Rocks with bad intentions
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-08-2015, 09:20 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 09:28 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 08:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  A better term would be "non-intentional". "Unintentional" has the connotation of being capable of being intentional.
It would be similar to the difference between "uninterested" and "disinterested".

I'm not trying to express the absence of something, but the opposite of something.

What's the opposite of a fluke, the opposite of an accident?

If one were to claim the D20 die that rolled 20s straight was a fluke, I'm claiming the opposite. Pitting one positive claim against an opposing positive claim. In this regard an un- would be more appropriate than a non-.

Instead of unintentional vs intentional, it could just as well be fluke vs intentional, but I've already expressed numerous times already, that I'm using the term unintentional as synonymous with the words accident, and fluke.

Non-intentional might be a term more favorable for those who want to express an absence of belief. But I'm not trying to express an absence of belief, with the word unintentional.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:27 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 09:32 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 09:06 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 04:32 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  Should we jump to the conclusion that it was a fluke? That it was intentional?

Or would you suggest that we shouldn't jump to a conclusion one way or the other?

That is a false dichotomy. A third possibility is that the universe simply could be no other way.

Which would be the equivalent of two people arguing as to whether the die that rolled 20s a hundred times in a row, was a fluke, or intentional (weighted dice, etc..), and a third person (third possibility) who wants to point out that "they just did".

Of course the third option, is not an alternative to the two possibilities, but is just stating a fact, that the other two likely already acknowledge. It's not really a third possibility at all. It's sort of like if I were arguing with my wife as to whether we misplaced our wedding rings, or if the gardener stole it, and her brother imagining that he's offering up a third possibility, by telling us our rings are missing
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:27 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 09:20 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 08:42 AM)Chas Wrote:  A better term would be "non-intentional". "Unintentional" has the connotation of being capable of being intentional.
It would be similar to the difference between "uninterested" and "disinterested".

I'm not trying to express the absence of something, but the opposite of something.

What's the opposite of a fluke, the opposite of an accident?

If one were to claim the D20 die that rolled 20s straight was a fluke. I'm claiming the opposite. Pitting one positive claim against an opposing positive claim. In this regard an un- would be more appropriate than a non-.

Instead of unintentional vs intentional, it could just as well be fluke vs intentional, but I've already expressed numerous times already, that I'm using the term unintentional as synonymous with the words accident, and fluke.

Non-intentional might be a term more favorable for those who want to express an absence of belief. But I'm not trying to express an absence of belief, with the word unintentional.

An event

Occurrence

Observation

Once you describe it as intent or unintent, you've made a claim

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:29 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
How many times need that be said?

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:33 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 09:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once you describe it as intent or unintent, you've made a claim

Duh.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:37 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 09:33 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 09:27 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Once you describe it as intent or unintent, you've made a claim

Duh.

Said the guy claiming others claim unintent and who himself claims intent.

Facepalm

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:40 AM (This post was last modified: 13-08-2015 09:49 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 09:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Said the guy claiming others claim unintent and who himself claims intent.


Some guys claim a fluke, a cosmic accident, other's like myself claim intent.

Some don't claim either.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 09:48 AM
Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 09:40 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 09:37 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Said the guy claiming others claim unintent and who himself claims intent.


Some guys claims a fluke, a cosmic accident, other's like myself claim intent.

Some don't claim either.

Some don't understand what the words "fluke" or "accident" mean and keep ignoring the explicit explanations of those words that do NOT mean unintent.

Do you only play stupid or is this genuine dumbassery? Consider

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:23 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 09:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Some don't understand what the words "fluke" or "accident" mean and keep ignoring the explicit explanations of those words that do NOT mean unintent.

Do you only play stupid or is this genuine dumbassery? Consider

This is what I mean by semantics.

I defined what I mean by the word unintentionlity, on several occasions. I stated several times that I was using it synonmously with the terms fluke and accident. I even went over why I chose un- rather than non-.

Are you still confused by what I mean by it? Have I left my meaning ambiguous?

If not, that what the hell are you arguing with me about? That's i'm using the word "unintentional" unconventionally?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2015, 10:33 AM
RE: Rocks with bad intentions
(13-08-2015 10:23 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(13-08-2015 09:48 AM)TheBeardedDude Wrote:  Some don't understand what the words "fluke" or "accident" mean and keep ignoring the explicit explanations of those words that do NOT mean unintent.

Do you only play stupid or is this genuine dumbassery? Consider

This is what I mean by semantics.

I defined what I mean by the word unintentionlity, on several occasions. I stated several times that I was using it synonmously with the terms fluke and accident. I even went over why I chose un- rather than non-.

Are you still confused by what I mean by it? Have I left my meaning ambiguous?

If not, that what the hell are you arguing with me about? That's i'm using the word "unintentional" unconventionally?

"i'm using the word "unintentional" "incorrectly

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: