High School Uses COVID Funds for Pride Drag Show Performance

[friend of]

The same way I know no one is pushing Vulcan ideology or hobbit ideology. You can't push things that are made up.

So LGBTQ+ is made up? It's not real?

 

[Belk]

So LGBTQ+ is made up? It's not real?

Just going to drop an entire word and change the whole thing into a straw man?

 

[Kermos]

When a term is unqualified, then the implication is that it is general, undivided, as a whole. If you were to say "dogs are mammals" I would understand you to mean "all dogs are mammals". If you were to say "dogs are yellow" I would not know what you were talking about since since the implied "all" doesn't fit.

I have been digging backwards in this thread attempting to find the point of contention, and I stopped here because you quoted "Behavior is based on it" by @Aldebaran as well as you gave an explanation.

The subject of the sentence is the noun "behavior", and that noun is anarthrous. The word "anarthrous" means "without an article", so the definite article "the" and/or the indefinite article "a" are absent. An anarthrous noun indicates qualities or characteristics of a class/group associated with the noun.

You provided two examples, but I want to look at these examples from the perspective of a person who does not know what a dog is:

• "dogs are mammals", but the person cannot extrapolate anything more, not even "all", from your example. The person only hears/reads that there is at least some proportion of dogs that are classified as mammals. The word "all" must be included at the beginning of the sentence to eliminate the "some population, possibly all, of dogs are mammals" conclusion. Your follow up that "dogs are mammals" and "all dogs are mammals" are not equivalent statements for the hypothetical person.
• "dogs are yellow". The same concept applies for your "dogs are yellow" example as for your "dogs are mammals" example.

Sometimes, a certain degree of ambiguity is desirable for literary purposes. For example, an anarthrous noun can significantly reduce an explanation.

 

[JustOneWay]

Sometimes, a certain degree of ambiguity is desirable for literary purposes. For example, an anarthrous noun can significantly reduce an explanation.

Of course ambiguity can be desirable for literary purposes, but when it comes to discussion and debate it is not desirable.

 

[friend of]

Just going to drop an entire word and change the whole thing into a straw man?

Strawman? What are you saying? I didn't make any strawman.

 

[DaisyDay]

I have been digging backwards in this thread attempting to find the point of contention, and I stopped here because you quoted "Behavior is based on it" by @Aldebaran as well as you gave an explanation.

The subject of the sentence is the noun "behavior", and that noun is anarthrous. The word "anarthrous" means "without an article", so the definite article "the" and/or the indefinite article "a" are absent. An anarthrous noun indicates qualities or characteristics of a class/group associated with the noun.

New word for me! Thank you!

You provided two examples, but I want to look at these examples from the perspective of a person who does not know what a dog is:

Why take it from the perspective of a person who does not know what a dog is? That is not analogous as we do know what "behavior" is.

• "dogs are mammals", but the person cannot extrapolate anything more, not even "all", from your example. The person only hears/reads that there is at least some proportion of dogs that are classified as mammals. The word "all" must be included at the beginning of the sentence to eliminate the "some population, possibly all, of dogs are mammals" conclusion. Your follow up that "dogs are mammals" and "all dogs are mammals" are not equivalent statements for the hypothetical person.
• "dogs are yellow". The same concept applies for your "dogs are yellow" example as for your "dogs are mammals" example.

Sometimes, a certain degree of ambiguity is desirable for literary purposes. For example, an anarthrous noun can significantly reduce an explanation.

Oxford definition of ideology:
"a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

Behavior is based on it, and was where the goalpost was planted before you moved it.​

In this particular case, "behavior is caused by ideology" do you think that ambiguity is helpful to anyone's understanding?

 

[Belk]

Strawman? What are you saying? I didn't make any strawman.

Yes, you did. I stated trans ideology is not real. Not that LGTBQ does not exist.

 

[friend of]

Yes, you did. I stated trans ideology is not real. Not that LGTBQ does not exist.

There are plenty of vocal LGBTQ people who disagree with you.

 

[Belk]

There are plenty of vocal LGBTQ people who disagree with you.

Are they trans?

 

[probinson]

That is not what you posted earlier. You posted from the article in post# 60


The items do not appear to qualify for ARPA funding under federal guidelines.


Which is it? "does not appear to qualify" or "which is not an approved use" You changed what was in the article.

Do you have another source stating it is not approved?

Or...

You could look up the ARPA guidelines and see for yourself. Pretty sure decorations for drag performance shows weren't the intended purpose for emergency COVID relief funds.

 

[Kermos]

Of course ambiguity can be desirable for literary purposes, but when it comes to discussion and debate it is not desirable.

Unless @Aldebaran's intention was to include some portion of the population's behavior, regardless of proportion, then this type of ambiguity is absolutely acceptable in discussion and debate, even if someone fails to appreciate it's usage; nonetheless, discussion and debate are literary.

 

[Kermos]

New word for me! Thank you!



Why take it from the perspective of a person who does not know what a dog is? That is not analogous as we do know what "behavior" is.

Oxford definition of ideology:
"a system of ideas and ideals, especially one which forms the basis of economic or political theory and policy."

Behavior is based on it, and was where the goalpost was planted before you moved it.​

In this particular case, "behavior is caused by ideology" do you think that ambiguity is helpful to anyone's understanding?

Let's not take "behavior is based on it" from the same narrow focus as the dog example. But, first...

You awarded me the "goalpost" award, but I ask you to defer momentarily, at least until you read the following. Please keep in mind I am approaching this as about linguistics, not primarily the content, more the grammar and mechanics of language.

You quoted @Aldebaran as "behavior is based on it", and, now, you filled-in that "it" is specifically "ideology" such that "behavior is based on ideology".

You brought up the "all" construct in your prior post. What happens when a new construct with the word "all" is introduced to the beginning of the sentence?

The answer: the "all behavior is based on ideology" construct is an illogical premise because the illogic is established by the true premise "behavior is based on hunger" thus the "all behavior is based on ideology" construct is proven false.

Regarding your question in your final paragraph, as I wrote, I am addressing the linguistic validity of Aldebaran using the anarthrous "behavior", not the conceptual logic conclusion of whether "behavior is based on ideology" is true or false.

As I mentioned to @JustOneWay, if Aldebaran's intention was to indicate a subset of the entire population, then this type of ambiguity is not just applicable, but absolutely appropriate, even useful, in discussion to develop and illustrate a point.

If you would like to see an anarthrous noun in action, then please see John 1:1.

 

[DaisyDay]

You awarded me the "goalpost" award, but I ask you to defer momentarily, at least until you read the following.

What?

 

[rambot]

Let's not take "behavior is based on it" from the same narrow focus as the dog example. But, first...

You awarded me the "goalpost" award, but I ask you to defer momentarily, at least until you read the following. Please keep in mind I am approaching this as about linguistics, not primarily the content, more the grammar and mechanics of language.

You quoted @Aldebaran as "behavior is based on it", and, now, you filled-in that "it" is specifically "ideology" such that "behavior is based on ideology".

You brought up the "all" construct in your prior post. What happens when a new construct with the word "all" is introduced to the beginning of the sentence?

The answer: the "all behavior is based on ideology" construct is an illogical premise because the illogic is established by the true premise "behavior is based on hunger" thus the "all behavior is based on ideology" construct is proven false.

Regarding your question in your final paragraph, as I wrote, I am addressing the linguistic validity of Aldebaran using the anarthrous "behavior", not the conceptual logic conclusion of whether "behavior is based on ideology" is true or false.

As I mentioned to @JustOneWay, if Aldebaran's intention was to indicate a subset of the entire population, then this type of ambiguity is not just applicable, but absolutely appropriate, even useful, in discussion to develop and illustrate a point.

If you would like to see an anarthrous noun in action, then please see John 1:1.

As someone who was part of the original argument, I will agree with what you write here but I don't think original argument is not logical.

I mean, the argument that the poster is making is that ideology is based on behaviour. And that's just wrong. Idealogy is based on ideas and ideas; thoughts not behaviours.

 

[Aldebaran]

As someone who was part of the original argument, I will agree with what you write here but I don't think original argument is not logical.

I mean, the argument that the poster is making is that ideology is based on behaviour. And that's just wrong. Idealogy is based on ideas and ideas; thoughts not behaviours.

What I said was that behavior is based on ideology, not the other way around.

 

[rambot]

What I said was that behavior is based on ideology, not the other way around.

I know but your underpinning argument is that lgbtq IS an ideology and that their behaviour is based on it. I'm saying that is false because homosexuality is not an ideology to being with. It is an attraction/behaviour.

My attraction to my wife is not based on an ideology.

 

[Aldebaran]

I know but your underpinning argument is that lgbtq IS an ideology and that their behaviour is based on it. I'm saying that is false because homosexuality is not an ideology to being with.

My attraction to my wife is not based on an ideology.

"I know but...."

What I'd like to know is why you and certain other people are showing such a desperation to disagree with what I say that you have to change my words to make an argument. Inserting the word "All" to my quote and repeatedly posting what I said while misquoting me, and now knowingly reversing my words to completely change what I said.
Seriously, why is it so important to argue at the expense of being honest?

 

[Kermos]

What?

You had written that I moved to the goalposts, and I was just asking you to reevaluate whether you still felt like I moved the goalposts after reading my post.

 

[Kermos]

As someone who was part of the original argument, I will agree with what you write here but I don't think original argument is not logical.

I mean, the argument that the poster is making is that ideology is based on behaviour. And that's just wrong. Idealogy is based on ideas and ideas; thoughts not behaviours.

It sounds to me like you are saying that the language is valid, but the concept is illogical.

Did I read your post correctly?

 

[rambot]

It sounds to me like you are saying that the language is valid, but the concept is illogical.

Did I read your post correctly?

yup...pretty much.