Spleen Central

Welcome to Spleen Central -- a place to discuss spleen, and other unassailable parts of the human body. Do you have a body part of note that you'd like to share with the world? Most people do, so give it a go!

Friday, September 01, 2006

"Grammer" Nazis

I was having a look at the blogs on the Sydney Morning Herald website, and I ran across an interesting bit of correspondence -- two people, both quite twitty, and I couldn't work out which one of them upset me more.
To illustrate, here is the first message:
*has got to be the* - *has to be* the will do fine.have
got to be, i've got to be, it's got to be, whatever's got to be.what has
happened to our grammer?i have to be. we have to be. etc.apart from this basic
grammer that occurs everywhere nowadays (and i am loathe to use such a word) it
is a significant misgiving (and code fault, amognst it's many code faults) that
this message board has major problems with apostrophes, colons; semi-colons,
apostrophes, and various other grammical requirements of the english language.
very dissappointing, given that it is database driven, and given my years of
management of database driven sites, smh disappoints me with their lack of blog
capabilites (i would have half their team on solving their blog design problems,
let alone the site design issues - oh, for another life...).and why am i
bothering here?because, to date, i have (observe the non use of i've) found no
other outlet to express my concerns, so i am using the currently availalbe
meduim, and i'm hoping......
This was posted by somebody with the screen-name "englishnazi".
A reply was posted thusly:
Englishnazi:Suggest you do a spellcheck before lecturing
others on their lack of grammar!!!! Three words can sum up your post. Pot.
Kettle. Black.
This was posted by somebody with the screen-name "Goose".
Firstly, this "englishnazi" fellow/fellowette is a tit. Besides the occurrences of the word "grammer" (and let's not forget its adjective -- "grammical"), the word "loathe" appears, when it should be, in this context, "loath".
Then we've got the reply -- which quotes the venerable "pot calling the kettle black" proverb. In this case, it pains me to say, it doesn't matter. What "Goose" appears to be saying is that englishnazi's observations on the grammar of the posters are not valid, simply because englishnazi him-/herself employed suspect grammar.
This is (another) logical fallacy. If both the kettle and the pot are black, what difference does it make if one identifies the other as such? Would the kettle be any less black, just because the thing identifying it as black was also black? Of course not.
All this being said, perhaps there were some crossed wires. If all this talk of "grammer" was supposed to relate to the loveable and Right-leaning star of TV's "Frasier", I stand corrected. To demonstrate my love, here is a photo:

posted by Kieren @ 2:29 pm  

16 Comments:

  • At 3:50 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Mr Grammer does rock

     

  • At 5:07 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "What "Goose" appears to be saying is that englishnazi's observations on the grammar of the posters are not valid, simply because englishnazi him-/herself employed suspect grammar."

    No, Goose doesn't really appear to be saying that. He's just calling englishnazi a hypocrite. Doesn't mean he doesn't have a point.

     

  • At 12:43 am, Blogger Kieren said…

    I don't think being a hypocrite enters into this at all. Perhaps we're all too scared of pointing out foibles, lest the weighty tag is hung around our own necks.

    I choose to come at this from another angle -- "Takes one to know one."

    As for not having a point, I don't know... Goose is correct that englishnazi's use of the language is, to put it charitably, fucked. It doesn't mean we give him/her a free kick by letting the faulty logic stand.

    This is my problem -- sure, shout your viewpoints from the rooftops... just make sure you're arriving at them via a valid chain of argument.

     

  • At 11:23 am, Blogger Kieren said…

    I think these unchartered waters of logic are causing some problems.

    Allow me to clarify:

    Goose did have a point in calling englishnazi a hypocrite. Simple statement of fact. No problem there.

    There was also, though, the current that ran -- "What Goose says must be wrong because he's a hypocrite." That, ladies and gentlemen, is the well from which the logical fallacy springs.

    Let me pose a question, Darryn -- do you distinguish between two instances of the exact same conclusion: one arrived at by logical reasoning, and the other arrived at by illogical reasoning?

     

  • At 10:09 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    "There was also, though, the current that ran -- "What englishnazi says must be wrong because he's a hypocrite." That, ladies and gentlemen, is the well from which the logical fallacy springs."

    Where is YOUR logical reasoning that this is in fact what Goose meant?

     

  • At 10:25 am, Blogger Kieren said…

    Ooo, an argument.

    MY logical reasoning for this deduction stems from the fact that there was no other reason to mention the "pot-kettle-black" thing otherwise.

    If Goose was just pointing out that englishnazi's grammar was suspect, the matter could be closed thusly: "Your spelling and grammar are wrong."

    However, Goose brings the kettle thing into the argument. At worst, it's illogical; at best, it's merely redundant.

    Goose's citing of the proverb does nothing to prove his/her case. Indeed, a case can be made for englishnazi's lack of finesse without resorting to the proverb.

    To wit:
    (1) You spelled the word "dissappointing".
    (2) The word should be spelled "disappointing".
    (3) Therefore, you misspelled the word "disappointing".

    It is a logical fallacy, by definition, if extraneous statements are brought into the argument. ("You smell!" "Yeah, but you're wearing a blue shirt." "So what?")

    Strictly speaking, of course, I can't know *exactly* what Goose meant, but it is undeniable that Goose did sully the waters by introducing the proverb. That is reason enough to pull him/her up for the transgression.

    ---------

    To me, the general implication of the phrase "The pot calling the kettle black" is that one set of transgressions can be ignored because the person making the statement is guilty of the same. If that's incorrect, so be it, but it's always the way I've known that phrase the work.

    From GoEnglish.com idioms:
    "The pot and the kettle are like old friends who have turned black with time; the pot only sees the blackness which is on the kettle; he doesn't see the black on himself. Example: "Here comes the guy who is always late for work." Answer: "Aren't you the pot calling the kettle black? You are usually the last person to show up!" "

    -----------

    PS. Care to answer the question I posed last time? I'll repeat it:

    Let me pose a question, Darryn -- do you distinguish between two instances of the exact same conclusion: one arrived at by logical reasoning, and the other arrived at by illogical reasoning?

     

  • At 11:47 am, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    When the pot calls the kettle black, he's still right, isn't he?

    I don't think calling someone a hypocritical arsehole is ever merely redundant, if it's true. Seems to be usual fare on comment pages.

    I'm not sure, but wasn't englishnazie's comment itself "extraneous" to what was being discussed on the smh website?

    In answer to your question, Kieren: yes.

     

  • At 11:55 am, Blogger Kieren said…

    If you do see the distinction between the same conclusion, arrived at from two separate angles, then we can address the pot/kettle dilemma.

    Yes, if the pot calls the kettle black, he's still right. The point I was making way back when, though, was as follows: englishnazi was a tit in the first place. Goose was correct in pointing out that englishnazi was wrong, but Goose was himself a tit, because of the argumentum ad hominem.

    The comment about somebody being a hypocritical arsehole *is* irrelevant, unless what we're talking about is the fact that somebody is a hypocritical arsehole. If the point in question, on the other hand, is grammar and syntax, then the comment has nothing to do with anything. An argumentum ad hominem.

     

  • At 8:44 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    It seems to me our disagreement is just a difference of opinion. You think Goose's comment was an argumentum ad hominem.

    I think Goose was just calling englishnazi a dick -- which he clearly was -- to get a laugh. I don't think he had any intention of actually engaging in the discussion at hand. Technically, then, that's not an argumentum ad hominem, is it.

     

  • At 8:45 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Addendum:

    Ad hominum certainly, but not argumentum ad hominum.

     

  • At 8:46 pm, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    *sp lol

     

  • At 10:18 am, Blogger Kieren said…

    It's still an argumentum ad hominem, whether or not the intention was comedy or proper logical argument.

    When a comedian launches into a diatribe about a political leader, it's usually along the lines of "That George Bush is a dick" and not "That George Bush's foreign policy is..."

    These are still ad hominem arguments. Whether or not the comedian cares (of course, he doesn't) is immaterial. If the purpose is to get a laugh, so be it -- it doesn't change the underlying flaw in the logic.

    It's like playing music -- you're either in time, or you're out of time. A secondary question is whether the musician *intends* to be in time... The intention, however, has no bearing on the bald facts of the note values, and keeping to them. (I guess the best example is Meg White -- she is most definitely out of time. She mightn't care -- hell, it might be her intention -- but she is still, factually, out of time.)

     

  • At 11:28 am, Anonymous Anonymous said…

    Person A: Hitler was a terrible man -- he killed six million Jews.

    Person B: But YOU killed six million Jews too!

    Person B is not contesting the claim made by Person A. It's not argumentum ad hominem, it's a mere aside.

    What's that golden rule? Once someone mentions Hitler the debate's over?

     

  • At 12:34 pm, Blogger Kieren said…

    It is an argumentum ad hominem, I'd argue. The aside, because of its ad hominem nature, is irrelevant, and is the reason the argument cannot proceed any further.

    A: "The Queen smells."
    B: "You smell."
    A: "So what?"

    Without the ad hominem attack, the argument would probably go something like this:

    A: "The Queen smells."
    B: "How do you know that?"
    A: "Scientific evidence, mostly."

     

  • At 12:35 pm, Blogger Kieren said…

    If Person B isn't contesting the fact that Hitler killed six million Jews, he has no reason to point out the fact that Person A did it, too.

    Logical fallacies don't just include arguments that are wrong -- they also include arguments that descend into irrelevancies.

     

  • At 12:37 pm, Blogger Kieren said…

    The irrelevancy angle can also be demonstrated through an appeal to an inappropriate authority.

    A: "You should buy this car."
    B: "Why?"
    A: "Because Greg Norman drives one."

    The fact that Greg Norman drives the car may be true, but it does nothing to prove why Person B should also buy one.

     

Post a Comment

<< Home