0
   

CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?

 
 
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 06:16 pm
R conservatives n liberals so ALIEN
to one another in their respective mentalities
(like oil n water)
as to render logical communication and understanding between them
absolutely IMPOSSIBLE ?

Is it HOPELESS ?

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

Too frequently,
responses that I get (or that I see in response to other folks' posts)
from liberals just make very vague emotional statements such as:
"that is sad" or "a very sick puppy" with no factual analysis of the subject matter
of the message upon which thay r commenting.

It may be that the answering liberals R NOT INTERESTED
in addressing the subject matter,
but then Y bother to post at all ?

Is it deeply inherent in the mental processes of collectivist-authoritarians
to be vague, when thay actually believe that thay r being clear n specific ?


I wonder.

I expect vague n abusive answers from liberals,
judging from their posting history.




David
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,597 • Replies: 29
No top replies

 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 07:31 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:


When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

David

"Clear and precise" seems to be relative.

Making up your own rules for spelling and grammar is hardly a step toward being "clear and precise" in any classic sense of writing.

You could well be right in conservatives and liberals being alien to one another but the reasons you think may not be accurate. Liberals and conservatives seem to have different views of reality. The problem is when viewed from any educational standard that has been used for the last 100 years, your viewpoint isn't the normal one that has been taught and relied upon.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 07:56 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:


When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

David

"Clear and precise" seems to be relative.

Making up your own rules for spelling and grammar is hardly a step toward being "clear and precise" in any classic sense of writing.

You could well be right in conservatives and liberals being alien to one another but the reasons you think may not be accurate. Liberals and conservatives seem to have different views of reality. The problem is when viewed from any educational standard that has been used for the last 100 years, your viewpoint isn't the normal one that has been taught and relied upon.


The problem with the education system and the bad teaching that goes on in schools is worthy of vigorous condemnation, it is not however grounds to ignore logical reasoning and the facts that support conclusions that you have not heard before.

In answer to the op, it is not possible for two sides to come together if both sides don't want to come together. We in America have long lost the desire to work towards the common good, we would much rather advance the agenda of our club. Until that changes we are in the ditch.
0 Replies
 
Endymion
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 08:15 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
R conservatives n liberals so ALIEN
to one another in their respective mentalities
(like oil n water)
as to render logical communication and understanding between them
absolutely IMPOSSIBLE ?

Is it HOPELESS ?

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

Too frequently,
responses that I get (or that I see in response to other folks' posts)
from liberals just make very vague emotional statements such as:
"that is sad" or "a very sick puppy" with no factual analysis of the subject matter
of the message upon which thay r commenting.

It may be that the answering liberals R NOT INTERESTED
in addressing the subject matter,
but then Y bother to post at all ?

Is it deeply inherent in the mental processes of collectivist-authoritarians
to be vague, when thay actually believe that thay r being clear n specific ?


I wonder.

I expect vague n abusive answers from liberals,
judging from their posting history.




David


surely you are talking about neo-conservatives NOT conservatives


Justin Raimondo is a Conservative

He has written the book
Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement

And is a contributing editor for The American Conservative

I have found myself over the last four years coming to highly respect him for his tireless work trying to inform the American public of the dangers of neo-conservatism.

If i was holding a conversation with Mr Raimondo - i do believe we would agree on a great many issues. Particularly those of human rights.


The problems we have talking to each other are not political

They are ETHICAL
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 08:19 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
hawkeye10 wrote:


The problem with the education system and the bad teaching that goes on in schools is worthy of vigorous condemnation, it is not however grounds to ignore logical reasoning and the facts that support conclusions that you have not heard before.

In answer to the op, it is not possible for two sides to come together if both sides don't want to come together. We in America have long lost the desire to work towards the common good, we would much rather advance the agenda of our club. Until that changes we are in the ditch.

When you can't even agree to the standard that has stood for over 100 years as being the best way to communicate then there isn't really a good way to communicate let alone converse about the difference in ideas.
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Jul, 2008 08:47 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:


The problem with the education system and the bad teaching that goes on in schools is worthy of vigorous condemnation, it is not however grounds to ignore logical reasoning and the facts that support conclusions that you have not heard before.

In answer to the op, it is not possible for two sides to come together if both sides don't want to come together. We in America have long lost the desire to work towards the common good, we would much rather advance the agenda of our club. Until that changes we are in the ditch.

When you can't even agree to the standard that has stood for over 100 years as being the best way to communicate then there isn't really a good way to communicate let alone converse about the difference in ideas.


onsigdavid's lack of consideration for and disrespect of the reader is not connected to education. He is being an ornery old coot. I choose to ignore this (having run across many of his kind in the past) but I can see going the other way also. The first five lines in the OP was speaking generally, and here he has a good point. The later part when he talks about how he personally is responded to he has less of a point, because of how he chooses to communicate. I am not talking about all of this tone aversion BS we have at a2k (taking offense to tone of posts), tone is part of substance and if somebody does not like the substance of a post then they should respond with substance and not whining). I am talking about David refusing to use the common form of writing, and for this it is justice for him to suffer consequences.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:20 am
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:


When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

David

Quote:
"Clear and precise" seems to be relative.

Yes.
From the perspective of someone who
fails to understand, it will not be clear.




Quote:
Making up your own rules for spelling and grammar
is hardly a step toward being "clear and precise"
in any classic sense of writing.

Agreed.
My use of fonetic spelling was for a different purpose:
to replace the old paradime, to the (slite) extent
that it is not already fonetic; not for clarity.

I 'm trying to show that there is a faster, easier way.


I believe in splitting infinitive verbs,
because I reject the logic upon which that rule was founded;
other than that I follow conventional grammar.



Quote:
You could well be right in conservatives and liberals being alien to one another
but the reasons you think may not be accurate. Liberals and conservatives
seem to have different views of reality.

Thay DO.
The difference seems to be pretty radical
with powerful value judgments on both opposing sides.



Quote:
The problem is when viewed from any educational standard
that has been used for the last 100 years, your viewpoint isn't
the normal one that has been taught and relied upon.

Educational standards must improve
and thay DO improve; the geocentric theory of the universe
is no longer taught (tawt) in astronomy classes, as being true.

Presumably, new and better ways of building computers
and rocketships r being tawt, abandoning older less valuable ideas.

Our species needs education to ADVANCE,
not to remain stagnant nor atavistic.
Like the metric system
(which grosses me out, in that I am used to English measurement)
fonetic spelling is BETTER.
If u had been tawt fonetic spelling in early childhood,
u 'd NOT now be cheering for the old awkward, cumbersome,
Germanic-like forms. Chaucer 's time has come n gone.
I don 't know of a reason to be a slave to the 1300s; enuf is enuf.
Let 's think of a better Future.




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:29 am
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
Endymion wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:
R conservatives n liberals so ALIEN
to one another in their respective mentalities
(like oil n water)
as to render logical communication and understanding between them
absolutely IMPOSSIBLE ?

Is it HOPELESS ?

When I write, from a conservative-libertarian-individualist-hedonist perspective
I endeavor to be CLEAR and PRECISE in my writing.

Too frequently,
responses that I get (or that I see in response to other folks' posts)
from liberals just make very vague emotional statements such as:
"that is sad" or "a very sick puppy" with no factual analysis of the subject matter
of the message upon which thay r commenting.

It may be that the answering liberals R NOT INTERESTED
in addressing the subject matter,
but then Y bother to post at all ?

Is it deeply inherent in the mental processes of collectivist-authoritarians
to be vague, when thay actually believe that thay r being clear n specific ?


I wonder.

I expect vague n abusive answers from liberals,
judging from their posting history.




David


surely you are talking about neo-conservatives NOT conservatives


Justin Raimondo is a Conservative

He has written the book
Reclaiming the American Right: The Lost Legacy of the Conservative Movement

And is a contributing editor for The American Conservative

I have found myself over the last four years coming to highly respect him for his tireless work trying to inform the American public of the dangers of neo-conservatism.

If i was holding a conversation with Mr Raimondo - i do believe we would agree on a great many issues. Particularly those of human rights.


The problems we have talking to each other are not political

They are ETHICAL

When I wrote that, actually I had in mind the Founders in the 1700s
in addition to the philosophers upon whose reasoning thay relied,
like Adam Smith. I had in mind Barry Goldwater (for whom I voted).




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:54 am
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
hawkeye10 wrote:
parados wrote:
hawkeye10 wrote:


The problem with the education system and the bad teaching that goes on in schools is worthy of vigorous condemnation, it is not however grounds to ignore logical reasoning and the facts that support conclusions that you have not heard before.

In answer to the op, it is not possible for two sides to come together if both sides don't want to come together. We in America have long lost the desire to work towards the common good, we would much rather advance the agenda of our club. Until that changes we are in the ditch.

When you can't even agree to the standard that has stood for over 100 years as being the best way to communicate then there isn't really a good way to communicate let alone converse about the difference in ideas.


Quote:
onsigdavid's lack of consideration for and disrespect of the reader
is not connected to education. He is being an ornery old coot.

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.

I 'm hoping that it will accelerate dragging down
the inefficient, anti-logical old paradime.



Quote:
I choose to ignore this (having run across many of his kind in the past)

This is an admirably logical response.


Quote:

but I can see going the other way also. The first five lines in the OP was
speaking generally, and here he has a good point. The later part when he
talks about how he personally is responded to he has less of a point,
because of how he chooses to communicate.

Please note that I did not
complain that people fail to answer me; thay OFEN do.


Quote:

I am not talking about all of this tone aversion BS we have at a2k
(taking offense to tone of posts), tone is part of substance and if somebody
does not like the substance of a post

then they should respond with substance and not whining).

I sure agree with THAT.




Quote:

I am talking about David refusing to use the common form of writing,
and for this it is justice for him to suffer consequences.
"... from every mountainside, let freedom RING ...."
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:25 am
Quote:
Educational standards must improve
and thay DO improve; the geocentric theory of the universe
is no longer taught (tawt) in astronomy classes, as being true.

Sure, standards can improve but they must remain standards or there is no basis for any communication. Your refusal to not submit to the standards undermines any argument you try to make because it shows you don't believe in communication standards and puts in question your ability to use any standards for rational thought.

Quote:
Chaucer 's time has come n gone.
Yes, Chaucer's time of no rules for language has come and gone. Too bad you don't understand what the lack of rules were then compared to your attempt to not adhere to any rules of standardization today.

By the way, I know full well how to phonetically write the spoken word. But you don't even use the phonetic alphabet which is the standard for writing words phonetically. Handbook of Phonetic Alphabet Nor do you understand seem to understand that dialects mean that words are pronounced differently in different places. Correct spelling is the best way to communicate between those dialects.

You aren't even consistent within your own attempts. Not only do you not apply any rules created by society, you don't even make up rules that you follow consistently.

And yet in spite of your inability to understand these basic things about language you want us to take anything else you say seriously. Communication is the key to discussing ideas. If you can't communicate then you can't get your point across. You consistently undermine your attempts at communication. Then you blame others for your own failings. People are within their rights to think you are incapable of making a coherent argument because you reinforce that with your language abuse.

Which takes us back to your original argument. If you see yourself as a conservative and your ideas as conservative then of course liberals and conservatives can never see things on the same level. But the problem lies not with the liberals in that case. When you depart from reality, it doesn't make other people crazy because they can't hear the voices you do.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:42 am
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.


ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 07:48 am
It is interesting that the only person to agree with OmSigDAVID's unusual and strange way of using spelling and grammar is OmSigDAVID. He seems to feel that it is incumbent upon the reader to spend time trying to decipher his gibberish. He certainly marches to a different drummer. And, some may think, reside on a different planet.
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 08:08 am
IMO, it's a symptom of malignant narcissism. He enjoys the negative attention.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:05 pm
Let me begin my response to u, Mr. Parados,
by thanking u and recognizing u
for engaging in rational analysis
of fact and theory, rather than being satisfied
to sling emotional mud
(as so many of those who agree with u do on this forum).
Tho u r ofen nasty n insulting, at least it is POSSIBLE
to engage in rational discourse with u.
I wish we got more of that.


parados wrote:

Quote:
Educational standards must improve
and thay DO improve; the geocentric theory of the universe
is no longer taught (tawt) in astronomy classes, as being true.

Quote:
Sure, standards can improve but they must remain standards or there
is no basis for any communication.

My use of fonetic spelling is my effort to accelerate the rejection
of the old, anti-logical traditional orthografic paradime,
to the slite and limited extent that it is not already fonetic.
I put in front of peoples' eyes images of easier and faster ways to write.
I tend to do this to a lesser extent, if the subject matter of my discourse
is more complex than usual. If I surrendered completely, and reverted
to my old way of spelling (i.e., YOUR way) then I 'd feel guilty of perpetuating
a form that does not serve us well, less than ideally, and cries out for improvement.
I am aware of the Spanish use of fonetic spelling; thay shud not have a monopoly
on simplicity, ease and convenience.
We shud stop torturing and intimidating little school children into spelling
the RONG way. (Does anyone know the Edgar Caycee story ?)



Quote:
Your refusal to not submit to the standards undermines any argument you try to make

For YEARS, I have been thusly informed on libertarian media on which I have posted.
I am not aware of any other libertarian, nor any other member of NRA or Mensa,
who uses fonetic spelling on-line.
Call me a weirdo.
U will anyway,
because of my libertarian support of unlimited freedom
in laissez faire capitalism by anyone and everyone.



Quote:
because it shows you don't believe in communication standards

Well, the only ones that I disavow r non-fonetic spelling
and the rule against splitting infinitive verbs.
That 's not much.




Quote:
and puts in question your ability to use any standards for rational thought.

That will be challenged anyway,
on the basis of substantive ideological dissent.




Quote:
Chaucer 's time has come n gone.

Quote:
Yes, Chaucer's time of no rules for language has come and gone.

Gone except for some few residual
paleo-Germanic forms like adding UGH for no good reason
to the word "tho".






Quote:
Too bad you don't understand what the lack of rules were then compared
to your attempt to not adhere to any rules of standardization today.

(Cut n paste):
Well, the only ones that I disavow r non-fonetic spelling
and the rule against splitting infinitive verbs.
That 's not much.







Quote:
By the way, I know full well how to phonetically write the spoken word.

That is to your credit.


Quote:

But you don't even use the phonetic alphabet which is the standard
for writing words phonetically. Handbook of Phonetic Alphabet

That just goes to show that u know more than I do.
I 'll look into it.



Quote:
Nor do you understand seem to understand that dialects mean that words
are pronounced differently in different places.

I accept Tom Brokaw as the standard
for correctly spoken English.

I hope that the English will follow his example.




Quote:
Correct spelling is the best way to communicate between those dialects.

Spelling is CORRECT to the extent
that it bears greater loyalty to logic than to atavistic tradition.





Quote:
You aren't even consistent within your own attempts.

Yes; u cawt me.
I confess.



Quote:
Not only do you not apply any rules created by society,

None at all ?
There might be 1 or 2 somewhere that I apply.



Quote:

you don't even make up rules that you follow consistently.

I 'm not much of a rulemaker.
I guess I 'll have to concede that point.






Quote:
And yet in spite of your inability to understand these basic things about
language you want us to take anything else you say seriously.

Please note that this thread
is not personal about ME.
I was inquiring into whether other conservatives can effectively
communicate with liberals, or whether substantive differences
of ideology and of the foundational psychology r such as to render
that impossible.



Quote:
Communication is the key to discussing ideas.

Yes



Quote:
If you can't communicate then you can't get your point across.
You consistently undermine your attempts at communication.

I have CONFIDENCE in your ability to understand
when I write u instead of you or vu instead of view.




Quote:
Then you blame others for your own failings.

I never did that; never.



Quote:
People are within their rights to think you are incapable of making
a coherent argument because you reinforce that with your language abuse.

Indeed thay r.
Thay have the right to believe that the moon
is made of gold or green chese (regardless of moonrocks);
thay r sovereign n autonomous between their ears.




Quote:
Which takes us back to your original argument.
If you see yourself as a conservative and your ideas as conservative
then of course liberals and conservatives can never see things on the same level.

Is it possible
that thay can UNDERSTAND one another ?




Quote:

But the problem lies not with the liberals in that case.
When you depart from reality, it doesn't make other people crazy
because they can't hear the voices you do.

With regard to some issues, liberals agree with me
(e.g., womens' autonomy qua reproductive freedom and sovereignty over their own bodies).
I observe NO COMPLAINTS when I post things
that liberals LIKE to see.
Its only a question of whose ox is gored.




Please note that altho I am perfectly willing to discuss fonetic spelling
on this thread, if u like, the purpose of the thread was to inquire
into whether the minds of conservatives and liberals (their thought processes)
r so alien to one another as to render impossible enuf of a
rappor to enable reconciliation of our differences.


We communicated with the commies and the nazis.
So far as I know, thay both understood us.

Can we communicate with the politically correct ?

I 'm not sure about this.


David

P.S.:
I call upon all of u
to recognize that u 'd not be complaining
about fonetic spelling IF U HAD BEEN TAWT
TO SPELL CORRECTLY IN THE EARLIEST YEARS OF YOUR LIVES
,
as the Spanish r.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:11 pm
It is NOT phonetic. You use "u" for example to represent at least three different sounds: "u" for "you", which would make "shud" which you use for "should" actually sound like "shoed",as in putting horseshoes on a horse, not to mention "u" as in "mud" (as in your last post several lines from the bottom. That is NOT phonetic. It does not make things simpler. Language is by definition a shared medium. No one shares your version of it but you. You actually impede communitcation in the name of improving it. And "cud", which you use for "could" already is a perfectly valid word in English, which no one to my knowledge in any accent pronounces the same as "could". What are cows going to rechew if you had your way?
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:23 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.


ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.

I am a member of the American Museum of Natural History.
I love that museum. It is one of the best in the world.
On the first floor there is an exhibit concerning Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a very popular President, held in hearty admiration, if not adulation.
The exhibit shows, inter alia how he was taunted in the press
for his efforts to end non-fonetic spelling, regardless of his huge popularity.
He was mocked and subjected to ridicule in the press.
I knew this b4 I began to advocate use of fonetic spelling.
I don 't give a dam; I doubt that he did either, robust fellow that he was.




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:35 pm
Intrepid wrote:

It is interesting that the only person to agree with OmSigDAVID's unusual
and strange way of using spelling and grammar is OmSigDAVID.

I know of no other libertarian, nor member of the NRA or Mensa
who advocates fonetic spelling.


Quote:

He certainly marches to a different drummer.

Yeah



Quote:

And, some may think, reside on a different planet.

That rings a nostalgic bell.
I remember, in the early years of my life,
my mother saying:
"David, u r like someone from another planet.
Other people don't say things or do things as u do"; yet,
we had a good rappor




David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 01:49 pm
DrewDad wrote:
IMO, it's a symptom of malignant narcissism.
He enjoys the negative attention.

I 've known people to say that thay enjoy ATTENTION
and that thay 've done things to get it.

I 'm indifferent to it; I don 't care,
tho I care about attention being given to issues
that I believe deserve our concern,
e.g., matters of public policy, like
I 'd LOVE to see the troops brought home from Iraq tomorrow.
Saddam is gone; enuf is enuf.



David
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 03:08 pm
OmSigDAVID wrote:

My use of fonetic spelling is my effort to accelerate the rejection
of the old, anti-logical traditional orthografic paradime,
to the slite and limited extent that it is not already fonetic.
I put in front of peoples' eyes images of easier and faster ways to write.
It may be "faster to write" but it takes much longer to read. The flow is constantly broken up by words that I have to sound out based on the way you spelled them and then translate that to the correct spelling to try to understand your meaning. It is not a good form of communication at all. It hurts your meaning because your thoughts are broken up by the reader having to divine the word you were attempting to use. As a reader it is frustrating and quickly becomes an exercise in words and any underlying meaning you had are lost to the reader. Why do you think so many people ignore what you write? Because it is impossible to read.

Take for example if you wrote
"That was rite." It leaves the reader wondering if you meant "right" or had a typo and meant "a rite" Two very different meanings that jar the reader. I have had "shud" do that when trying to read your posts. Did you mean "should" or "shoed." Suddenly instead of reading at my normal pace I have to take the time to read the sentences aloud to try to find your meaning.


Quote:


Quote:
Chaucer 's time has come n gone.

Quote:
Yes, Chaucer's time of no rules for language has come and gone.

Gone except for some few residual
paleo-Germanic forms like adding UGH for no good reason
to the word "tho".
In Chaucer's time there were no rules for spelling. There was no dictionary to standardize spelling and define the meanings. Each writer attempted to write the word the way they thought it sounded. You seem to want to return to that.
Quote:

Please note that this thread
is not personal about ME.
I was inquiring into whether other conservatives can effectively
communicate with liberals, or whether substantive differences
of ideology and of the foundational psychology r such as to render
that impossible.
It is about liberals and conservatives communicating. You, being a conservative, don't communicate the same way the liberals do. Your choice of topics and language usage made it about you; but then as others have pointed out, you probably wanted the personal attention.


Quote:

Quote:
Communication is the key to discussing ideas.

Yes



Quote:
If you can't communicate then you can't get your point across.
You consistently undermine your attempts at communication.

I have CONFIDENCE in your ability to understand
when I write u instead of you or vu instead of view.
I can understand it but I have to work at it. I can probably read German or Spanish just as well as your posts and I don't speak either language fluently. It is laborious to read your posts because each word you don't spell requires a translation. Minds work by word association. Using the wrong words on your part makes more work for the reader.





Quote:


Quote:
People are within their rights to think you are incapable of making
a coherent argument because you reinforce that with your language abuse.

Indeed thay r.
Thay have the right to believe that the moon
is made of gold or green chese (regardless of moonrocks);
thay r sovereign n autonomous between their ears.
And you are free to belittle them but it doesn't make you seem any smarter.


Quote:

Quote:
Which takes us back to your original argument.
If you see yourself as a conservative and your ideas as conservative
then of course liberals and conservatives can never see things on the same level.

Is it possible
that thay can UNDERSTAND one another ?
Not if they can't agree on the standards of communication which is what I said the first time.



Quote:

Quote:

But the problem lies not with the liberals in that case.
When you depart from reality, it doesn't make other people crazy
because they can't hear the voices you do.

With regard to some issues, liberals agree with me
(e.g., womens' autonomy qua reproductive freedom and sovereignty over their own bodies).
I observe NO COMPLAINTS when I post things
that liberals LIKE to see.
Its only a question of whose ox is gored.
Yes, liberals and conservatives can agree. But the first requirement before any agreement can be found is to find some common ground. Here we see the problem. Instead of you being willing to use the common usage, you demand we let you use uncommon ones. This is a prime example of NOT finding common ground because you set the ground rules outside the norm before we even start.


Quote:


Please note that altho I am perfectly willing to discuss fonetic spelling
on this thread, if u like, the purpose of the thread was to inquire
into whether the minds of conservatives and liberals (their thought processes)
r so alien to one another as to render impossible enuf of a
rappor to enable reconciliation of our differences.
If you are representative of "conservatives" and I of "liberals" then yes, it does seem that it will never happen. Our realities are quite different. I think that communication requires an agreed upon standard and suggest the one that presently exists. You suggest that everyone else was "tawt rong."

Quote:

We communicated with the commies and the nazis.
So far as I know, thay both understood us.
Yes, because we used the standard langauge rules.
Quote:

Can we communicate with the politically correct ?

I 'm not sure about this.
You start by characterizing those that disagree by using a term you probably consider to be derogatory.

Quote:

David

P.S.:
I call upon all of u
to recognize that u 'd not be complaining
about fonetic spelling IF U HAD BEEN TAWT
TO SPELL CORRECTLY IN THE EARLIEST YEARS OF YOUR LIVES
,
as the Spanish r.
So, if we agree with you before we even start discussing where we can find common ground then you are willing to accept that liberals and conservatives can find common ground. Ridiculous.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Fri 11 Jul, 2008 03:12 pm
Re: CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
OmSigDAVID wrote:
parados wrote:
OmSigDAVID wrote:

Yes; most discerning, but I was not disrespectful.
Rather, I had confidence in readers to easily understand
if I write U instead of you
or r instead of are
or vu instead of view
or enuf instead of enough
or tho instead of thoUGH.
I have CONFIDENCE that u r ALL smart enuf to easily figure it out
and once u do, its like riding a bike: its with u forever.


ouryay useyah ofay omethingsay ouyah inkthay isay easyyah otah understandyah oesn'tday akemay itay easyyah orfay ethay eaderray. isthay isay easyyah otay understandyay utbay iyah ouldn'tway expectyay oeoplepay otay aketay emay eriouslysay ecausebay ymay useyah ofay igpay atinlay ilewhay easyay otay understanday ifay ouyah areay artsmay enoughay otay igurefay itay outay, itsay ikelay idingray aay ikebay, itay etractsday omfray ethay ommunicationcay.

I am a member of the American Museum of Natural History.
I love that museum. It is one of the best in the world.
On the first floor there is an exhibit concerning Teddy Roosevelt.
He was a very popular President, held in hearty admiration, if not adulation.
The exhibit shows, inter alia how he was taunted in the press
for his efforts to end non-fonetic spelling, regardless of his huge popularity.
He was mocked and subjected to ridicule in the press.
I knew this b4 I began to advocate use of fonetic spelling.
I don 't give a dam; I doubt that he did either, robust fellow that he was.




David

Example #1 for you David,

You didn't deal with a single thing I said in my post. Why? It was clear and to the point. Instead you posted a non sequitor.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » CONSERVATIVES n LIBERALS: IMPOSSIBLE TO COMMUNICATE ?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 04/22/2021 at 04:16:16