Author. I scribble down words and somehow they get published.

Comments

Comments
Text

0110100110010110:

you do not need to defend yourself for people who are not willing to listen. you do not need to defend yourself for people who are not willing to listen. you do not need to defend yourself for people who are not willing to listen. you do not need to defend yourself for people who are not willing to listen. you do not need to defend yourself for people who are not willing to listen.

People listen when rational arguments are made, not nonsensical gibberish masquerading as intelligent discourse.

Go back to your Pokemon.

Source: 13211311123113112211

Comments
caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

ummmmm no? surely watching stuff fall and inducing that shit falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that the sun rises and falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that these plants taste good and these berries kill you doesn’t come from language????
who the fuck are these people 

Funny how people criticizing this seem to be kids with a large discrepancy in literacy. Considering that binary is language and a universal one at that.
Nah, let’s just attack linguistics as “philosophy” (which it’s not) and show to the world how lacking our education is.
Ah, willful ignorance. The American standard.

wow omg 
1) wtf is “large discrepancy in literacy” supposed to mean. discrepancy between what two things?? discrepancy implies some sort of difference or assymetry between two things: what are those two things.
2) my url is not “binary”. it is (a portion of) the thue-morse sequence. the thue-morse sequence is not a language by any stretch of the imagination. it is a sequence of numbers (or rather a sequence of any two distinct *things*)
3) i fully well comprehend that linguistics is not philosophy. i fucking study linguistics for godsakes. this image has nothing to do with linguistics. this image has to do with philosophy and epistemology, not linguistics. linguistics doesn’t care about how people learn and process knowledge; linguistics studies how languge works on a formal, scientific level. 
4) willful ignorance??? i saw this image, thought about it critically, and presented an argument against it. how the fuck is that willful ignorance.

Ummmm, how do you even understand any of that without a system of signs and signifiers to comprehend? God, some people are so pedantic and thick.

1) you gotta get some critical reading skills. i never said you can’t gain knowledge or learn through the medium of language. i was arguing against the scope of “everything”, because it’s blatantly obvious that there are shitton of things you can learn about the universe without having any language. animals can learn things without language. cows know when to sleep, what sort of grass to eat, how to mate. they learn how to walk, how to vocalize (animal communication, though comprised of signs, is not language. i note that you immediately jumped to equating language with signs: this is a false connection. while language is comprised of signs, not all signs are language.), etc. are you legitimately arguing that every animal that doesn’t have language (aka every animal except for humans) cannot learn??? how the fuck do they survive in the wild then. 
2) you never refuted my points, and even blatantly misunderstood them. who’s the “pedantic and thick” one here?

Oh, and if you study Linguistics, you must be familiar with Ferdinand de Saussure’s and Noam Chomsky’s transformational grammars. Which, actually, bolster my original post.
You should know this!


oh im very familiar with them. are you?
chomsky’s transformational grammar has nothing to do with learning or gaining knowledge. it’s just a theory to formally model the syntax of human language.
saussure NEVER worked with transformational grammar. indeed, if you know anything about linguistics, you would know that syntactical structures was a reaction to saussure’s structural linguistics and the prevalent theories of syntax and language at the time, and introduced and laid the groundwork for generative grammar, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, etc.
secondly, you never show how those two linguists’ works “bolster” your point. indeed, i can’t see how they do.
you have consistently avoided actually responding to any of my points, you have consistently demonstrated an deeply flawed misunderstanding of language, learning, mathematics, linguistic theory, and the history of linguistics, and you have consistently spewed nonsense all over my blog.
i am done with you. i do not deem what you say worthy of any further replies. actually learn about whatever the fuck you’re trying to talk about before you start miserably trying to debate with people. in any event, youŕe probably a troll; no one could possibly be this dull and ignorant. i’m frankly ashamed to have even taken this “debate” (if you can even call it that) this far.
i am done here

Seriously, get your tuition refunded and go play with your Morse code. You’ve shown a major misunderstanding of linguistics. Those of us in the Academy don’t need anymore ignorant fools.


  
    you have consistently avoided actually responding to any of my points, you have consistently demonstrated an deeply flawed misunderstanding of language, learning, mathematics, linguistic theory, and the history of linguistics, and you have consistently spewed nonsense all over my blog.
  


Actually, the onus is on you to disprove me. Logic 101.

I’ve taught kids like you. So full of hubris and unjustified arrogance. They usually end up dropping out in frustration because their professors constantly score their nonsense very low.

Godspeed you! Black emperor!

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

ummmmm no? surely watching stuff fall and inducing that shit falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that the sun rises and falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that these plants taste good and these berries kill you doesn’t come from language????

who the fuck are these people 

Funny how people criticizing this seem to be kids with a large discrepancy in literacy. Considering that binary is language and a universal one at that.

Nah, let’s just attack linguistics as “philosophy” (which it’s not) and show to the world how lacking our education is.

Ah, willful ignorance. The American standard.

wow omg 

1) wtf is “large discrepancy in literacy” supposed to mean. discrepancy between what two things?? discrepancy implies some sort of difference or assymetry between two things: what are those two things.

2) my url is not “binary”. it is (a portion of) the thue-morse sequence. the thue-morse sequence is not a language by any stretch of the imagination. it is a sequence of numbers (or rather a sequence of any two distinct *things*)

3) i fully well comprehend that linguistics is not philosophy. i fucking study linguistics for godsakes. this image has nothing to do with linguistics. this image has to do with philosophy and epistemology, not linguistics. linguistics doesn’t care about how people learn and process knowledge; linguistics studies how languge works on a formal, scientific level. 

4) willful ignorance??? i saw this image, thought about it critically, and presented an argument against it. how the fuck is that willful ignorance.

Ummmm, how do you even understand any of that without a system of signs and signifiers to comprehend? God, some people are so pedantic and thick.

1) you gotta get some critical reading skills. i never said you can’t gain knowledge or learn through the medium of language. i was arguing against the scope of “everything”, because it’s blatantly obvious that there are shitton of things you can learn about the universe without having any language. animals can learn things without language. cows know when to sleep, what sort of grass to eat, how to mate. they learn how to walk, how to vocalize (animal communication, though comprised of signs, is not language. i note that you immediately jumped to equating language with signs: this is a false connection. while language is comprised of signs, not all signs are language.), etc. are you legitimately arguing that every animal that doesn’t have language (aka every animal except for humans) cannot learn??? how the fuck do they survive in the wild then. 

2) you never refuted my points, and even blatantly misunderstood them. who’s the “pedantic and thick” one here?

Oh, and if you study Linguistics, you must be familiar with Ferdinand de Saussure’s and Noam Chomsky’s transformational grammars. Which, actually, bolster my original post.

You should know this!

oh im very familiar with them. are you?

chomsky’s transformational grammar has nothing to do with learning or gaining knowledge. it’s just a theory to formally model the syntax of human language.

saussure NEVER worked with transformational grammar. indeed, if you know anything about linguistics, you would know that syntactical structures was a reaction to saussure’s structural linguistics and the prevalent theories of syntax and language at the time, and introduced and laid the groundwork for generative grammar, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, etc.

secondly, you never show how those two linguists’ works “bolster” your point. indeed, i can’t see how they do.

you have consistently avoided actually responding to any of my points, you have consistently demonstrated an deeply flawed misunderstanding of language, learning, mathematics, linguistic theory, and the history of linguistics, and you have consistently spewed nonsense all over my blog.

i am done with you. i do not deem what you say worthy of any further replies. actually learn about whatever the fuck you’re trying to talk about before you start miserably trying to debate with people. in any event, youŕe probably a troll; no one could possibly be this dull and ignorant. i’m frankly ashamed to have even taken this “debate” (if you can even call it that) this far.

i am done here

Seriously, get your tuition refunded and go play with your Morse code. You’ve shown a major misunderstanding of linguistics. Those of us in the Academy don’t need anymore ignorant fools.

you have consistently avoided actually responding to any of my points, you have consistently demonstrated an deeply flawed misunderstanding of language, learning, mathematics, linguistic theory, and the history of linguistics, and you have consistently spewed nonsense all over my blog.

Actually, the onus is on you to disprove me. Logic 101.

I’ve taught kids like you. So full of hubris and unjustified arrogance. They usually end up dropping out in frustration because their professors constantly score their nonsense very low.

Godspeed you! Black emperor!

Source: caycepollard78

Comments
0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

ummmmm no? surely watching stuff fall and inducing that shit falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that the sun rises and falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that these plants taste good and these berries kill you doesn’t come from language????
who the fuck are these people 

Funny how people criticizing this seem to be kids with a large discrepancy in literacy. Considering that binary is language and a universal one at that.
Nah, let’s just attack linguistics as “philosophy” (which it’s not) and show to the world how lacking our education is.
Ah, willful ignorance. The American standard.

wow omg 
1) wtf is “large discrepancy in literacy” supposed to mean. discrepancy between what two things?? discrepancy implies some sort of difference or assymetry between two things: what are those two things.
2) my url is not “binary”. it is (a portion of) the thue-morse sequence. the thue-morse sequence is not a language by any stretch of the imagination. it is a sequence of numbers (or rather a sequence of any two distinct *things*)
3) i fully well comprehend that linguistics is not philosophy. i fucking study linguistics for godsakes. this image has nothing to do with linguistics. this image has to do with philosophy and epistemology, not linguistics. linguistics doesn’t care about how people learn and process knowledge; linguistics studies how languge works on a formal, scientific level. 
4) willful ignorance??? i saw this image, thought about it critically, and presented an argument against it. how the fuck is that willful ignorance.

Ummmm, how do you even understand any of that without a system of signs and signifiers to comprehend? God, some people are so pedantic and thick.

1) you gotta get some critical reading skills. i never said you can’t gain knowledge or learn through the medium of language. i was arguing against the scope of “everything”, because it’s blatantly obvious that there are shitton of things you can learn about the universe without having any language. animals can learn things without language. cows know when to sleep, what sort of grass to eat, how to mate. they learn how to walk, how to vocalize (animal communication, though comprised of signs, is not language. i note that you immediately jumped to equating language with signs: this is a false connection. while language is comprised of signs, not all signs are language.), etc. are you legitimately arguing that every animal that doesn’t have language (aka every animal except for humans) cannot learn??? how the fuck do they survive in the wild then. 
2) you never refuted my points, and even blatantly misunderstood them. who’s the “pedantic and thick” one here?

Oh, and if you study Linguistics, you must be familiar with Ferdinand de Saussure’s and Noam Chomsky’s transformational grammars. Which, actually, bolster my original post.
You should know this!


oh im very familiar with them. are you?
chomsky’s transformational grammar has nothing to do with learning or gaining knowledge. it’s just a theory to formally model the syntax of human language.
saussure NEVER worked with transformational grammar. indeed, if you know anything about linguistics, you would know that syntactical structures was a reaction to saussure’s structural linguistics and the prevalent theories of syntax and language at the time, and introduced and laid the groundwork for generative grammar, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, etc.
secondly, you never show how those two linguists’ works “bolster” your point. indeed, i can’t see how they do.
you have consistently avoided actually responding to any of my points, you have consistently demonstrated an deeply flawed misunderstanding of language, learning, mathematics, linguistic theory, and the history of linguistics, and you have consistently spewed nonsense all over my blog.
i am done with you. i do not deem what you say worthy of any further replies. actually learn about whatever the fuck you’re trying to talk about before you start miserably trying to debate with people. in any event, youŕe probably a troll; no one could possibly be this dull and ignorant. i’m frankly ashamed to have even taken this “debate” (if you can even call it that) this far.
i am done here

Seriously, get your tuition refunded and go play with your Morse code. You’ve shown a major misunderstanding of linguistics. Those of us in the Academy don’t need anymore ignorant fools.

0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

caycepollard78:

0110100110010110:

ummmmm no? surely watching stuff fall and inducing that shit falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that the sun rises and falls doesn’t come from language???? knowing that these plants taste good and these berries kill you doesn’t come from language????

who the fuck are these people 

Funny how people criticizing this seem to be kids with a large discrepancy in literacy. Considering that binary is language and a universal one at that.

Nah, let’s just attack linguistics as “philosophy” (which it’s not) and show to the world how lacking our education is.

Ah, willful ignorance. The American standard.

wow omg 

1) wtf is “large discrepancy in literacy” supposed to mean. discrepancy between what two things?? discrepancy implies some sort of difference or assymetry between two things: what are those two things.

2) my url is not “binary”. it is (a portion of) the thue-morse sequence. the thue-morse sequence is not a language by any stretch of the imagination. it is a sequence of numbers (or rather a sequence of any two distinct *things*)

3) i fully well comprehend that linguistics is not philosophy. i fucking study linguistics for godsakes. this image has nothing to do with linguistics. this image has to do with philosophy and epistemology, not linguistics. linguistics doesn’t care about how people learn and process knowledge; linguistics studies how languge works on a formal, scientific level. 

4) willful ignorance??? i saw this image, thought about it critically, and presented an argument against it. how the fuck is that willful ignorance.

Ummmm, how do you even understand any of that without a system of signs and signifiers to comprehend? God, some people are so pedantic and thick.

1) you gotta get some critical reading skills. i never said you can’t gain knowledge or learn through the medium of language. i was arguing against the scope of “everything”, because it’s blatantly obvious that there are shitton of things you can learn about the universe without having any language. animals can learn things without language. cows know when to sleep, what sort of grass to eat, how to mate. they learn how to walk, how to vocalize (animal communication, though comprised of signs, is not language. i note that you immediately jumped to equating language with signs: this is a false connection. while language is comprised of signs, not all signs are language.), etc. are you legitimately arguing that every animal that doesn’t have language (aka every animal except for humans) cannot learn??? how the fuck do they survive in the wild then. 

2) you never refuted my points, and even blatantly misunderstood them. who’s the “pedantic and thick” one here?

Oh, and if you study Linguistics, you must be familiar with Ferdinand de Saussure’s and Noam Chomsky’s transformational grammars. Which, actually, bolster my original post.

You should know this!

oh im very familiar with them. are you?

chomsky’s transformational grammar has nothing to do with learning or gaining knowledge. it’s just a theory to formally model the syntax of human language.

saussure NEVER worked with transformational grammar. indeed, if you know anything about linguistics, you would know that syntactical structures was a reaction to saussure’s structural linguistics and the prevalent theories of syntax and language at the time, and introduced and laid the groundwork for generative grammar, cognitive linguistics, psycholinguistics, etc.

secondly, you never show how those two linguists’ works “bolster” your point. indeed, i can’t see how they do.

you have consistently avoided actually responding to any of my points, you have consistently demonstrated an deeply flawed misunderstanding of language, learning, mathematics, linguistic theory, and the history of linguistics, and you have consistently spewed nonsense all over my blog.

i am done with you. i do not deem what you say worthy of any further replies. actually learn about whatever the fuck you’re trying to talk about before you start miserably trying to debate with people. in any event, youŕe probably a troll; no one could possibly be this dull and ignorant. i’m frankly ashamed to have even taken this “debate” (if you can even call it that) this far.

i am done here

Seriously, get your tuition refunded and go play with your Morse code. You’ve shown a major misunderstanding of linguistics. Those of us in the Academy don’t need anymore ignorant fools.

(via 13211311123113112211)

Source: caycepollard78

Comments
blog comments powered by Disqus