Originally posted by Alpha Centauri
How is that relevant? -AC
Everything in that post was more relevant to the topic than the needless arguing going on.(I still give you the win because he gave up...not because he was right or you were right...in my book, if you put someone on ignore during a serious debate...you automatically lose.) We could find plenty out from a Professor of English Sociology when it cames to fads...especially concerning Hate for Americans.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenI'll not disagree.
Your knowledge is incredibly superficial, that's what I'm saying.
Originally posted by Bardock42Doesn't change the fact that its there, does it?
An aspect our culture is accents, yes. But, you not being able to tell which they are when you hear them makes your knowledge entirely redundant.
Originally posted by Bardock42And I don't disagree. I was trying to answer the challenge that I didn't know about it.
I'm not saying that you don't know some words that have to do with this country, but culture's deeper than that, it's behaviours and mannerisms, things you cannot read about. Directed at Cres, n all that.
Be it superficial, incomplete or what have you. Its there. I do know about your culture.
Originally posted by dadudemonI hardly see how it was a serious debate. Ignoring evidence and repeatedly commiting the "no true scotsman" fallacy doesn't seem like any kind of earnest debate to me. It was feeling more like "AC must win at all costs" to me rather than a debate.
Everything in that post was more relevant to the topic than the needless arguing going on.(I still give you the win because he gave up...not because he was right or you were right...in my book, if you put someone on ignore during a serious debate...you automatically lose.) We could find plenty out from a Professor of English Sociology when it cames to fads...especially concerning Hate for Americans.
Because seriously ask yourself this: What was the topic? What was the center of the debate? My knowledge or lack there of?
My position was that I knew about their culture. Meaning that AC's was "You do not know about our culture". Cause that's what it was devolving into.
Originally posted by dadudemon
I dunno dude...now a days...there is so much data out there...you can take virtual tours of places...have web cam chats...watch TV shows about people and travel channels the like...I could easily come off as a British Sociologist with some quick studying...and few people would know the wiser...
I think anthropologist would be closer to what you're looking for, not sociologist - sociology is more the study of how people interact, while anthropology is more studying humanity and cultures in general.
Cresh, You don't "know about culture" just because you can name some accents and some history. You know a small, minute aspect of what makes up culture and isn't all that important in the face of the rest of culture's make-up.
You have no hands on experience with British culture, so to claim you know about it is wrong. I asked you about London, you gave me history, not culture. You named landmarks, not culture. You've never, ever been here, you can't claim to know about the culture to someone who does, cos I could easily see through everything you say, which is precisely why you walked away from the debate.
You don't know NOTHING, but you know nothing of true value or cultural significance, you have no experience. You being able to name more English accents than I can name American does not mean you know more of cultures. I have much, MUCH more experience, which you desperately convince yourself is a lie, for some childish reason I'm unaware of.
-AC
Originally posted by Creshosk
I'll not disagree.Doesn't change the fact that its there, does it?
And I don't disagree. I was trying to answer the challenge that I didn't know about it.
Be it superficial, incomplete or what have you. Its there. I do know about your culture.
But you don't really know about our culture, you know about an aspect of it, which you only know the words for it not what it's actually like. That's not exactly knowing our culture, that's knowing the name for aspects of it.
P.S I'm not called Bardock.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenAspects. I know about aspects of your culture.
But you don't really know about our culture, you know about an aspect of it, which you only know the words for it not what it's actually like. That's not exactly knowing our culture, that's knowing the name for aspects of it.
But if you're setting up the terms as "You have to visit the place" then I'll have to disagree with you. At which point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Experience means nothing if you don't pick up anything.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenSorry, must have carried that over from a thread where I was talking to bardock.
P.S I'm not called Bardock.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Aspects. I know about aspects of your culture.
I may not know it first hand but I still asert that I know about it. Not all of it.But if you're setting up the terms as "You have to visit the place" then I'll have to disagree with you. At which point we'll just have to agree to disagree. Experience means nothing if you don't pick up anything.
Sorry, must have carried that over from a thread where I was talking to bardock.
OK then, it seems we agree to disagree. Of course experience means nothing if you don't pick up any thing from it, neither does reading if you pick nothing up from that.
Originally posted by Creshosk
Sorry, must have carried that over from a thread where I was talking to bardock.
No worries.
Originally posted by chillmeistergenSee, this is why I continued and will continue to talk to you. You are a reasonable person.
OK then, it seems we agree to disagree. Of course experience means nothing if you don't pick up any thing from it, neither does reading if you pick nothing up from that.No worries.
Nothing I actually said to you was any different from what Chill has said, you just handled yourself differently by TELLING me I was lying about my own experiences because me having them would have been proven detrimental to your debate.
How "reasonable" is that? Going around calling me a liar, based on nothing but insecurity, and all other manner of names?
-AC
Originally posted by Lana
I think anthropologist would be closer to what you're looking for, not sociologist - sociology is more the study of how people interact, while anthropology is more studying humanity and cultures in general.
Yeah that fits better...I thought to use anthropology but I didn't think it would fit because I thought it more of a study of past cultures and sociology to be the study of current culture...but then I ended up in a paradox while thinking about that so I realized that anthropology is a broader subject...I am off topic though.
Originally posted by dadudemonActually I think that's fairly on topic when discussing cultures and what people think.
Yeah that fits better...I thought to use anthropology but I didn't think it would fit because I thought it more of a study of past cultures and sociology to be the study of current culture...but then I ended up in a paradox while thinking about that so I realized that anthropology is a broader subject...I am off topic though.
Originally posted by TheBullDogYou missed.
I loved this Mexican woman who I lovingly called "Mamasita". After she spent all of my money, she left me.So yes... you can buy love.
Had a joke lined up for another thread, clicked on the "last updated topic" but between your browser loading it and you clicking on it, the last updated topic became this one. So you missed, and posted in the wrong topic.