This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Why Americans can't speak (or write in) English properly.
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
@Faceshield
I already clearly stated what good meant. If you're going to keep jumping in, make sure you've read all the posts.
In relation to that game, yes...100% is good 0% is bad.
No, 100% is perfect. If good means 100%, then your brother is not good. If your brother is good but not 100%, then good is determined by you, not a general guideline. Personally, my schools/teams for soccer/football have involved a number of incredibly skilled players, and thus I do not consider myself 'good'. However, in South Africa which I travel to frequently, because the focus is more on cricket (Generally, with the World Cup coming up soon, not so), I have more practice, and am considered skilled there. Essentially, you have made a valid argument that perfection is not relative, however being good still is. You could say your brother was above average, assuming we had a clear weight scale on how desirable certain skills are, but you cannot say that it's a perfect fact that he is good.
Edit: I understand that was taken out of context. To clear up my point, is your argument is that he's good because he conforms to perfection. By that meaning, anyone with determination is good. Our point is that the point where you are near enough to perfect to be considered is set by the person saying it, so it's from your point of view, or not objective.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In relation to that game, yes...100% is good 0% is bad.
No, 100% is perfect. If good means 100%, then your brother is not good. If your brother is good but not 100%, then good is determined by you, not a general guideline. Personally, my schools/teams for soccer/football have involved a number of incredibly skilled players, and thus I do not consider myself 'good'. However, in South Africa which I travel to frequently, because the focus is more on cricket (Generally, with the World Cup coming up soon, not so), I have more practice, and am considered skilled there. Essentially, you have made a valid argument that perfection is not relative, however being good still is. You could say your brother was above average, assuming we had a clear weight scale on how desirable certain skills are, but you cannot say that it's a perfect fact that he is good.
I honestly don't understand how any of what you said has any bearing on anything I've said.
Maybe you're equivocating with 'relative'? Things being relative to people (which I'm arguing against) is not the same thing as things being relative to an absolute (which I'm arguing for).
I already clearly defined good as >50%. Thus it follows (in the quote above) that 100% is good (because 100 > 50%).
Post by
Orranis
In relation to that game, yes...100% is good 0% is bad.
No, 100% is perfect. If good means 100%, then your brother is not good. If your brother is good but not 100%, then good is determined by you, not a general guideline. Personally, my schools/teams for soccer/football have involved a number of incredibly skilled players, and thus I do not consider myself 'good'. However, in South Africa which I travel to frequently, because the focus is more on cricket (Generally, with the World Cup coming up soon, not so), I have more practice, and am considered skilled there. Essentially, you have made a valid argument that perfection is not relative, however being good still is. You could say your brother was above average, assuming we had a clear weight scale on how desirable certain skills are, but you cannot say that it's a perfect fact that he is good.
I honestly don't understand how any of what you said has any bearing on anything I've said.
Maybe you're equivocating with 'relative'? Things being relative to people (which I'm arguing against) is not the same thing as things being relative to an absolute (which I'm arguing for).
I already clearly defined good as >50%. Thus it follows (in the quote above) that 100% is good (because 100 > 50%).
Read my edit. Who are you to say >50% is good? In soccer, if my team scored on 49% of my plays against an equal team, I would be pretty god damn excellent. However, if my team am defending and I only 51% of all plays made towards us, I'd be generally considered bad. Also, you have to keep in mind who I am facing. Me scoring 51% of my plays on a single five year old kid would not be considered good by most, while a single five year old kid scoring even 10% of his plays against a thirteen year olds soccer team would be pretty astounding. More proof that good is relative.
The definitions of good in the dictionary:
morally excellent; virtuous; righteous; pious: a good man.
2. satisfactory in quality, quantity, or degree: a good teacher; good health.
3. of high quality; excellent.
4. right; proper; fit: It is good that you are here. His credentials are good.
5. well-behaved: a good child.
6. kind, beneficent, or friendly: to do a good deed.
7. honorable or worthy; in good standing: a good name.
8. educated and refined: She has a good background.
9. financially sound or safe: His credit is good.
10. genuine; not counterfeit: a good quarter.
11. sound or valid: good judgment; good reasons.
12. reliable; dependable; responsible: good advice.
13. healthful; beneficial: Fresh fruit is good for you.
14. in excellent condition; healthy: good teeth.
15. not spoiled or tainted; edible; palatable: The meat was still good after three months in the freezer.
16. favorable; propitious: good news.
17. cheerful; optimistic; amiable: in good spirits.
18. free of distress or pain; comfortable: to feel good after surgery.
19. agreeable; pleasant: Have a good time.
20. attractive; handsome: She has a good figure.
21. (of the complexion) smooth; free from blemish.
22. close or intimate; warm: She's a good friend of mine.
23. sufficient or ample: a good supply.
24. advantageous; satisfactory for the purpose: a good day for fishing.
25. competent or skillful; clever: a good manager; good at arithmetic.
26. skillfully or expertly done: a really good job; a good play.
27. conforming to rules of grammar, usage, etc.; correct: good English.
28. socially proper: good manners.
29. remaining available to one: Don't throw good money after bad.
30. comparatively new or of relatively fine quality: Don't play in the mud in your good clothes.
31. best or most dressy: He wore his good suit to the office today.
32. full: a good day's journey away.
33. fairly large or great: a good amount.
34. free from precipitation or cloudiness: good weather.
35. Medicine/Medical. (of a patient's condition) having stable and normal vital signs, being conscious and comfortable, and having excellent appetite, mobility, etc.
36. fertile; rich: good soil.
37. loyal: a good Democrat.
38. (of a return or service in tennis, squash, handball, etc.) landing within the limits of a court or section of a court.
39. Horse Racing. (of the surface of a track) drying after a rain so as to be still slightly sticky: This horse runs best on a good track.
40. (of meat, esp. beef) noting or pertaining to the specific grade below “choice,” containing more lean muscle and less edible fat than “prime” or “choice.”
41. favorably regarded (used as an epithet for a ship, town, etc.): the good ship Syrena.
No where hear do I see a single number posted, except for the list.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
In soccer, if my team scored on 49% of my plays against an equal team, I would be pretty god damn excellent.
It's only good if your standard is something less than absolute (ie something relative). You say, oh, most teams can't score 49% therefore it is good. That is relative and therefore biased. I'm not using it relatively I'm using it absolutely. The absolute is 100%, therefore >50% is good. It doesn't matter if you're the only person in the universe, or there are 5 billion other people who got >50% -- those hold no meaning if you are speaking in absolutes.
<All your definitions>
You really did miss everything I said about definitions, didn't you...
is your argument is that he's good because he conforms to perfection. By that meaning, anyone with determination is good.
Um, what? How does determination conform you to perfection? I may be determined to get a certain job; that doesn't mean I'm going to get it.
What you're doing is taking all my arguments against Squish and using them as if they are directed against your point (I have no idea what it even is). If you want to argue a point, present it so I can respond to it, instead of taking all my replies to Squish out of context.
Post by
Orranis
In soccer, if my team scored on 49% of my plays against an equal team, I would be pretty god damn excellent.
It's only good if your standard is something less than absolute (ie something relative). You say, oh, most teams can't score 49% therefore it is good. That is relative and therefore biased. I'm not using it relatively I'm using it absolutely.
<All your definitions>
You really did miss everything I said about definitions, didn't you...
Language is based on a series of sounds given more complex definitions. If you choose to change those definitions, we are no longer speaking the same language. There are words for 'over the medium' which is above average. From what I see, you're arguing that relativism does not exist, and that it's all based on predetermined measurements.
is your argument is that he's good because he conforms to perfection. By that meaning, anyone with determination is good.
Um, what? How does determination conform you to perfection? I may be determined to get a certain job; that doesn't mean I'm going to get it.
I'm sorry, I thought you meant conform as in 'to act in accordance with prevailing standards or customs <the pressure to conform>'.
What you're doing is using all my arguments against Squish and using them as if they are directed against your point (I have no idea what it even is). If you want to argue a point, present it so I can respond to it, instead of taking all my replies to Squish out of context.
I'm arguing for Squish's side.
Also, on second thought, this may just be one huge misunderstanding of you using good as above average.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
From what I see, you're arguing that relativism does not exist, and that it's all based on predetermined measurements.
No, I'm arguing that absolutes exist, and that comparatives only exist in reference to those absolutes.
If you choose to change those definitions, we are no longer speaking the same language.
Which is why one needs to go out and define his terms, which I did. Language is biased. In an argument unless you break free of it, and learn to use it instead of it using you, you're stuck in bias.
Say for instance I made my entire argument in Sanskrit. Does that make my point any less valid? No.
Arguing semantics in no way affects my point.
Post by
Squishalot
@Squish, I think you misunderstand my use of median.
50% shot rate is above the median, 50% block rate is above the median, etc. None of that has any reference to other players.
And winning is not in reference to other players per se, only accidentally in that a team has to lose for them to win.
In probability theory and statistics, a median is described as the numeric value separating the higher half of a sample, a population, or a probability distribution, from the lower half.
The statistical median is an order statistic that gives the "middle" value X of a sample.
One type of average, found by arranging the values in order and then selecting the one in the middle. If the total number of values in the sample is even, then the median is the mean of the two middle numbers.
I'm sorry, but every definition of median relates to being the middle value in a sample. To suggest that it relates to a 50% performance is not only useless in the context of this discussion, it's absurd when applied to other contexts.
Following on from your statement that people who achieve above the 'median' (referring to 50% towards perfection) is 'good', it should be clear that you would assign a 'good' label to anyone who achieved 51% in their English examinations all through high school. Perhaps that's why you're arguing that Americans can speak 'good' English?
Sorry Hyper, but you've shot yourself, 'good'. I wouldn't normally say this, but that just about finishes this
argument
discussion for me.
Edit: And btw, does your brother have a >50% block rate? :P
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
I'm sorry, but every definition of median relates to being the middle value in a sample.
And what is the sample? The number of
possible
shots.
You are again applying relativistic principles to my argument.
You want to take a sample of all the shot percentages everyone has taken and average that out to the medium. I want to take all the possible shots and average that out to a medium. Your way is relaticistic, being based on what others do. My way is not, because it's based on something intrinsic to the sport itself.
You're making the same blunder in every one of your replies, you keep trying to interpret my arguments in light of the relativism that you're advocating.
And btw, does your brother have a >50% block rate?
Again, you don't understand...
Post by
Squishalot
No, I'm only working off what you've said, I haven't tried to prescribe a definition of good. And don't try to strawman my point.
You're saying that it's the middle value of all possible responses. I believe that methodology is flawed, as it forces you to say that someone who scores 51/100 in their English exam is good at English, which is what makes your general view in this thread inherently flawed.
50% block rate is above the median
That's the level that you're prescribing as 'good'. Does your brother have >50% block rate? Does he have 50% posession? Is 50% the appropriate level to use for all these stats to define 'goodness'?
Anyway, I'm off for the day. I'll let Faceshield continue on my behalf.
Post by
coston89
So back on topic now. Yes, I realize that American English is a bit weird, however it's due to our culture's status as a melting pot of several different cultures and, at least in my state of Texas, poor public schooling. I loved my school, but most of my teachers were just gearing us for the TAKS test (our end of year exam). We, as students, are drilled over and over through the year on samples just to pass this test. I found out through my father, a coach/history teacher, that this basically determines how much that school district and ultimately the teacher is paid. As for english in particular, my school only spent six weeks on grammar in my junior year. This was the only time we did any grammar my high school career. The rest was spent on essays and movies sadly.
For myself, I am kinda bad when it comes to grammar, because I prefer to write like I talk. I also spell some words phonetically when I find the word's spelling either too complex (i.e. a word ending in -eux or the like) or if I am unfamiliar with the written word.
However, most people no longer use proper english, but please stop complaining over small differences. As long as you can understand us, we are using the language properly in my opinion.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
You're saying that it's the middle value of all possible responses. I believe that methodology is flawed, as it forces you to say that someone who scores 51/100 in their English exam is good at English, which is what makes your general view in this thread inherently flawed.
See, you think it's flawed because you're using a relative standard of judgment -- he's not good
relative
to native English speakers. Using relative terms I could just easily say the opposite: he's good
relative
to non-English speakers.
But I don't want to use relative terms. I'm comparing it to the absolute (you'd have to define the what absolute English is, of course). Imagine he's the only English speaker in the world and he gets 51% of it right. He's a good (insofar as good>median) English speaker.
That's the level that you're prescribing as 'good'. Does your brother have >50% block rate? Does he have 50% posession? Is 50% the appropriate level to use for all these stats to define 'goodness'?
A good blocker would block 50% of the time.
I never said my brother was a good blocker, I said he was a good basketball player.
The 'art' of basketball incorporates blocking into itself, yes, but only insofar as it contributes to the end/purpose of the game.
Post by
Squishalot
See, you think it's flawed because you're using a relative standard of judgment
No, I'm not. How many questions does he get correct or incorrect? Raw marks. Marks don't have to be scaled to a distribution.
I never said my brother was a good blocker, I said he was a good basketball player.
The 'art' of basketball incorporates blocking into itself, yes, but only insofar as it contributes to the end/purpose of the game.
Based on your rule of medians, if a good basketball player is someone who achieves 50% shot accuracy and 50% blocking (suppose that basketball is only made up of these two aspects, for simplicity right now), then you can't conclude that your brother is a good basketball player, because he only meets one of those criteria.
What you're trying to say, however, is that his >50% shot accuracy makes up for his <50% blocking, so that as a player taken as a whole, working towards the end/purpose of the game, he is above 50%, and therefore 'good'.
But in order to do so, you have to make a judgement call to determine the importance of blocking vs shot accuracy, insofar as it contributes to winning games. I don't think you can do that, from an absolute perspective, especially when the importance of characteristics in the context of winning games is relative to the quality/game style of your team and your opposition.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
But in order to do so, you have to make a judgement call to determine the importance of blocking vs shot accuracy
You got it right up to here. No, I don't need to make any judgment calls. Inherent in the act/game itself is a standard of measurement. Everything is wieghted: blocking a 2-pointer is equivalent in value to scoring a 2-pointer, stealing a good pass would be equivalent to passing, etc. The nature of the game lends itself to it.
Post by
Squishalot
blocking a 2-pointer is equivalent in value to scoring a 2-pointer, stealing a good pass would be equivalent to passing,
That's your judgement. Yes, there's an inherent standard of measurement. No, what you believe to be the standard of measurement may not be the right one. Because you're assuming that that blocking a 2-pointer is equivalent to scoring a 2-pointer, you're biasing your assessment of your brother's performance in line with your judgement of what's important in basketball.
And it should go without saying that all of your statistics, barring your free-shot %, are constructed relative to the opponents that you're playing against, and so can't be compared to an absolute standard without a measure of bias due to your playing pool.
Post by
Orranis
But in order to do so, you have to make a judgement call to determine the importance of blocking vs shot accuracy
You got it right up to here. No, I don't need to make any judgment calls. Inherent in the act/game itself is a standard of measurement. Everything is wieghted: blocking a 2-pointer is equivalent in value to scoring a 2-pointer, stealing a good pass would be equivalent to passing, etc. The nature of the game lends itself to it.
So essentially this whole argument boils down to you using "good" as over 50%, yes? Also, thats not a perfect balance. Say in Soccer. Because of how play works, goals are far harder to score than to save.
Post by
Orranis
From what I see, you're arguing that relativism does not exist, and that it's all based on predetermined measurements.
No, I'm arguing that absolutes exist, and that comparatives only exist in reference to those absolutes.
Hmm... I don't see how you can say that. Take plot-writing as an example. Some people like a happily ever after ending, some people (Such as me) prefer something dark. So you can't say their is a perfect story, because some like certain aspects of storytelling better than others. The only way you could make a perfect story would be to make it have every possible character, situation, and plot possible, at which point it is no longer one story.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
So essentially this whole argument boils down to you using "good" as over 50%, yes? Also, thats not a perfect balance. Say in Soccer. Because of how play works, goals are far harder to score than to save.
Harder has nothing to do with it. We're talking about absolutes...remember?
Hmm... I don't see how you can say that. Take plot-writing as an example. Some people like a happily ever after ending, some people (Such as me) prefer something dark. So you can't say their is a perfect story, because some like certain aspects of storytelling better than others. The only way you could make a perfect story would be to make it have every possible character, situation, and plot possible, at which point it is no longer one story.
There are no comparatives in your example.
That's your judgement. Yes, there's an inherent standard of measurement. No, what you believe to be the standard of measurement may not be the right one. Because you're assuming that that blocking a 2-pointer is equivalent to scoring a 2-pointer, you're biasing your assessment of your brother's performance in line with your judgement of what's important in basketball.
I'm not assuming anything. It's inherenetly true that scoring a point has the same net effect as blocking the other team's point...that's how basketball works.
Post by
Orranis
Hmm... I don't see how you can say that. Take plot-writing as an example. Some people like a happily ever after ending, some people (Such as me) prefer something dark. So you can't say their is a perfect story, because some like certain aspects of storytelling better than others. The only way you could make a perfect story would be to make it have every possible character, situation, and plot possible, at which point it is no longer one story.
There are no comparatives in your example.
How much someone likes one thing opposed to another is a comparative. Generally, I like dark endings more than I like bright endings. However, that is only me, and others like the opposite, so there is no absolute of a "perfect book".
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Hmm... I don't see how you can say that. Take plot-writing as an example. Some people like a happily ever after ending, some people (Such as me) prefer something dark. So you can't say their is a perfect story, because some like certain aspects of storytelling better than others. The only way you could make a perfect story would be to make it have every possible character, situation, and plot possible, at which point it is no longer one story.
There are no comparatives in your example.
How much someone likes one thing opposed to another is a comparative. Generally, I like dark endings more than I like bright endings. However, that is only me, and others like the opposite, so there is no absolute of a "perfect book".
You're mixing two completely different things.
The first issue is of one person preferring book A and another person preferring book B. You can't compare the two, because both are based in separate subjective systems.
The second issue is of book A being actually better than book B. In order to determine that you'd have to define the art of literature, its end, and how well those two books conform to it. From that analysis, it might be determined that book A is really better than book B; that however doesn't need to affect someone preferring book B.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.