CDZ A reminder that the rhetoric we hear about a country may not represent the people in that country

[320 Years of History]

.....
Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

Overly categorical statements suggest a rather superficial understanding of both subjects. Regardless, unless there is something concrete upon which to base the OP, this all seems merely hypothetical.

There was something concrete on which the remarks of my OP were based. That something was included in the OP.

What, exactly?

The content of the video I included in the OP. Did you watch it?

 

[Unkotare]

.

??? Really? You posted absolutely nothing? Are we to take it that you felt a need to have your avatar represented just so we know you are still around?

I wouldn't have said anything but 24 hours has passed since you made post #17, and you've not updated it with anything of merit.

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------t

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

you have described it. " I KNOW WHAT IS ON THE MINDS OF THIS AND THAT PEOPLE BECAUSE I ONCE LIVED THERE AS A FOREIGN VISITOR OR WORKER or PROFESSIONAL"

Whoever actually said that (and I'll expect your retraction if you can't link to an original source), are you now claiming that your acquaintance with some immigrants from a particular country is MORE legitimate evidence regarding the national mood of a people than having lived somewhere? Is that what you are trying to get at?


Also, you never directly answered me when I asked - several times and politely - about your experience living in Iran.

 

[Unkotare]

.....
Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

Overly categorical statements suggest a rather superficial understanding of both subjects. Regardless, unless there is something concrete upon which to base the OP, this all seems merely hypothetical.

There was something concrete on which the remarks of my OP were based. That something was included in the OP.

What, exactly?

The content of the video I included in the OP. Did you watch it?

Give me the summary instead of the virus.

 

[320 Years of History]

.....
Red:
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

Overly categorical statements suggest a rather superficial understanding of both subjects. Regardless, unless there is something concrete upon which to base the OP, this all seems merely hypothetical.

There was something concrete on which the remarks of my OP were based. That something was included in the OP.

What, exactly?

The content of the video I included in the OP. Did you watch it?

Give me the summary instead of the virus.

I haven't read the transcript for the show, so I have no idea of how effectively it conveys the video's content, but here it is: CNN.com - Transcripts .

 

[Unkotare]

Overly categorical statements suggest a rather superficial understanding of both subjects. Regardless, unless there is something concrete upon which to base the OP, this all seems merely hypothetical.

There was something concrete on which the remarks of my OP were based. That something was included in the OP.

What, exactly?

The content of the video I included in the OP. Did you watch it?

Give me the summary instead of the virus.

I haven't read the transcript for the show, so I have no idea of how effectively it conveys the video's content, but here it is: CNN.com - Transcripts .

If you can't summarize it, we are at an impass.

 

[320 Years of History]

There was something concrete on which the remarks of my OP were based. That something was included in the OP.

What, exactly?

The content of the video I included in the OP. Did you watch it?

Give me the summary instead of the virus.

I haven't read the transcript for the show, so I have no idea of how effectively it conveys the video's content, but here it is: CNN.com - Transcripts .

If you can't summarize it, we are at an impass.

Then we are; I'm not going to write a summary for you. I don't have a problem with your not reading/viewing the content on which the thread is based; I only ask that if you don't, please refrain from participating further in the discussion for you lack knowledge of the context that gave rise to the remarks in my OP.

 

[Unkotare]

What, exactly?

The content of the video I included in the OP. Did you watch it?

Give me the summary instead of the virus.

I haven't read the transcript for the show, so I have no idea of how effectively it conveys the video's content, but here it is: CNN.com - Transcripts .

If you can't summarize it, we are at an impass.

Then we are; I'm not going to write a summary for you. I don't have a problem with your not reading/viewing the content on which the thread is based; I only ask that if you don't, please refrain from participating further in the discussion for you lack knowledge of the context that gave rise to the remarks in my OP.

Won't provide a summary eh? Oh well. Hard to have a discussion when one refuses to discuss. But, so be it. I will just say that until and unless someone actually does what the OP seems to be complaining about the discussion remains merely theoretical.

 

[320 Years of History]

The content of the video I included in the OP. Did you watch it?

Give me the summary instead of the virus.

I haven't read the transcript for the show, so I have no idea of how effectively it conveys the video's content, but here it is: CNN.com - Transcripts .

If you can't summarize it, we are at an impass.

Then we are; I'm not going to write a summary for you. I don't have a problem with your not reading/viewing the content on which the thread is based; I only ask that if you don't, please refrain from participating further in the discussion for you lack knowledge of the context that gave rise to the remarks in my OP.

Won't provide a summary eh? Oh well. Hard to have a discussion when one refuses to discuss. But, so be it. I will just say that until and unless someone actually does what the OP seems to be complaining about the discussion remains merely theoretical.

I'm not outright refusing to discuss the topic with you. I'm refusing to discuss it with you until you either view the video or read the transcript. That's the same, and every bit as justifiable, as a physicist refusing to discuss quantum theory with me on the basis that I haven't any idea of the details of quantum theory.

I can't make you watch the video I provided, or read the transcript of it, any more than the scientist can make me learn quantum theory. I don't want to learn quantum theory and you don't want to watch the video. Ergo no discussion happens. The physicist can live with that as I can. Hopefully you can too.

 

[Unkotare]

So, summarize it and we can discuss.

 

[320 Years of History]

So, summarize it and we can discuss.

Watch the video or read the transcript and we can discuss it.

 

[Unkotare]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

Yes, it does. That's the difference between a qualified and unqualified statement.

Using the symbol " --> " to mean "indicates":

• "People are taught" --> all people are taught
• "Some people are taught" --> an unspecified subset of all people are taught
• "Muslims are taught" --> all people who are also Muslims are taught
• "Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Sunni Muslims are taught
• "Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught
• "ISIS members are taught" --> all people who are members of ISIS, no matter their religious beliefs, are taught

wrong------"muslims are taught" does NOT mean "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TAUGHT"--------in common parlance. In common parlance "muslims are taught" should be rendered "muslims are generally taught". You are confusing CHEMISTRY----with common parlance. In fact the statement "the molecular weight of a water molecule is "18" is GENERALLY TRUE------so that the statement is good enough for common parlance. -------In fact it is not ALWAYS
TRUE for ALL WATER MOLECULES

I
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

???????

 

[320 Years of History]

...

When someone writes "Muslims are taught," their words necessarily refer to all or substantially all Muslims, even if that isn't what they had in mind to communicate. .....

No, it does not necessarily refer to that.

Yes, it does. That's the difference between a qualified and unqualified statement.

Using the symbol " --> " to mean "indicates":

• "People are taught" --> all people are taught
• "Some people are taught" --> an unspecified subset of all people are taught
• "Muslims are taught" --> all people who are also Muslims are taught
• "Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Sunni Muslims are taught
• "Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught" --> all people who are Jihadist Sunni Muslims are taught
• "ISIS members are taught" --> all people who are members of ISIS, no matter their religious beliefs, are taught

wrong------"muslims are taught" does NOT mean "ALL MUSLIMS ARE TAUGHT"--------in common parlance. In common parlance "muslims are taught" should be rendered "muslims are generally taught". You are confusing CHEMISTRY----with common parlance. In fact the statement "the molecular weight of a water molecule is "18" is GENERALLY TRUE------so that the statement is good enough for common parlance. -------In fact it is not ALWAYS
TRUE for ALL WATER MOLECULES

I
My remarks are based on philosophy, specifically, epistemology and linguistics, namely English grammar.

???????

What exactly don't you understand from the post above? I provided you with links so that you could understand. Did you read the content found at those links?

 

[irosie91]

??? Really? You posted absolutely nothing? Are we to take it that you felt a need to have your avatar represented just so we know you are still around?

I wouldn't have said anything but 24 hours has passed since you made post #17, and you've not updated it with anything of merit.

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------t

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

you have described it. " I KNOW WHAT IS ON THE MINDS OF THIS AND THAT PEOPLE BECAUSE I ONCE LIVED THERE AS A FOREIGN VISITOR OR WORKER or PROFESSIONAL"

Whoever actually said that (and I'll expect your retraction if you can't link to an original source), are you now claiming that your acquaintance with some immigrants from a particular country is MORE legitimate evidence regarding the national mood of a people than having lived somewhere? Is that what you are trying to get at?


Also, you never directly answered me when I asked - several times and politely - about your experience living in Iran.

I never lived in Iran----it is a moot point. How many times have you performed digital examinations of Iranian rectums

 

[Unkotare]

I wasn't talking to you, I was awaiting a reply from her. Thanks for interjecting unbidden, though.

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------t

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

you have described it. " I KNOW WHAT IS ON THE MINDS OF THIS AND THAT PEOPLE BECAUSE I ONCE LIVED THERE AS A FOREIGN VISITOR OR WORKER or PROFESSIONAL"

Whoever actually said that (and I'll expect your retraction if you can't link to an original source), are you now claiming that your acquaintance with some immigrants from a particular country is MORE legitimate evidence regarding the national mood of a people than having lived somewhere? Is that what you are trying to get at?


Also, you never directly answered me when I asked - several times and politely - about your experience living in Iran.

I never lived in Iran----

Yeah, I didn't think so.

 

[irosie91]

your kind of experience means SUPERFICIAL------t

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

you have described it. " I KNOW WHAT IS ON THE MINDS OF THIS AND THAT PEOPLE BECAUSE I ONCE LIVED THERE AS A FOREIGN VISITOR OR WORKER or PROFESSIONAL"

Whoever actually said that (and I'll expect your retraction if you can't link to an original source), are you now claiming that your acquaintance with some immigrants from a particular country is MORE legitimate evidence regarding the national mood of a people than having lived somewhere? Is that what you are trying to get at?


Also, you never directly answered me when I asked - several times and politely - about your experience living in Iran.

I never lived in Iran----

Yeah, I didn't think so.

your point?

 

[Unkotare]

And where did you get the idea that was 'my' kind?



L

you have described it. " I KNOW WHAT IS ON THE MINDS OF THIS AND THAT PEOPLE BECAUSE I ONCE LIVED THERE AS A FOREIGN VISITOR OR WORKER or PROFESSIONAL"

Whoever actually said that (and I'll expect your retraction if you can't link to an original source), are you now claiming that your acquaintance with some immigrants from a particular country is MORE legitimate evidence regarding the national mood of a people than having lived somewhere? Is that what you are trying to get at?


Also, you never directly answered me when I asked - several times and politely - about your experience living in Iran.

I never lived in Iran----

Yeah, I didn't think so.

your point?

confirmation

 

[oldsoul]

It would seem as though Unkotare is here merely to be disruptive. I have followed to discusion and am quite entertained by the substance. I, however, am unqualified to participate as the video is no longer available, and I do not wish to read a transcript of it.

 

[320 Years of History]

It would seem as though Unkotare is here merely to be disruptive. I have followed to discusion and am quite entertained by the substance. I, however, am unqualified to participate as the video is no longer available, and I do not wish to read a transcript of it.

Red:
Nothing new about that. LOL

Blue:
Sorry. They've moved it, but it's still around: Anthony Bourdain Parts Unknown: Iran (2 November 2014) : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive .