Everyone Is a Sith: VICTORY!

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

VICTORY!

38 comments:

_J_ said...: Them's some perty words.

Too bad he's a Muslim Black Separatist who kills babies an' hates white, religious, gun totin' folk who ain't never done been ta academia short o' the few years a' elementary school they had fo' pa needed help tendin' the harvest.

Hayuck.

By the way, I just learned this morning that Obama was a Black Muslim Separatist via the First Thoughts feedback comments. Actually, one person said Obama was a Muslim and another said that Obama was a Black Separatist. Initially I thought these two positions were somewhat mutually exclusive. But in the end I decided that was just me being narrow minded.; June 4, 2008 at 1:25 PM
Mike Lewis said...: you can be both a Black Muslim Separatist.

They are called Nation of Islam. Which is only kind of Islam. Not that Mormonism is anything like the nation of islam, but

LDS:Nation of Islam::Christianity:Islam.

Both are 'new world' versions of 'old world' religions.; June 4, 2008 at 5:22 PM
Roscoe said...: Pretty much what Mikey said.; June 5, 2008 at 7:02 AM
_J_ said...: I think a more sensible representation would be:

LDS:Christianity::Nation of Islam:Islam

I assume that is what you mean.

Your notation was:
bird:dog::birdhouse:doghouse

Also, a baloo is a bear.
A yonker is a young man.
And to wuzzle? That is to mix.; June 5, 2008 at 9:51 AM
Unknown said...: what you mean birdhouses don't fly over doghouses? And dog houses won't eat birdhouses?

That's just crazy talk; June 5, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Roscoe said...: Your mockeries are great, but technically, Mikey's notation is right, as well.

LDS IS to Nation of Islam what Christianity is to Islam.

Two competing religions with intertwined geneologies.; June 5, 2008 at 1:47 PM
_J_ said...: A birdhouse that could fly would be awesome!

You know what I shall do? When the wren house has baby wrens in it? I'm going to strap some bottle rockets, roman candles, firecrackers, and wings to it. Then i'm going to attach the whole thing to a kite and throw it off a cliff after lighting the fuses.

It will be spectacular.; June 5, 2008 at 4:30 PM
Unknown said...: technically Mikey's analogy works, but only in that A and B are totally unrelated and therefore C and D can be whatever they want. Each half of an analogy is expected to have some sort of relevance to one another, and the relevance must be the same for both pairs.

LSD really doesn't have any relevance to Nation of Islam outside of the context in which one notes they are both radicals to their respective religions, so the religions must therefore be the reference point to each radical sect.; June 5, 2008 at 4:55 PM
_J_ said...: My understanding of analogies is that the relation must carry between the two.

_ eats _ (in the same way that) _ eats _

For example.

I do not know what one would substitute for "eats" in Mikey's analogy to make it sensible.; June 5, 2008 at 5:02 PM
Unknown said...: That is exactly what I was saying. LDS relates to Nation of Islam only in that they are both religions. If you are showing they are both radical sects of their respective religions, then you must directly compare them to their respective blanket religions to make it work.; June 5, 2008 at 9:21 PM
Roscoe said...: They're not unrelated. You're seeing the obvious analogy, and missing the fact that his works.

Both LDS and Nation of Islam are modern and teneous interpretations of more entrenched religions, applied to political goal.

It's not that they are radical aspects of previous religions, but rather that they approach issues in similar respects.

Break it down into the actual verbal phrasing. LDS (is to) Nation of Islam (as) Christianity (is to) Islam.; June 6, 2008 at 8:37 AM
Roscoe said...: It occurs to me that none of you are very good at analogies, are you?

The point of an analogy is to analyze how the elements are similar.

Jay's mocking example is perfect, in that the comparison between Bird is to Dog, as Birdhouse is to Doghouse.

Birds fly over dogs, yes. And birdhouses don't. But let's look just a little closer. Birds sleep in elevation, relative to the ground. Dogs do not. Thus birds sleep above dogs. Bird and Dog Houses are sleeping domiclies for their respective species. Thus, Birdhouses are placed in elevation in comparison to Doghouses.

Therefore, Birds:Dog::Birdhouse:Doghouse is not only sincerely valid, it's reasonable.

I swear to god, ISTEP Analogies ruined the device for an entire series of generations in this state.; June 6, 2008 at 8:47 AM
_J_ said...: I think Roscoe's problem is that he doesn't understand what "as" means.

As means "in the same way that".

"Both LDS and Nation of Islam are modern and teneous interpretations of more entrenched religions, applied to political goal."

Which means that your analogy is:

(LDS and Nation of Islam are modern and teneous interpretations of more entrenched religions, applied to political goal)

(In the same way that)

(Christianity and Islam are modern and teneous interpretations of more entrenched religions, applied to political goal)

Which is, in fact, not true.

"Therefore, Birds:Dog::Birdhouse:Doghouse is not only sincerely valid, it's reasonable."

yeah, no.

As I said above "as" means "in the same way that" which means that the ":" has to be the same fucking thing in both pairs.

Find one : that works for both pairs.; June 6, 2008 at 10:22 AM
Unknown said...: "Both LDS and Nation of Islam are modern and teneous interpretations of more entrenched religions, applied to political goal."

But that is just it! The analogy only makes sense when you reference their encompassing religions. You can't make that comparison without them. Thus you must directly compare LDS:Christianity::Nation of Islam:Islam. As a basic principle of Analogies the first pair has no relation to the second pair, except that the second pair must relate to each other in the same way that the first pair do.

To compare in the way that Mikey did, means that you have no idea that LDS is a radical sect, nor do you have any idea that Nation of Islam is. You could put just about anything that could be considered the same type in the second pair. LDS:NoI::Golden Retriever:Labrador Retriever would work the same way you see.; June 6, 2008 at 10:26 AM
_J_ said...: I have an idea. Let's cite something instead of just allowing Roscoe to say stupid shit.

Identity of Relation:

"From there analogy was understood as identity of relation between any two ordered pairs, whether of mathematical nature or not. Kant's Critique of Judgment held to this notion. Kant argued that there can be exactly the same relation between two completely different objects. The same notion of analogy was used in the US-based SAT tests, that included "analogy questions" in the form "A is to B as C is to what?" For example, "Hand is to palm as foot is to ____?" These questions were usually given in the Aristotelian format:

HAND : PALM : : FOOT : ____"

"exactly the same relation", mother fucker. Don't even try to tell me Kant.

Cause I'll mess your shit up. I'll mess your shit up hard.; June 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM
Roscoe said...: BINGO! As means exactly that!

But your problem is that you're assuming it's prescriptive!

it's an analytical exercise!

The Kant/ SAT stuff only works when you're asked to fill in the blank.

We're talking about full analogies.

The Bird-Dog, Birdhouse-Doghouse analogy describes exactly the same relationship, Jay! That's my whole point!

PRECISELY in the way that LDS-NoI, C-I does!

BECUASE they stem from the earlier ones, they approach foundational issues in the same manner. That means that LDS is to NoI in ways that C is to I.

Don't even TRY to tell me how Analogies work. You can pull all the Kant you want, I will argue around it, once I'm out of work.; June 6, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Roscoe said...: The hell.

two different objects.

That stands for the Is To, not for the As.

X is to Y. as Z is to A.

Two different Objects compared?

X and Y, Z and A.

the Not (X to Y) and (Z to A).

Becasue that compares relationships, not objects.; June 6, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Roscoe said...: Kyle, if you make that Analogy, and it's valid, then you're making a comparison about that NDS and NoI are funadmentally the same, but the surface details differ, in the way that the color of the fur differs.

It absolutely requires to to know about LDS and NoI, in order to say they share the same relationship as Gold and Chocolate Labs.

You can't just type any second pair in and have it valid, but you CAN type any second pair in which describes an equal relationship between the first pair.; June 6, 2008 at 10:48 AM
_J_ said...: This is the analogy you offered:

(LDS and Nation of Islam are modern and teneous interpretations of more entrenched religions, applied to political goal)

(In the same way that)

(Christianity and Islam are modern and teneous interpretations of more entrenched religions, applied to political goal)

That analogy is false.

Please correct it so that it is true.

Or give up.; June 6, 2008 at 10:59 AM
Unknown said...: My analogy does denote an equal relationship between the pairs. Both are specific sets of a broader category.

LDS and NoI are specific sets of the broader category of relgion, where as Golden and Labrador retrievers are specific sets (breeds) of the category dog.; June 6, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Roscoe said...: I never gave that as the analogy, and you would do well to avoid putting words into my mouth.

Becasue of their respective generational proceses, LDS and NoI approach foundational issues, with regards to one another, in the same manner as Christianity does to Islam.

LDS belives that God sent his only son down to guide humanity. Nation of Islam belives He sent word through Prophets to guide them.

Hmn. I dunno, is that Similar enough to Christianity and Islam for you?

Shit-Damn, the analogy works! Does it describe what Mike wanted it to? no.. but it's still valid, function, and fully meaningful. Well, Christ on a Crutch, I can't believe it myself, but Roscoe's correct!; June 6, 2008 at 11:31 AM
Roscoe said...: to bring it back on topic for a second, the ignorance you showed in the first post (at least it reads that way, in the assumption that you can't be a Black Seperatist and a Muslim) is wonderful, in that it's the exact same ignorace that allows the opposite reaction, the one you call out, the fear-of-other Muslim to be tied to Nation of Islam, when there's very very little connection between the two, especially politically.

Just noting that, becuase it's damned amusing.; June 6, 2008 at 11:34 AM
_J_ said...: "Shit-Damn, the analogy works! Does it describe what Mike wanted it to? no.."

I thought that's what we were talking about.

"I dunno, is that Similar enough to Christianity and Islam for you?"

It has to be "exactly the same relation".

"LDS:Nation of Islam::Christianity:Islam"

What exactly the same phrase can be used for "LDS _ Nation of Islam" as "Christianity _ Islam"?

I contend that there is none.

The sensible arrangement is LDS:Christianity::Nation of Islam:Islam.; June 6, 2008 at 11:39 AM
_J_ said...: "the ignorance you showed in the first post (at least it reads that way, in the assumption that you can't be a Black Seperatist and a Muslim) is wonderful,"

Aww..it's like I'm on the PA forums again...where we lose the conversation to ad hominem attacks.; June 6, 2008 at 11:42 AM
_J_ said...: Ad Hominem attacks aside, I honestly do not see how you make these functional analogies:

LDS:Nation of Islam::Christianity:Islam

bird:dog::birdhouse:doghouse

Could you, please, just take each analogy and present the manner by which they are made sensible?

Here is the form:

1) LDS:Nation of Islam::Christianity:Islam

: = "_"

2) bird:dog::birdhouse:doghouse

: = "_"

What is the relation that exists between these pairs which is EXACTLY THE SAME between each? I don't see one.; June 6, 2008 at 11:45 AM
Roscoe said...: NO!

taht one wasn't an attack! if I'm mis-reading you, then so be it.

But my point is.. not recognizing that Nation of Islam (Black Muslim Seperatism) is not connected at all to Islam...

They're both funadmental mistakes is all.. Beleiving that they're both the same islam so they're Tight and believing taht the two are opposed(Black Seperatism and Being Islamic)..

Gah.. damnit.. I want to take you head on the other half, but this one was not related at all.; June 6, 2008 at 11:57 AM
Unknown said...: "is a different religion than"

and

"is normally at a higher altitude than"

Tecnnically they are functional analogies. Useless, but functional.; June 6, 2008 at 12:03 PM
Roscoe said...: it IS the exact same relationship!

Let me give you a better one, to highlight my entire point here.

dog is to cat as man is to bicycle.

Dogs don't ride cats. So that can't be it.

Bikes aren't living creatures, so.. that's not it.

Bikes have wheels, so it's not two legs good/four legs bad.

BUT one step back from that, is this: Dogs have a four element primary motivation system, just as Cats do. Men have a two element primary motivation system, just as bicycles do.

What you're bypassing is the analogy as a whole. You read it in the clasic ISTEP way. 1 is to 2 as X is to What. so you're expecting the same relationshp to be mirrored.

When taking the analogy as a whole, you have to stop and ask is it valid? Is there a relationship between the first pair that is mirrored. Yes, it has to be exact, but the terms of what quantifies exact? THAT is contextual. and if there exists something, then it's valid.

If it's valid, is it expressing something with meaning to the context? That's a seperate question.

The bird dog and houses works precisely the same way, and mirrors the exact same relationship.

the Birdhouse spends it's existence suspended while the Doghouse spends it on the ground.

Just as birds to dogs.

Exact same relationship.; June 6, 2008 at 12:06 PM
Roscoe said...: God, this is both cathartic and frustrating.

I haven't had a good, pitched argument in some time.

ESPECIALLY not one, where I know full well I'm right, and yet my opponent won't budge an inch.

Excellent.; June 6, 2008 at 12:33 PM
_J_ said...: "Dogs have a four element primary motivation system, just as Cats do. Men have a two element primary motivation system, just as bicycles do."

I'm going to blow your mind.

Are you ready?

It's really going to blow your mind.

Wait for it...

THEY ARE NOT EXACTLY THE SAME IF THEY ARE DIFFERENT.

"Is there a relationship between the first pair that is mirrored. Yes, it has to be exact, but the terms of what quantifies exact? THAT is contextual."

That's where your mistake is. Exact is not contextual. It actually has to be EXACT, you have to take the exact same phrase and fit the elements into it.

Example:

Apple:Fruit::Canary:Bird

The : is "is a type of".

"have a four element primary motivation system" is not EXACTLY THE SAME AS "have a two element primary motivation system".

Which is why the analogy doesn't work.

I'm not saying that you cannot make that comparison. But that type of comparison is not an analogy given that it does not fit the requirements for an analogy given the definition of "analogy" with which we are working.

I mean, all you have to do is read what Identity of Relation is.; June 6, 2008 at 12:42 PM
Roscoe said...: Dogs and Cats share the same Number of Primary Motivators.

Men and Bikes share the same Number of Primary Motivators.

How are those different?

Please, enlighten me.

How is the concept "Same # of Primary Motivators" different from "Same # of Primary Motivators"

Seems to me, and this is just my first glance at it, maybe I'm missing a comma somewhere or a transposed vowel.. but seems like they're.. get this.. the same.; June 6, 2008 at 12:56 PM
Roscoe said...: I refuse to believe you're a high functioning autistic who doesn't get that I described two things that are exactly the same, simply because I didn't spell out a specific step.

And equally, I refuse to accept that you're going to rely upon exact as a term of of comparison, becuase it specifically denotes no possible comparison. An analogy detailing an specifically exact match? conveys precisely no information. it is A is to A as A is to A.; June 6, 2008 at 1:01 PM
Roscoe said...: Christ on a Crutch.

I've spent the last half hour arguing with Shay.

Never, ever lose critical facilty, Jay. I can't train people to argue, damnit.; June 6, 2008 at 2:41 PM
_J_ said...: "Dogs and Cats share the same Number of Primary Motivators.

Men and Bikes share the same Number of Primary Motivators."

That works. But that is not what you initially said. You said:

"Dogs have a four element primary motivation system, just as Cats do. Men have a two element primary motivation system, just as bicycles do."

In a system set to fit a specific formula the manner in which the information is presented is important. Since identity of relation requires that the relations be exactly the same the relations have to be formulated to be exactly the same.; June 6, 2008 at 2:50 PM
Roscoe said...: I take it back. Maybe you ARE a high functioning autistic.

I honestly took that as reconisably my point, that the focus was on Number of Primary Motivators Shared by the Specific Comaparative Pairs.

So does this mean you're agreeing with me?

or are you arguing against my langauge and not my analogy?

Because your requirement has been met.; June 6, 2008 at 3:47 PM
_J_ said...: I stilld don't understand the dog:bird::doghouse:birdhouse thing.

If you can devise a : that works for both ordered pairs then I'm fine with you making any analogy you want. For a while there, though, my understanding of what you said was that you did not think the : had to be exactly the same between the two.; June 6, 2008 at 3:54 PM
Roscoe said...: I understood that from the very begining.

But all the analogies made have been fine.

They all describe working relationships that are shared between both pairs of comparators.

I don't get how you DON'T see the Dog-Bird, Doghouse-Birdhouse thing.

A bird remains in the air, like a birdhouse, a dog remains on the ground, like a doghouse.

A bird remains above a dog,just like a birdhouse remains above a doghouse.; June 6, 2008 at 4:07 PM
_J_ said...: "A bird remains above a dog,just like a birdhouse remains above a doghouse."

That is neither true nor meaningful.

Birds are not in a perpetual state of being above things.; June 6, 2008 at 4:37 PM

Everyone Is a Sith

Wednesday, June 4, 2008

VICTORY!

38 comments:

Blog Archive

Contributors of Awesome

Links of Amazing

Labels