of "facts" are just opinions, even if they are well founded opinions. It still doesn't make them facts. Saying a particular political system works is a summation of a bunch of observations, not a fact. I may make the same observations and conclude that the particular political system works, but that's an opinion I hold about what all the observations I made mean. Facts are verifiable data. Opinions are usually a response to a set of facts but too often we include in our facts things that aren't really facts at all, and then inadvertently treat our opinions as facts when we argue. Facts are verifiable, opinions may be treated as facts but we should realize they can be challenged, and perhaps should be.

AJ

 

[Silly Bubbles]

I look out the door and see drops of water falling from the sky. That's a sign that it's raining because is presents what is defined as rain to my senses.

This is a fact, law of physics, scientifically proven, touchable, outside of our heads, everyone sees it the same way etc. The rest is opinion because it's based on how you personally look at it, other people will look at it differently.

I don't know how to explain it any better so this is it from me.

 

[Katwick]

This is a fact, law of physics, scientifically proven, touchable, outside of our heads, everyone sees it the same way etc. The rest is opinion because it's based on how you personally look at it, other people will look at it differently.

I don't know how to explain it any better so this is it from me.

Epistemology has been with us for more than 3000 years. Briefly stated, it's the study of knowledge itself.

Given your critera, 1+1=2 is not a fact.

 

[Astram]

Epistemology has been with us for more than 3000 years. Briefly stated, it's the study of knowledge itself.

Given your critera, 1+1=2 is not a fact.

Well to be fair, 1+1=1 or 3 also but its all in how you present what the "1" is.

 

[Moho]

There is a very poor, quaint, little town where everyone is in a huge debt with someone but has no money to pay it back.

There is a hotel which is hardly seeing any business anymore. They are to soon shut it down. One day a very wealthy American guest shows up and wants to spend a night there. However, before he confirms, he asks for a tour of the hotel. The receptionist asks for a security deposit which the American can take back in case he doesn’t like the rooms. The guest obliges. It turns out by a matter of luck this is the exact amount that the hotel owed to the chef as salary for three months which they hadn’t been able to pay. They gave the cash to the chef.

The chef saw that this was the exact amount of cash he owed the grocer for months of groceries he hadn’t been able to pay for. He paid the grocer. The grocer realized it was the exact amount he owed the doctor for treating his wife’s arthritis, so he paid the doctor. Then the doctor paid the money to the nurse for two months of service he couldn’t pay for. The nurse was new to the town, so she had been staying in the hotel for a few days before she found a house to rent. She too was poor and couldn’t pay the hotel at that time. The money she received from the doctor was exactly what she owed the hotel, so she paid.

Now the hotel had got back the exact amount it had paid the chef. Then the guest has finished his tour of the rooms, and it turns out he doesn’t like it. He takes back his security deposit from the hotel and leaves, never to be seen again. So everyone's debt has been paid, but nothing is different from before. No one has earned anything. But now everyone is happy even though the money has done nothing but to return to its first owner. Therefore, this paradox is basically describing how nothing had changed from the start, but along the way, debts were paid, with no money.

(Source here.)

 

[ajqtrz]

I know you enjoy writing in an essay form, but Internet users generally want to read simple stuff.

Here's a paragraph from wikipedia:
Some walls of text are intentionally disruptive, such as when an editor attempts to overwhelm a discussion with a mass of irrelevant kilobytes. Other walls are due to lack of awareness of good practices, such as when an editor tries to cram every one of their cogent points into a single comprehensive response that is roughly the length of a short novel. Not all long posts are walls of text; some can be nuanced and thoughtful. Just remember: the longer it is, the less of it people will read.
(source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Wall_of_text)

I like this definition because it notes that some walls are intentional. And I do think that sometimes it's pretty obvious when it's intentional. Here are some ways to possibly tell if the wall of text is intentional.

1) Repetition. Saying it over and over to fill space.
2) Another is organization. A poorly organized "stream of thought" style tends to be repetitious, wordy, and confusing.
3) Restricted explanations. Points aren't explained but expressed with no realization that their might be common objections to the idea of the words and thus, those objections are not even acknowledged.
4) Straying from the subject. After all if the idea is space, why stick to just any old subject.
5) Attacks. Usually the desire in writing the wall is to disrupt the discussion and one of the best ways is to shift it into attacking anyone and everyone who disagrees with you.
6) Using common phrases and sayings picked up from the general discussion rather than presenting your own thoughts. "Rather be dead than Red" is an old one that comes to mind. Very common when I was a kid, but not so much now. And worthless as an argument for or against Communism.

Now, having said that, here is a list of things a wall of text might have that make it more acceptable.

1) Organized thought. Paragraphs are focused on a single idea.
2) Lack of repetition...not entirely because sometimes a thing has to be said a couple times in different ways to be clear, but in general repetition is at a minimum.
3) The post sticks to the subject with few to no aside comments.
4) The post avoids trying to guess or claim the motives of the other side are bad or good. In other words, it tries to be more impersonal rather than making it personal.
5) It avoids long explanations that are not needed (this is one I have struggled with in the past and may be this post itself! LOL!)

Thus, it is not the length, but the style and content that make a post into a "wall of text" in the negative sense. The chief culprit is the lack of editing and a belief that your writing is naturally clear and concise. Few writers have that skill and, in my opinion, if you didn't go back and read/edit what you wrote, you are probably closer to a wall of text than you think.

On the other hand, one does have to ask the responsibility of the reader. If you are attempting to discuss a complex subject but can't or do not desire to handle complex sentences, paragraphs or even pages, how complex can your understanding be? In other words, while there is definitely a need to be concise, responding a post by ignoring it because it's "too long" says either the writer has, in the past, posted many truly and/or intentional walls of text (see above for what might make it intentional), or is known to be a bad writer/editor. Ignoring a post because it longer than some magical word limit is probably a bit disingenuous, lazy, and even rude, especially if the subject is one where there is some depth.

Finally, my lament is exactly that. I lament that people are often too caught up in their emotional response to a subject to stop and carefully analyze what the other person has said and respond in a thoughtful manner. And I lament that they, too often, instead, attack the persons motives, their personal hygiene, and anything else irrelevant to the subject at hand. And I lament that, in defense of a pleasant experience, a forum of any type, has to restrict what can be discussed.

AJ

 

[Silly Bubbles]

Finally, my lament is exactly that. I lament that people are often too caught up in their emotional response to a subject to stop and carefully analyze what the other person has said and respond in a thoughtful manner. And I lament that they, too often, instead, attack the persons motives, their personal hygiene, and anything else irrelevant to the subject at hand. And I lament that, in defense of a pleasant experience, a forum of any type, has to restrict what can be discussed.

There is more on this here. It's usually a sign of losing the argument. We all get upset when we are wrong or other people don't agree, it doesn't necessarily mean that the other person is at fault, all they did is to state their position. Our ego can get in our way of thinking clearly. When we're emotional, it's best to have a break, calm down, clear our head before we say something that we might regret.

 

[Darielle]

Oh no...not Mr. Collins!

"Do these pleasing attentions proceed from the impulse of the moment, or are they the result of previous study?"

I've watched that so often that I think I know it by heart, lol.

 

[Iyapo]

@Darielle
I was googling a quote for you, but I landed on shmoop and just sort of fell in, following favorite quotes.

 

[Katwick]

it doesn't necessarily mean that the other person is at fault, ...

I'd agree with you, but then we'd both be wrong.