Philosophical Vegan Forum

Red wrote:All of that means nothing by virtue of my reasoning.

If you had a deductive argument with uncontroversial premises, that would mean that. But you don't have that.

Red wrote:Yes, it is the same logic, as I've already proved.

It just isn't. Not all arguments based on etymologies are valid. Scholars suggesting contradictory etymologies for names in no way suggests places or people carrying those names are made up. Like I've said earlier, very common names share that property (Monica, Mary...), as well as very common words (they, are...) To suggest some story is unlikely to be true, you need to find something in it that's actually unlikely, such as names having ironic meanings in the language spoken there.

Red wrote:Wyoming literally means 'No State Here' in old Italian.

Let's say it does. Is there any evidence that name comes from that Old Italian phrase? Is there any evidence people who named that place that way knew about that coincidence?

Red wrote:How would I know I'm in Croatia if I 'took' a plane there?

Like I've said in that same post:
Well, ask those who live there. Names are social constructs, they can be changed by will of those who use them, as well as by various linguistic phenomena. It doesn't make sense to talk about a real name of a place.

NonZeroSum wrote:you’d have to believe everyone you met was a really skilled payed actor for it all to be a complex deception

I understand what you are saying, however, that doesn't solve the problem that the existence of jails appears to contradict one of the basic principles of social sciences, namely, that the society as a whole behaves as if everybody was rational if there is a possibility for irrationality of individuals to cancel each other out. For jails to exist, politicians would need to be systematically biased towards thinking they should exist, and one of the basic principles of social sciences is that systematic biases don't happen. It's not enough for a single or a few politicians to be biased towards believing jails should exist for them to exist.
Now, I am not sure if the principle of there being no massive conspiracies or the principle of rationality of the society is more fundamental. It seems that the principle of rationality of the society is more fundamental.

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:03 pm If you had a deductive argument with uncontroversial premises, that would mean that. But you don't have that.

I'm not explaining this again. What type of linguist are you that you can't comprehend my argument?

Are you even a linguist?

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:03 pm It just isn't. Not all arguments based on etymologies are valid. Scholars suggesting contradictory etymologies for names in no way suggests places or people carrying those names are made up. Like I've said earlier, very common names share that property (Monica, Mary...), as well as very common words (they, are...) To suggest some story is unlikely to be true, you need to find something in it that's actually unlikely, such as names having ironic meanings in the language spoken there.

We've already established that you have no idea what you're talking about here on the subject and I do, so all of this is just crap. No one here takes your word on anything related to linguistics, just accept it.

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:03 pm Let's say it does. Is there any evidence that name comes from that Old Italian phrase? Is there any evidence people who named that place that way knew about that coincidence?

Watch the video, idiot. It's all explained there.
https://youtu.be/56uSDQECrRQ?t=27

Unless you don't trust the video? We've already established you know nothing about linguistics, and I do.

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:03 pm Like I've said in that same post:
Well, ask those who live there. Names are social constructs, they can be changed by will of those who use them, as well as by various linguistic phenomena. It doesn't make sense to talk about a real name of a place.

I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS. I'm convinced you're trolling at this point.

teo123 wrote: ↑Wed Sep 16, 2020 4:03 pm I understand what you are saying, however, that doesn't solve the problem that the existence of jails appears to contradict one of the basic principles of social sciences, namely, that the society as a whole behaves as if everybody was rational if there is a possibility for irrationality of individuals to cancel each other out. For jails to exist, politicians would need to be systematically biased towards thinking they should exist, and one of the basic principles of social sciences is that systematic biases don't happen. It's not enough for a single or a few politicians to be biased towards believing jails should exist for them to exist.
Now, I am not sure if the principle of there being no massive conspiracies or the principle of rationality of the society is more fundamental. It seems that the principle of rationality of the society is more fundamental.

You still haven't learned anything about what a social science is, what else is new.

Red wrote:I'm not explaining this again.

You never explained it in the first place.

Red wrote:Are you even a linguist?

Well, not officially, but I've published a few papers about linguistics in peer-revieved journals. You can see one of my papers in this PDF on page 70.

Red wrote:We've already established that you have no idea what you're talking about here on the subject and I do,

Have you published any papers about that part of linguistics? Have you even read some papers about that part of linguistics?

Red wrote:Watch the video, idiot. It's all explained there.

I've watched it. First of all, as far as I understood it (again, it's foreign language without subtitles, and the speakers there don't even seem to be trying to speak clearly), it doesn't even suggest Wyoming means no state here in Old Italian. And even if it did say that, that's not remotely a reliable source. Like, not even Wikipedia-level reliable. If a character says something in a cartoon, that doesn't imply one who wrote the script for that cartoon actually believed that. Much less that he or she did any actual research.
Look, I know quite a bit of Latin, which is a close ancestor language to Old Italian, I've published three YouTube videos in it. How exactly would Wyoming mean no state here in Old Italian? Which Old Italian word do you think it comes from?

Red wrote:We've already established you know nothing about linguistics, and I do.

If anything, the opposite is true. I've published a few papers about linguistics in peer-reviewed journals. You can see one of my papers in this PDF on page 70.

Red wrote:I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED THIS

I think you didn't. Can you post that explanation (again), please?

Red wrote:You still haven't learned anything about what a social science is

I know what social science is, I've published a few papers in peer reviewed journals about social sciences. You can see one of my papers in this PDF on page 70.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 am You never explained it in the first place.

I did, you were just too stupid to understand what I wrote.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 am Well, not officially, but I've published a few papers about linguistics in peer-revieved journals. You can see one of my papers on page 70.

We've already established that it's easy to publish, so this doesn't mean anything.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 am Have you published any papers about that part of linguistics? Have you even read some papers about that part of linguistics?

Far more than you have; I'm working on my PhD.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 am I've watched it. First of all, as far as I understood it (again, it's foreign language without subtitles, and the speakers there don't even seem to be trying to speak clearly), it doesn't even suggest Wyoming means no state here in Old Italian.

??? Yes it does! You're trolling at this point.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 amAnd even if it did say that, that's not remotely a reliable source. Like, not even Wikipedia-level reliable. If a character says something in a cartoon, that doesn't imply one who wrote the script for that cartoon actually believed that. Much less that he or she did any actual research.

I think Garfield the Cat is about as reliable as you can get. Also, Google Translate agrees with me.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 amLook, I know quite a bit of Latin, which is a close ancestor language to Old Italian, I've published three YouTube videos in it. How exactly would Wyoming mean no state here in Old Italian? Which Old Italian word do you think it comes from?

I just showed you that Google Translate contradicted all of that, so you're still lying.

I think you're just trying to discredit linguists, which is just shameful.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 am If anything, the opposite is true. I've published a few papers about linguistics in peer-reviewed journals. You can see one of my paper in this PDF on page 70.

You just strengthened my argument due to the Dunning Kruger effect.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 am I think you didn't. Can you post that explanation (again), please?

No, I'm not going to waste any more time explaining something for the 5th time.

teo123 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 17, 2020 10:33 am I know what social science is, I've published a few papers in peer reviewed journals about social sciences. You can see one of my papers in this PDFn page 70.

Stop posting your shitty papers, no one here will be convinced that it makes you an authority on it.
Why don't you post that on r/iamverysmart? You'll get a lot of upvotes.

Red wrote: I did, you were just too stupid to understand what I wrote.

Or, more likely, you were writing in a way that's objectively unclear.

Red wrote:We've already established that it's easy to publish, so this doesn't mean anything.

They weren't easy to publish. I needed to re-edit them multiple times to get them accepted.

Red wrote:Far more than you have; I'm working on my PhD.

So, what's your PhD about?

Red wrote:Yes it does!

At what time?

Red wrote:I think Garfield the Cat is about as reliable as you can get.

I am quite sure the point Garfield was trying to make is that you can't trust anything you hear on television (which is true, and especially so in the US). He was being satirical.

Red wrote:Also, Google Translate agrees with me.

Presumably because you suggested it that translation. I've tried it, it doesn't. And Wyoming is obviously not a Latin word, Latin didn't have 'w' (that letter was coined by Goths who sometimes used the Latin alphabet to write their language), and 'y' was used almost exclusively in loanwords (for the German 'ü' sound, which existed in some dialects of Ancient Greek).

Red wrote:I think you're just trying to discredit linguists, which is just shameful.

No, I am not, because, as far as I know, no linguist buys into the nonsense that you are preaching.

Red wrote:Stop posting your shitty papers

Why would they be shitty? Do you have some specific complain about the content of that paper? Have you even looked into it?

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:46 pm Or, more likely, you were writing in a way that's objectively unclear.

No, that's what pseudo-intellectuals like you do.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:46 pm They weren't easy to publish. I needed to re-edit them multiple times to get them accepted.

Obviously a lie.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:46 pm So, what's your PhD about?

If I tell you then you'll just steal it.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:46 pm At what time?

https://youtu.be/56uSDQECrRQ?t=86

Red wrote:I think Garfield the Cat is about as reliable as you can get.

I am quite sure the point Garfield was trying to make is that you can't trust anything you hear on television (which is true, and especially so in the US). He was being satirical.[/quote]
That's just wrong, and an insult to what Garfield stands for.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:46 pm Presumably because you suggested it that translation. I've tried it, it doesn't. And Wyoming is obviously not a Latin word, Latin didn't have 'w' (that letter was coined by Goths who sometimes used the Latin alphabet to write their language), and 'y' was used almost exclusively in loanwords (for the German 'ü' sound, which existed in some dialects of Ancient Greek).

That's all just wrong, as I've already proven.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:46 pm No, I am not, because, as far as I know, no linguist buys into the nonsense that you are preaching.

You're a couple generations behind on linguistic literature.

teo123 wrote: ↑Sat Sep 19, 2020 4:46 pm Why would they be shitty? Do you have some specific complain about the content of that paper? Have you even looked into it?

r/iamverysmart

Red wrote:Obviously a lie.

Judged by what?

Red wrote:If I tell you then you'll just steal it.

My friend, an idea by itself, even the best one, is worth little or nothing. It takes way more effort to realize a good idea than to come up with something that seems like a good idea (and you can't know for sure what's a good idea and what isn't until you try it). And, if you don't realize that, you probably aren't actually doing a PhD.

Red wrote:https://youtu.be/56uSDQECrRQ?t=86

Why do you think he said "Italian"? I am no expert in phonetics, but I think he said something like /'tεɪl·jәn/ (presumably a name of some Native American language), rather than "Italian" (/ɪ'tæl·jәn/).

Red wrote:That's just wrong, and an insult to what Garfield stands for.

So, what does he stand for? I have never watched that cartoon series.

Red wrote:That's all just wrong, as I've already proven.

You didn't prove that, you just claim to have proven that. That's not enough.

Red wrote:You're a couple generations behind on linguistic literature.

So, why don't you cite some linguistic paper saying that? Or a textbook (as was enough to shut up @Sunflowers)?

Red wrote:r/iamverysmart

If it were that bad, then it wouldn't have passed the peer review.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:10 am Judged by what?

Modern standards for linguistics.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:10 am My friend, an idea by itself, even the best one, is worth little or nothing. It takes way more effort to realize a good idea than to come up with something that seems like a good idea (and you can't know for sure what's a good idea and what isn't until you try it). And, if you don't realize that, you probably aren't actually doing a PhD.

Nice try. I ain't giving you anything.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:10 am Why do you think he said "Italian"? I am no expert in phonetics, but I think he said something like /'tεɪl·jәn/ (presumably a name of some Native American language), rather than "Italian" (/ɪ'tæl·jәn/).

You just admitted that you're not an expert, yet you're still questioning it? You really haven't learned anything.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:10 am

Red wrote:That's just wrong, and an insult to what Garfield stands for.

So, what does he stand for? I have never watched that cartoon series.

...How can any linguist not know about Garfield, the ultimate authority on the subject? That'd kinda be like knowing all the Presidents except George Washington. You can't get much more egregious than this...

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:10 am You didn't prove that, you just claim to have proven that. That's not enough.

I already have, you just weren't paying attention or you have a very, very selective reading ability.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:10 am So, why don't you cite some linguistic paper saying that? Or a textbook (as was enough to shut up @Sunflowers)?

I'm not doing your homework for you (BTW stop pinging Sunflowers, he isn't coming back).

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 4:10 am If it were that bad, then it wouldn't have passed the peer review.

r/iamverysmart

Red wrote:Modern standards for linguistics.

...which you know nothing about.

Red wrote:Nice try. I ain't giving you anything.

Of course, you are probably trolling whenever you talk about linguistics. First when you pretended to think that "sound laws" are laws in the legal, rather than scientific, sense of the word, then now this nonsense about Croatia not existing because of scientists failing to agree what the name Croatia means...

Red wrote:You just admitted that you're not an expert, yet you're still questioning it?

Because, obviously, you are not an expert either. Previously you claimed to be an engineering student.

Red wrote:How can any linguist not know about Garfield, the ultimate authority on the subject?

Garfield is a cartoon character, it's not a real person. You wouldn't trust what Sheldon Cooper (from the Big Bang Theory) has to say about physics, because the scriptwriter might not have researched the topic enough or may intentionally make the main character say something outrageous.

Red wrote:I'm not doing your homework for you

I've already done more than my homework, I've published peer-reviewed papers about this part of linguistics.

Red wrote:

Teo123 wrote:

Red wrote:r/iamverysmart

If it were that bad, then it wouldn't have passed the peer review.

r/iamverysmart

Then post it there. I guarantee you you will lose karma because of that if you do that.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm ...which you know nothing about.

Excuse me?

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm Of course, you are probably trolling whenever you talk about linguistics.

You know just because my knowledge of the subject is far beyond your comprehension that doesn't mean I'm trolling.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm First when you pretended to think that "sound laws" are laws in the legal, rather than scientific, sense of the word, then now this nonsense about Croatia not existing because of scientists failing to agree what the name Croatia means...

Now you're trying to be provocative too, Teo? And you insist I'm the one trolling.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm Because, obviously, you are not an expert either. Previously you claimed to be an engineering student.

It's called a double major.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm Garfield is a cartoon character, it's not a real person. You wouldn't trust what Sheldon Cooper (from the Big Bang Theory) has to say about physics, because the scriptwriter might not have researched the topic enough or may intentionally make the main character say something outrageous.

Well yeah because the Big Bang Theory is a terrible show (though I know you're quite fond if it). Garfield is one of the greatest franchises ever to have existed, so everything he says must be true.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm I've already done more than my homework, I've published peer-reviewed papers about this part of linguistics.

Already explained this.

teo123 wrote: ↑Mon Sep 21, 2020 3:06 pm Then post it there. I guarantee you you will lose karma because of that if you do that.

Why don't you do it? Prove me wrong.