Category: FWIW

Posted on

No True Scotsman

“No true Scotsman” is “a kind of ad hoc rescue of one’s generalization in which the reasoner re-characterizes the situation solely in order to escape refutation of the generalization.”1

Example:

Smith: All Scotsmen are loyal and brave.

Jones: But McDougal over there is a Scotsman, and he was arrested by his commanding officer for running from the enemy.

Smith: Well, if that’s right, it just shows that McDougal wasn’t a TRUE Scotsman.

Now, once or twice I’ve been accused of this fallacy–of “redefining” terms–when discoursing on the differences between Christians and Muslims, Christianity and Islam. The problems my interlocutors have had is that I “defined” Christians and Muslims by the standards set forth by the founders and documenters of both Christianity and Islam. Hmmm, that would seem to me to be fair, not fallacious.

When someone claiming to be a Christian acts against the teachings of Christ and the Apostles (say, the Papal legate, the Abbot of Citeaux Arnaud Amalric commanding that the inhabitants of Béziers be massacred), that would seem to very legitimately impeach that person’s claim to be Christian or to be acting in the name of the Founder of Christianity, would it not?

When someone claiming to be a Muslim acts in accordance with the life and teachings of Mohamed (say, mass murder, rape and enslavement of those who disagree with the teachings of Islam, as Mohamed’s first “victory”–the massacre of the Banu Quraysh Jews–and his explicit teachings demand), one would legitimately consider that person to be a legitimate follower of Mohamed. OTOH, “peaceful” Muslims violate both the commandments of Mohamed and disrespect his life example.

Based on the life and teachings of these two men, and the explicit commands they left their followers, reason would dictate one evaluate those claiming to be their followers based on whether or not they actually do follow those they claim to follow.

Posted on

Yet Another Uncontroversial “Controversy”

Clip vs. Magazine: In personal conversations–either IRW or via social media/forums, etc.–I simply explain the differences when someone misuses “clip” when referring to a magazine. When it’s misused by someone who is or expects to be paid for their writing, I excoriate such morons for not doing their homework. Such misuse in print by people being paid (or expecting to be paid) for their poor work ethic is reprehensible.

For reference, here is one type of clip–there are many–and one type of magazine (in this case, a stripper clip for [likely] a semi-automatic rifle with an internal magazine, and an external magazine for a semi-automatic or select fire rifle):

glossary_clip-vs-magazine_01-300x264

Of course, magazines for pistols and moon clips (and half-moon clips) for revolvers look a bit different to the pics above, but the differences between clips and magazines are so very clear and simple that writers who expect to be paid (or who have accepted pay) for writing articles or books who misuse “clip” to refer to a magazine are disgusting, lazy slugs who disrespect their readers with their poor work ethic.

Ah, I really should have just linked this and let it go, I suppose. *sigh* Lazy, subliterate, disrespectful frauds pretending to be writers wouldn’t care, anyway, and ordinary folks who simply want to know would just click on through and. . . learn.

“Hickock45” does a great job (as always) explaining the terms:

Posted on

Cats Are Strange

Two cats in the house. One is often a lap cat. The other? A “side cat.” Crowds in next to me (usually), wherever I sit. No lap–nuh-uh. “Side-crowding”? Yep.

Posted on

It’s The Little Things #5682

I bought my first pair of Skechers Shape-Ups five years ago after trying a pair on and experiencing an absence of pain from an ACL injury. Seriously. Tossed the cane. Really. I’ve been through more pairs since then, but my most recent purchase of another pair of Shape-ups brought me a couple of little surprises, one REALLY good one and one “WTF?!?” that was easily remedied.

Really good? Memory foam insoles. Oh, my heavens! I have become used to the great joint cushioning the Shape-ups provide, but now, my feet seem to ride on air! I want to purchase enough pairs of these shoes to last me the rest of my life. *heh*

OK, the “surprise” that needed remedying: The shoes came laced wrong. There’s a tongue-retention device on each shoe’s tongue, but the shoes came without the laces run through those provisions. Why? It’s there for a reason (a Good Reason, IMO–because it’s very useful!). Quick delacing to the point where the laces coule be run properly and it was fixed. NOT a problem.

Wonderful shoes.

Posted on

Almost heaven. . .

. . . but not West Virginia.

(slightly) Early lunch. Sitting back with a nearly perfect grilled cheese sandwich (on rye bread w/sautéed onion), some tomato slices, corn salsa and chips.

Posted on

*sigh* Is It Just Me?

While reading my pdf copy of Korsybski’s “Science and Sanity,” I found myself wanting to correct minor errors of punctuation, probably introduced by the conversion from hardcopy and not caught by the line editor. The text itself seems perfectly logical–if dense and sometimes even obscurantist (though I am assured that is by design)–and without any obvious errors. It’s just that periods in the middle of sentences irritate me.

Or. . . did Korzybski do that intentionally for that reason? Just to thump that bone on folks like me? I’d not put it past him. . . *heh*

BTW, naturally each chapter in the pdf copy is separately password protected (because the copy I have is available only in discrete chapters), so I can’t correct them w/o cracking the password (probably doable with the tools I have on hand or can access), but that’s just too much like work. *heh*

Posted on

It’s. . . the little things

1981-1989 was consumed by work. I paid attention to “news” only whenever it had strictly local or serious national import, so I missed ALL details surrounding news of a serial killer’s apprehension in 1988–an event that might have been interesting to me. . . had I caught a few pieces of information–because it wasn’t of local or national importance. Yeh, yeh, it was news, but not really in any way important except to the community where it happened. (Network–and now cable–“news” manufactures national “importance” to local stories all the time, but it’s a fake “importance”.)

What was interesting to me, years later when I learned about details, is that the guy started his killing two years after I had moved from the area where he was operating. “The area”? I once lived four blocks from the house where the guy lived and killed, just barely out of the “good part of the ghetto” (as it was often referred to by its denizens). When we (my Wonder Woman, our daughter and I) moved from the area, we were living in the “good part of the ghetto,” five blocks away from the (future) “kill house” and working (my Wonder Woman and I; our daughter was not yet a year old *heh*) three blocks from where the guy ended up killing six men.

Missed it by that much.

Posted on

A Reader’s POV

I read a lot of books, by most folks’ measures. In the last few years, the mix has skewed more strongly toward fiction, partly as a result of reading so many articles and blog posts online–a real mixed bag of (mostly) non-fiction. I do still read non-fiction books, though, although the mix there is tending more toward DIY books of various kinds, now, with fewer and fewer sci-tech, philosophy, history, and suchlike.

How many is “a lot”? Generally more than one/day, a little more than twice as many as the average American reads each year,* according to some, but nothing to brag about. The only reason I say as much is that I think–perhaps–I have some sort of feel about what’s being published nowadays, both from “traditional” publishing and “indie” publishing, and I have to say, it’s mostly crap.

You read that right. I read more than a book a day, but I start and “circular file” at least 2 more that aren’t worth my time. And what makes them not worth my time?

  • jejune plots, characters, dialog, and narration that could be better done by the average lobotomized fifth grader
  • execrable English: everything from words misused (MANY of them!) to grammar apparently straight from a reference titled, “Stupid English for Stupid People”
  • an insulting lack of homework/research done and overall dumbfounding ignorance about topics keyed to plot or characterization (example: when a writer doesn’t know the difference between a semi-automatic firearm and a revolver but is writing a character whose weapons proficiency is key, it’s insulting)
  • baffling, completely, totally and absolutely stupid lack of internal agreement: Hey! That truck the character is now driving was a mini-van on the previous page!

And that’s just considering the fiction. On non-fiction, consider instructions in a DIY book to do things on a project in a way that WILL NOT WORK, CANNOT WORK, ARE COMPLETELY STUPID. Insulting the reader or targeting stupid people as the writer’s intended market? Either way, crap.

And no, let me repeat: these issues are not limited to “indie” books. The standards for both text and editing in books being published–by whatever means–is in the toilet nowadays.

But. . . of the books I give a shot at my eye time, one in three is still worth reading, so there’s that. *sigh*

Still, that’s slightly better than the one in five or six links to new (to me) voices on the Internet that are worth reading. That’s ~16%-20% of the links I follow from articles, searches, etc. Not bad, really, when talking about the interwebs. So, why I expect better from published (by whatever means) books? Because these writers expect to be paid for their writing. If they’re going to be paid, they ought to make sure they have the chops to write well and they ought to do their homework and PAY FOR LITERATE copy editing and line editing, since few writers are capable of performing those tasks themselves. (I have read advance reader copies–pre-editing–from a few writers that are remarkably clean, well-edited already by the writers, but such writers are few and far between.)

Note to writers: LEARN how to write. If you want to write in English, LEARN THE LANGUAGE. No, growing up speaking it doesn’t count. READ a LOT of well-written text. Concentrate on writers who can really write. No, not writers who write like you do. (In another recent post, I suggested a couple of writers whose command of English exceeded that of 99% of writers today. That sort of writer.) From there, proceed to writer who really challenge you, but STAY AWAY FROM SUCKITUDINOUS FICTION! After a few years focused on well-written text, then try writing again. Next: Find editors/proofreaders outside your circle of friends and acquaintances, editors/proofreaders who are more literate, better-read than you are. Pay them what they’re worth to fix your crap.

That might make an otherwise bad piece of dreck worth reading, IF you do the rest of your homework and either have an interesting story to tell or a useful skill to impart.

Maybe.

One of the funniest/stupidest things I’ve seen in a recent “slush pile reject” was a repeated misuse of “ridden,” as in “the bullet-ridden car” referring to a car that had been thoroughly riddled with bullets. A sure sign of an a-literate writer whose exceptionally weak verbal vocabulary exceeds that of his reading vocabulary. The rest of the thing wasn’t any better, but I did waste 20 minutes on it, just to be as fair as possible.

*Excluding those who claim to have read no books, the average read (by those who have read any books at all) is generally reported as ~7. Oh, no reference/link? Use your search-fu, Grasshopper. 😉