Assume Nothing

Banned for misunderstanding my post. I was claiming that bonez was blaming me for something I'm not liable for, and you didn't notice it although it was pretty clear.

I've explained before - many of them provide clarity. I don't see any of them as particularly obscure, except maybe vitriol/diatribe/myriad. Oh, and 'pseudo-intellectual' isn't much of a complex term, given that it simply means 'ingenuine intellectual', which was actually reiterated from the other users on this thread. I see nothing wrong with 'unambiguously', since that's merely an inverse of ambiguity, which is to make an unclear claim that's open to (poor) interpretation. A lot of them provide clarity on the extent of the claim, or otherwise provide clarity on what precisely I'm referring to. If we take 'allege' as an example - if I had used the word 'claim' instead, it would be unclear whether I was referring to legitimate claims or a false claim. I don't think that was too complex for the standard reader. We can argue about this all day, but I don't think they're exactly 'exotic' words as though they're not found elsewhere.

Banned for failing to note the shift in blame. If he was too lazy to read it, then its his fault that the discussion is pointless to him, not mine.

I can't see much bickering, but definitely a lot of arguing. It's only a few threads though. Today, I've made a considerable amount of posts here. I'm rather happy that we're getting some discussion again.

I'm not arguing against him, I'm arguing against you. If you want to present his argument, take the strongest points you agree with and tell me exactly what I'm doing wrong. A lot of the excerpt is just unfounded assertions. I'd like you to point out specifically, which terms I use are considered pretentious. It would be pointless to argue if I don't even know what you're arguing and what I'm defending.

I think that might be an exception, but it does depend on what you're likely to give back to society in the long term (typical graduate earnings, including those who don't find a job). I refer to media/arts as in art, music, photography, etc. - the courses which have a hierarchy where the average earner doesn't make much, but the elite makes a lot. I don't have a position for your specific course because I don't know enough about it. I did express that my position was on general media/art courses. I don't think your 'top exports' point was very relevant because it doesn't mean that the average filmography graduate would earn enough to triumph the other choices that I've listed, which we have a lack of graduates in. I think your point about 'six digit earners' goes against you more than it affirms your position - the average earner makes quite a lot in what I consider to be good financial choices. Why do you have to accuse me of making a naive claim, when you have yet to allow me to explain my position? Consider calming down when you write these posts - its clearly implied that you're rather emotional right now.

Well, that was speculative, so you may be right in that you're interpreting my posts in a different way because of the tone of my posts. It does feel that my words get twisted intentionally because of the frequency of it occurring, which is frustrating to say the least in a subject like this. I think the examples of how moderate Christianity can be harmful would give more weight to my claim that in moderate Christianity, it does/may do more harm than good. For now, I'll be searching. Do we disagree on any more points?

Banned for suggesting that an unjustified opinion would triumph a reasoned position.

You are right, but that's not why it wasn't an assumption. It was because of "a) I haven't accepted it to be absolute truth - merely an (arguably) likely probability." If I had met the criterion of accepting it to be true before being presented with evidence, then you/other users would have every right to accuse me of making unsubstantiated assumptions. It wasn't the case, hence why I maintained that I made no assumption in that specific response. EDIT @sees - way to misrepresent my position. What next, a sarcastic response in a flawed attempt to taunt me?

I wasn't suggesting that you did ask people. I just believe that its probable you're basing much of the 'happiness theory' on what people claim (without needing to question) or otherwise express. I'm suggesting that these are likely to be flawed, because we have a strange habit of attributing things to the wrong causes (e.g. god). That's why I don't believe that strand of reasoning is a particularly strong one. I think we're mostly in agreement, but it seems that my posts are frequently misinterpreted because of the nature of my position (anti-religious), evidenced from the repeated need to clarify. I'm not conceding that it's difficult to find examples, I'm merely stating it. If I had stated that its easy to find examples, I may have been referencing something else. If I hadn't, then I made an error of judgement during the post. I'd still try and find some nonetheless - give me some time for it.

Okay, there we have it. I didn't induce it well. I still maintain that its not an assumption simply because I haven't expressed or accepted that it was the truth, rather - it was probable that it was based on reasoning. EDIT - No one has coerced or otherwise pressured you into revealing the situation, so why are you so quick to accuse? I know that you don't have to tell me, so your little rant is absolutely meaningless.

It's the coincidence that they all reasonably fit. Do note that I've never said for any certainty that she is pregnant, I'm simply saying that it's probable on the basis of what I've inferred from that post. I realise that a lot of what she says is rather vague, hence its cryptic-ness. I'd like to see an alternate scenario that ticks all boxes though, however insignificantly it may be. In my mind, it does narrow it down to only a few options (maybe she's waiting for some sort of result). I've guessed it from there. I define assumptions to be what is accepted to be true without proof. I don't accept it to be true, but I give it a chance to be true on the basis of what I can interpret. I'm not sure how many alternate scenarios there could be that ticks so many boxes, if its as vague as you suggest. EDIT @obfuscator - to take for granted/a supposition is the same expression. You've not defined it any better than saying assumptions are assumptions. I don't know precisely what you mean when you say 'to take for granted', so it'll be pointless to argue until you clarify. I don't think its an assumption because a) I haven't accepted it to be absolute truth - merely an (arguably) likely probability, and b) my 'proof' would be the premises that would reasonably allow me to draw that conclusion.

If it costs the economy, withdraw funding. If it contributes to the economy, add funding. You should realise that the tuition fees we pay are still nowhere near the cost of education - the governments are still subsidizing it at a considerable rate. It's not economically sustainable to keep running media/art degrees if there is no practical use for that specific degree, since it would not contribute to society (and thus not enough government revenue from taxes), or at least, not as much as it should on an overall scale. When I refer to rating scales, I mean the prioritization of these courses. Whichever contributes more receives more funding per student - it's as simple as that.

Banned for failing to explain why that triumphs my explanation.

The notion of more harm than good is evident in fundamentalism - but we're ignoring that point at the moment. I can't find too many statistics on moderate Christianity, which is why I'm reluctant to make a firm position on moderates. I think it would take some time to find some examples, but I can be fairly certain that there's a few good examples out there (depending on definition of 'good'). I do think you have vested interest in protecting the name of moderate Christianity, so your credibility is not as high as you deem it. I don't claim to be of an expert in the field of moderate views either, so I don't make any claims on that. I just don't think you're supreme in this respect. When I make reference to 'self-professed statistics', I'm really saying that statistics on what people say are different to what people really do. I've forgotten my original example, but this should be easily provable by how inaccurately people report say... their earnings to their actual earnings, or their happiness to their actual happiness. I think this might be the case in religion, where the existence of a confirmation bias means that what is actually a non-spiritually derived form of happiness (goose bumps in church) may be falsely attributed to religion.

I've said before - induction. I drew that conclusion on the premises that She's female (required for pregnancy) She's anxious (unable to explain it. If pregnant, the girl would be anxious if unplanned. There's many young (20) women out there who plan to have children at a later stage, beyond 25. It's unlikely that she has planned pregnancy at such a young age. This fits the description.) She doesn't know how to stop it from happening (If pregnant, then its difficult to stop without abortion, which is obviously a difficult choice for many women. This fits the description.) She hopes it doesn't happen (indicative of only a likelihood of happening. If she recently had sexual intercourse, then there's only a likelihood of pregnancy, thus fitting description.) She's almost certain it will happen (if pregnant, then she may feel the symptoms, thus fitting the description) She's uncertain whether she's strong enough to deal with it if it's true (if pregnant, it's difficult to express that she doesn't want it without the potential for social outcasting by friends/family. This also fits the description.) If it were to be an assumption, I would have no premises to work on. That's clearly not the case, so you're posting libel right now. If you were to argue poor induction, then present your own case. That's clearly not what you're accusing me of. You're accusing me of assuming, but I've shown you that I haven't. EDIT - 'It is because it is' would be a circular argument. It's a meaningless tautology that tells us nothing more than what we already know. You have clearly not defined it - you have clearly not described its nature/scope/meaning, but merely repeated it.

@Racheya: I don't - I'm merely speculating pregnancy on the basis of her post. It's plausible, it fits the description, and it causes anxiety. Why is the concept so difficult to grasp? EDIT - @obfuscator - before you spam any further, answer one question - what assumptions? EDIT 2 - @Racheya: She may be in the process of finding out, or she hasn't conducted tests and is waiting for her periods. The pregnancy may have already happened, she may not know about it yet.

@Racheya You've misinterpreted my post. I meant that after having sexual intercourse, the likelihood of pregnancy is considerable. I wasn't implying that it's extremely high, but if an anxious user posts about it, its likely to be slightly exaggerated (thus 99.9%). It may be that she could already feel the symptoms of pregnancy, but have yet to conduct a test. EDIT - Oh, so you're going to contribute nothing by posting sarcastic eyeroll smileys? Nice argumentation. EDIT 2 - I misinterpreted what I said - I was looking at the wrong quote.

It's not an assumption, rather - it is induction based on my knowledge of her circumstances. Please tell me, what am I assuming, and what are you contributing by personal critique?

I personally believe that the tuition fees should be based on a ratings scale - so Mathematics, Physics, Engineering, Economics, Law, Education, Healthcare, etc. would cost much less than Media/Arts, History, Sociology, Drama, Music, Foreign languages (save maybe Spanish and Chinese, given that they are the two most prominent foreign languages), etc. I'm basing this on the economic sustainability of these courses. I guess there are some grayer courses like politics, psychology, and philosophy where their uses are obvious but limited. EDIT - On topic, I've been doing what I've always been doing - arguing on Off-Topic. Split this from the Today thread. If I left anyones posts behind, or anything else about this thread needs to be changed, send me a PM. ~Randox

What does 'it' refer to? Suicide, depression, relationship issues, employment issues, sexual life, contracting a disease, test results, exam results, cancer, pregnancy? EDIT - given that you're female, that pregnancy is inevitable if it has already started, the likelihood of becoming pregnant, and the stigma against abortion - I'd say it's anticipation of a pregnancy. If you've recently had sex, take the emergency after-pill.

I've received that criticism before, and subsequently I've been addressing it since. It would seem pointless to restate what has already been said. I use specific terms to convey the magnitude unambiguously. I don't see the problem with that. EDIT - What makes a term 'smart-sounding', or 'obscure' precisely? How exactly do you draw the line?

I choose words that would more clearly articulate an idea. I will admit that in some instances, I use too many superfluous, elaborate terms - but that's not to serve the purpose of attempting to impress. It's to emphasize specific terms to deliver a clearer picture of what I'm saying. I do realise that I fail to achieve this objective on occasion, so I try to address it by limiting my terms to what I fully understand. It seems that your criticism would be against conjecture, as opposed to pretentiousness. EDIT - 'standard' vocabulary fails to deliver the magnitude of a particular idea, in addition to being more difficult to phrase correctly as the idea needs to be explained in full. Oh, and they aren't simply terms pulled from a thesaurus either. In many instances, they don't have synonyms, as they are an entire idea packed into a single word/phrase. EDIT 2 - On 'pretentiousness', I merely reiterated his own term, so that's not a criticism against me, but himself.

It would seem obvious that you're referring to me. To label me a troll would imply intention - do you have even a shred of evidence of any intention of mine to incite a negative reaction from members on this board? I merely dispute - I don't launch personal attacks or appeal to a myriad of fallacies/rhetoric (or at least, I try to avoid them). On what basis could you call me a pseudo-intellectual when I don't express a desire to be perceived as an intellectual in the first place? Nor have you any basis for your allegation of pretentiousness. It would seem that you simply have a grudge against me on no rational grounds. Try letting go. Your vitriolic snark/diatribe is obvious - consider composing in a way that doesn't so clearly illustrate your emotional instability.

Banned for flattery.