| Rick Smith 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:dddh8d$1pnh$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net...
>
> fair
>
> Just to be clear, I believe that to describe an action as "stupid", based
on
> the common understanding of the meaning of the word (as well as the M-W
> definition) as dim-witted or having characteristics of the actions
expected
> of a dim-witted person, carries implications about the person taking those
> actions. There are a wide variety of other equally-pejorative adjectives
> one could use that don't carry the pejorative characterization of the
> *person* taking the action that "stupid" does.
>
> M-W Ninth Collegiate lists the synonyms "STUPID, DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB
> mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. STUPID implies a
> slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or
> temporary ... ". *All* these terms have implications directed toward
> people. If you didn't *mean to communicate* what the term "stupid"
> communicates, then perhaps another term that more accurately reflected
your
> intent might have been more suitable!
>
> < None of that was ever intended by me.
>
> Yes, I understand that now, and have for a while. What you intended
wasn't
> as accurately reflected in what you actually wrote as you might have
hoped.
>
had[color=darkred]
> been sitting in
>
> Yes, I think I would have, if (as appeared to be the case in the course of
> the thread) the insistence that there is no possible context in which the
> described actions could be described as anything but "stupid". And if you
> think I've been overly sensitive about the use of "stupid" you should have
> seen how I'd have reacted back when I still was doing stuff like "sitting
in
> a bar discussing it over a beer"! I tend to stay out of bars and pubs
and
> the like these days. "Over coffee", maybe!
>
> interpretation of my meaning?
> it...)
>
> Might well have; I do think I'd have at least responded with something
like
> "Stupid is a pretty harsh word, don't you think?"
>
> I might even have gone on to amplify it with an example like: What if
the
> *reason* a particular person did it that way was that that's the way the
> application architect told him he wanted it, and that if he didn't do it
> that way he was going to lose his job, and along with that the medical
> benefits he was planning on to cover the upcoming birth of his child? I'd
> contend the behavior of a person who stomped out of the office in a huff
> Never To Dark On Their Door Again rather than offend his own sensibilities
> would objectively be considered at least as unreasonable as the behavior
of
> a person who did what his employer told him to do! Which one's taking the
> "stupid" action?
>
> always
>
> It certainly wasn't my intent here. But as I'm sure you've seen in
another
> current thread (about whether unsigned items always have an *explicit*
sign
> on all meaningful architectures) I will question a categorical statement
> when I see that there's a "local" truth, and not a "universal" one,
> underlying the statement.!
>
>
> True enough, but as others have pointed out when I use a word the way *I*
> define it, rather than the way I have good reason to believe *others
> understand* the word, it is *I* that am failing to communicate my intent,
> not my audience that is failing to make the proper assumptions.
>
>
> So, I would argue, is ensuring that we don't use terms "idiopathically"
> (taken in its non-pejorative current dictionary sense, rather than its
> etymological one), particularly for terms that others might find
pejorative!
One problem I have seen in Merriam-Webster Online is
that it sometimes does not carry the same sense of words
as when I learned them and, therefore, how I understand
them. The Random House College Dictionary, Revised
Edition, I use is from 1975 and more closely reflects my
understanding, when I read a word, and my intent, when
I use one.
Though the term, 'value judgment', did not occur to me until
yesterday, I had recognized that, when Mr Dashwood used
'stupid', it was an opinion, a 'value judgment', and not an
'absolute fact'. Merriam-Webster Online provides a
'technical' definition of 'value judgment' but the RHCD met
my expectations.
<
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictiona...e+judgment&x=22
&y=17 >
value judgment:: a judgment assigning a value (as good or bad)
to something
Random House College Dictionary, 1975
value judgment : an estimate of the worth or goodness of
something or someone.
Usage for 'stupid' : Stupid implies natural slowness or dullness
of intellect, or sometimes, a benumbed or dazed state of mind;
it is also used to mean foolish or silly : well-meaning but stupid;
rendered stupid by a blow; It is stupid to do such a thing.
Mr Stevens, that '[stupid] is also used to mean foolish or silly',
as in 'It is stupid to do such a thing', simply reflects usage as
it was in, perhaps, the late 60's and early 70's. For my part,
I can think of no way to unlearn the past, it seems contrary
to the leaning process. Having said that, I do agree that using
words that more accurately reflect such 'value judgments' is
a good thing to learn.
|