Avatar: A Bad Thread

[Mao]

stuff...

Alright, I want you to tell me what would happen if you wrote a news cast, citing yourself as a credible and knowledgeable source on something lets say... the safety of a particular type of car, that's a good one, right?  What would happen if you said it would be impossible for that car to have a breakline failure?  Do you think you could fall back on your excuse of 'Colloquialism' when that car actually had one?

One does not go around stating that they are an educated and credible source.. and then use 'colloquialisms' as an excuse for delivering things that are not factual or are misleading.  It's generally frowned upon.  Beyond that, the argument essentially boils down to:  "They don't use the word correctly, so I don't have to either!"  This is the worst reason for taking two very well and clearly defined words and utterly misusing them that I can imagine.

Also, as much I am loathe to trust wikipedia on any matter: "A colloquialism is an expression not used in formal speech, writing or paralinguistics. Colloquialisms are also sometimes referred to collectively as "colloquial language". [1] Colloquialisms or colloquial language is considered to be characteristic of or only appropriate for casual, ordinary, familiar, or informal conversation rather than formal speech or writing.[2] Dictionaries often display colloquial words and phrases with the abbreviation colloq. as an identifier."

taken from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colloquialism

There's some important parts here.  I'll cover them as best as my limited wit and linguistic ability can manage:  The minute you declare yourself a credible source, you're stating facts.  That's pretty formal if you ask me.  Even more so if you've written it down where everyone can see it and it's going to be subject to the scrutiny of your peers.  Spoken words can slip by, but if you wrote it, particularly in a public spot.. best believe it's going to be subject to scrutiny.

Now, one can argue the second highlighted section there, that this is informal because it's a forum.  Fair enough, but I'm going to have to disagree when people start tossing around their credentials to put weight to their words.

The final one for me is kinda heavy.  Particularly since I don't have an actual dictionary handy with me and only have electronic ones to rely on.. but in about 10minutes of searching.. not once have I ever seen mention of the colloquial use of impossible being improbable.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

In my links, I used 5 times where news sources said something was impossible.  Does that mean you can or should get on the Guardian's case if someone successfully manages to assess the claim that the government will cut deficits? To be honest, I think that if the probability of a breakline failure in your hypothetical case were sufficiently low, say 1 in ten trillion or lower, and a credible news source used the word "impossible",  and tragically, that one in ten trillion event occurred, once the nature of the improbability was known, few people would get on their case for saying "impossible" rather than "so absurdly improbable it isn't worth worrying about."

What really defines a word, Webster (or whatever dictionary you happen to prefer), or actual usage in real communications? Because you do see the words "impossible" in many, many instances, formal and informal, where it does not refer to the same level of impossibility, as say, a square with five sides. I can look up more articles and maybe a few essays that use the word such if you like, but if you want to reach and twist the circumstances hard enough, demonstrating "impossibility" to a situation is very very tricky in itself. Maybe people should be more careful with the words that they throw around, but  I fail to see how I can make it any clearer than the articles I already cited as to how "impossible" does not mean "infinite possibilities will never yield this" than I already have in actual, real word usage.

[Mao]

Well all right then, so then what word describes a situation that simply cannot occur then?  We had a perfectly good word for it, but apparently because people used the word loosely to cover their own butts enough times, that means the definition for it has changed.  So what's the new word pray-tell?  I want to give those who love to deal in absolutes something they can really sink their teeth into.  Or is that just it?  Are we tossing that out and saying that we no longer have a word to describe this concept?  Simply because some people like to over sensationalize some but still at the same time cover their butts we now have to come up with a new way to express an already simple and well defined concept?  Mass media decides to abuse a word and give misleading information, but because enough of them do it it's ok now?  Fair enough.

Hey, you think if I get enough people to say that 0 is actually 1, that, outside of mathematical circles, I could get it to stick?

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

And what makes the names that we give to numbers, "0" and "1" actually correspond to an abstraction of value? If way back whenever the language was being generated (which is in itself a bit of an abstraction, people don't sit down and decide to create a language) the words for "zero" and "one" had been reversed, would that change their values? We attach the names that numbers have more from convention than anything else, so for your hypothetical, I would say yes. If enough people decided to change the name via usage, than why not? In fact, if enough people give those names, than it would probably eventually seep its way into mathematical circles, although given that they're still using a lot of greek symbols, it might take a few thousand years after everyone else made the switch


Does a dictionary set the type that everyone follows, or does a dictionary reflect what usage people are finding for those words? I've personally, always felt the latter. I mean, words *form*, languages change. At what point do words that seep in from other languages become part of English? At what point do neologisms stop being the weird slang or grammatical error and become the new norm? 400 years ago, I would only refer to you as "you" if you were a social superior or in a formal setting, with "thou" being the norm for more relaxed modes of speech. I don't think, today, saying "thou" is appropriate, outside of a Shakesperean play or a renaissance fair.

As for your first paragraph, I feel your pain. Although I think we need a word that says both yes and no at the same time before we divide "the probability approaches zero" and "can never, under any circumstances happen" into two separate words, the inarticulation of forms of language is annoying. I personally don't know of any real difference between the two, probably because in practicality they're close enough that, yes, most people are too lazy to make the distinction, because it carries little in the way of need to distinguish the two. While we're at it, lets crack in the heads of people who use the word "Kleenex" to refer to any sort of tissue paper, as they annoy me. 

[Keleth]

Wait! If that's true. . I'm going  to start a petition to change your name to "F*&^%*" and if we get enough people to call you by it. We can change it's meaning! It will then be your name.

Also, man this thread is. . ..

[Magic]

Does a dictionary set the type that everyone follows, or does a dictionary reflect what usage people are finding for those words? I've personally, always felt the latter. I mean, words *form*, languages change. At what point do words that seep in from other languages become part of English? At what point do neologisms stop being the weird slang or grammatical error and become the new norm? 400 years ago, I would only refer to you as "you" if you were a social superior or in a formal setting, with "thou" being the norm for more relaxed modes of speech. I don't think, today, saying "thou" is appropriate, outside of a Shakesperean play or a renaissance fair.

Isn't the fundamental point of any debate such as this to convey your logical argument to the opposing party in the same language? I mean I'd be worried if I was typing this and you suddenly respond in bloody MOONSPEAK because 'languages change'. It should at least be consistent all throughout the same thread.

If you cannot win your argument using the same definitions of terms then you should at least have the decency to concede it within that definition.

[Sunblink]

Wait is this thread some kind of chameleon? It went from being about Avatar to being about environmentalism to being about evolution to being about The Incredibles having an agenda to being about Avatar again to being about the English language to being about Webster.

This is just plain silly.

I have nothing intelligent to add so, uh, carry on?

P.S: I saw Avatar a few days ago! It was fun and entertaining and I had a blast. The only issue is, the movie was good for entertainment value and nothing more. Visually it was spectacular and I hope people use this kind of CGI for many years to come. However, story-wise, it was really nothing. It was painfully cliche and predictable; I could foresee, to some extent, every twist and turn. Worst of all was that all of these characters had so much potential and seemed to be very charismatic... but then Cameron didn't do anything with them. He didn't develop them. All we saw of the budding relationship between Whatsherface Neytiri and Jake was a stylish ethnic training montage. The outcome was sweet but that was only because of seeing the bond. It would have been much more effective if I had watched them see how they grew to care for one another. I'll admit that if one of the characters died, I would have been bummed but not in a lasting way. I was not in any way attached to some of those characters. I think if Cameron devoted more time to fleshing out the characters, I'd be much happier. Let's not get into the Black and White Morality issues.
Uh, the movie had environmentalism up shitshoot but I chose to tune it out. The Native American-colonists/Humans-Na'vi parallels were burned into my retinas. I wish he made the parallels less obvious, because then it wouldn't have made aspects of the movie seem like a vehicle. Alternatively, I think it would've worked if Cameron mixed it up a bit. Using real-life situations as a reference to help one understand the process of subjugating and dehumanizing an alien planet's indigenous race is one thing, but I am not impressed. Fantasy Counterpart Culture EVERYWHERRRRRE.
But really, we can't criticize him for the connection to nature thing because it is not, by any means, a plot device restricted to FernGully. See, it's its own TV Trope. If anything, it's just old.

Don't get me wrong, I still thought the movie was fun. I thought it was entertaining. The ending scenes were spectacular. I might consider myself a fan and I might fiddle with some future ideas. But it was not one of my favorites. I think it might be an embodiment of wasted potential for me.
If Avatar is made into some kind of franchise of comics, games, like with the Star Wars stuff, I will approve.

I'll readily admit that I nearly cried at a few moments in the movie. Actually, my sister's boyfriend shed a few manly tears. But I did not. And I told my sister all about her boyfriend who cries at rainbows and reminded him all throughout the car ride home about what a pussy he was.


I'm really pulling this out of my ass The review was terrible because I've been so screwed up. FORGIVE MEEEEE. Off I go to sleep.

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

Wait! If that's true. . I'm going  to start a petition to change your name to "F*&^%*" and if we get enough people to call you by it. We can change it's meaning! It will then be your name.

Also, man this thread is. . ..

I'm sure that when you went to school, if you're still not there, there was at least one kid who had some sort of nickname that stuck to him or her. In the context of the school, if you referred to whatever that nickname was, you'd have been understood. So while that might not be what was on his birth certificate, in that social situation of "school student interaction" that nickname was..... more or less that persons name.

So while I'd be offended if you tried to get my name changed to an obscenity, I don't deny that if it became how I was referred to, thought as, than, well, yes, it would be my name, at least in that particular context.

And I don't see how this thread is failing. I finally got a platform where I can talk about linguistics. To me, this is awesome


As for Magic's post

Isn't the fundamental point of any debate such as this to convey your logical argument to the opposing party in the same language? I mean I'd be worried if I was typing this and you suddenly respond in bloody MOONSPEAK because 'languages change'. It should at least be consistent all throughout the same thread.

If you cannot win your argument using the same definitions of terms then you should at least have the decency to concede it within that definition.

I would say the point of a debate, is yes, to clarify an issue by means of logical argument. But when the issue at stake is what any given word means and how that meaning is derived, then I think raising the point of how words acquire definitions is a valid one. Winning or losing, (which itself is a questionable point in an honest debate) has nothing to do with it.


Take a random word. "Acephalous". In my dictionary, it claims that the word means either headless, or lacking a clearly defined head. It also refers to a situation where there is no evident leadership. courtesy of wikihere.

Question: Why does it have any of those definitions?

Well, I don't know for certain, but I can hazard a good guess. The word has roots in Greek, where a prefix of "a" has a function similar to "an" or "anti", and the root "cephalo" refers to a head. Anti-head, headless.

The leap to having no leader, I'd think, is reasonably intuitive. Comparisons of organizations to organisms are common, and the leader, "thinking" for the group, is the natural candidate for the head/brain position.

Now, again, I can't be sure, but I'm fairly certain that the meaning of headless came first, and then later the term was adapted to meaning a lack of leadership, using the organization to organism comparison above. At what point does using "acephalous" to refer to a leaderless organization stop being "wrong" and becomes an accepted use of the word? Bear in mind, if you want me to cite a tipping point, I can't actually name one. (to my irritation.) However, the process does occur, and it isn't really that hard to come up with examples of words that have changed meanings over time. (Especially obscenities and euphemisms.)


And when the crux point of a debate comes from two different understandings of the same word, then I think branching into how words acquire definitions is entirely appropriate.  I don't think there's any real disagreement at this point of the speakers, now that we've spent hours hashing the issue, that a complex situation of a symbiotic growth to the point displayed in the movie is.

A. On a ridiculously low order of magnitude of probability

B. Possible, just, ridiculously unlikely.


The issue now seems to be what is the "true meaning of "impossible", if any true meaning can be ascribed to it, and how that process is achieved, which I, (although possible no-one else) am interested in.


Best wishes,
Corgatha Taldorthar.

[Turnsky]

*eyes Corg* i'm sorry dude, but.




seriously.

[Alondro]

Ok, apparently I need to clarify why Pandora's biosphere is impossible via natural evolution.

Most of the life forms have no reason for the neurological 'link' seen in the movie.  The predators especially would be extremely disadvantaged.  This was not even a form of symbiosis.  It was a neurochemical link that seemed to serve no functional purpose in the ecology than to allow the Na'vi and the forest brain to 'tame' the other organisms when needed.

Note also what this link entails.  The animal organisms can enter and sever the link very rapidly through the tendrils.  This is not mere signal transduction or biochemical signaling, this is a direct link with the central nervous system, primarily the brain, which forms in an instant, and can be broken down without any harm to either organism an instant later.  This would require very rapid synaptic formation through some exceedingly complex neural conduits.  The metabolic load for such anatomy would be tremendous.  And if the organism is not directly benefitting from it, then any organisms born without it would suddenly find their bodies with a surplus of available energy.  On Pandora, save for the instance at the end where all the meta-fauna are united against the humans, there is no evidence whatsoever that this link serves any practical purpose for those organisms.  The Na'vi are the only ones who seem to benefit, as it allows them to almost instantly tame any animal they can manage to link with.  Again, this is a distinct disadvantage to a predatory species, and evolution would favor the loss of that link.

We must also consider how would such a link evolve?  It would have to occur BEFORE any major phylogenetic split in the organisms.  If it occurred very early in evolution, then one would expect a very high degree of symbiosis betwen all the early life forms, and make it very unlikely that predators and prey species would ever evolve.  Indeed, with such a complex connection between life forms, broad speciation into drastically dioferent organisms kingdoms would probably not even occur if the link were to be maintained.  You might expect a planet of lichens, and not much else.

I do not see any possibility that it could have come later without a deliberate act, because it would require every single species involved, having already diverged to tremendous degrees, to then undergo a parallel convergent evolution path such that all evolved the same neurochemistry and the functional anatomy required for the system all at the same time.   This is basically the bullet being pushed out the way by electrons analogy.  The odds against it are so enormous, as to render the event causally impossible.

It is, however, perfectly possible for the interlinked organisms to result from a direct genetic engineering by an advanced civilization.  Direct action rather drastically narrows the odds of an event occuring, since the factors needed for that event are being deliberately put into place, eliminating random chance.  The only limit to what an advanced civilization could do is what is actually physically possible by any means.  

This is why I say that Pandora would likely be an artificially created biosphere.  The odds favor this as the most reasonable explanation for its existence.  This does not require a 'god', merely an older intelligent alien race with a particular talent for biology.  Now, an alterante hypothesis could render the 'Gaia' organism in a more sinister light.  If it is a plant-based global intelligence which evolved first as perhaps a means by which the plants could coordinate their defenses against herbivores and eventually achieved consciousness and a rapidly increasing intelligence that exponentially grew as the forest cover of interconnected genius plant replaced the less-fit dumb plants, it is also possible that it hijacked all the other life forms and programmed them via eons of selective breeding, appearin quite impartial when in fact it is quite willing and able to assume total control over the other organisms when it feels threatened enough.  And indeed, it did do that very thing in the movie!  What we saw with those animals was a sudden change from instinct-only behavior, to intelligent coordination of offensive tactics.  Essentially, the giant brain took over their minds and sent them to fight to protect itself from the invaders which harmed part of its brain.  One could look at the animals as being used by the plant brain as white blood cells battling a foreign infection.

I should also point out that this sort of alien planetary engineering is not exactly new to science fiction either.  It was, after all, the entire central tennet of the '2001' and series novels. 

So, I see the Gaia organism on Pandora as either a living supercomputer left by a very advanced and creative ancient alien race, or as  a native entity which arose from a very advanced form of plant symbiosis and subverted all other creatures to its will, changing their neurochemistry to match its own through eons of selective breeding until it had all the life on the planet in one way or another tied to it in order to protect itself and its further development.  Then the Na'vi might even be one of its experiments.

Oh yes, lots of interesting sci-fi possibilities, and all within the realm of biological probability.

The very best science fiction always uses the best science available at the time to explain itself, only venturing into those realms of fantasy that science can answer neither yes nor no to.  Such as was the case with the brilliant tale "I, Robot", a story which has withstood all the tests of time and has even now reached the cusp of potential for real fulfillment one day.  The science of the story was solid, so solid that reality has now begun to resemble the fiction.

I tend to prefer the very 'sciency' science fiction.. which is why I loved the "Andromeda Strain" movie from the 70's.  It was so full of science!   

[Magic]

I would say the point of a debate, is yes, to clarify an issue by means of logical argument. But when the issue at stake is what any given word means and how that meaning is derived, then I think raising the point of how words acquire definitions is a valid one. Winning or losing, (which itself is a questionable point in an honest debate) has nothing to do with it.

I commend you for raising that point, however;

I would mean no disrespect in saying that I'm afraid you may have misunderstood me, and I apologize for that fact. I may have and overly simple word such as 'win' to convey a proper presentation of an argument.

I'm not saying you should throw away your argument or definition as if it was at stake, I'm asking you that you should at least consider that the opposing party actually acquires a definition differently he will more than likely have a different definition of a single word. You can then decide if his or her arguments has any merit based on it's logic, and concede the argument on his level or pose a rebuttal. Then maybe whoever you're arguing with might be courteous enough to do the same for your definition and your argument.

What you seem to be doing, is with linguistic superfluousness, is outright saying that he will always be wrong for using that definition because when you acquire your own definition your own way, you have your definition which must hold true. Your definition, as with theirs, will always be subject to scrutiny. Failing to realize this will have all but made this an exercise in how diplomacy and communication fails.

At least be open minded enough to play the devil's advocate and present your case so that while x is true if y is a certain value (and potentially argue whether or note if that is even true), you see that x is false if y is a different value. This should not be too hard, as you already seem to have the same general ideas on hand but just couldn't agree on the one word to convey that idea.

In my personal opinion in an aside, I will vehemently note that there will more than likely never be a conclusive result as long as either party continues to argue on based on skewed terminology. In either case, since you haven't quite noticed, everyone around you now considers this thread to imminently be thrown into the Mine. In fact the only potential reason why the others are posting is to speed it into it's demise.

Allow me to be the one to escort you, God willing, out of the hole you may have dug yourself in, as a courtesy.

[Darkmoon]

Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.

[Magic]

But you guys already dragged it through every failpile and back. We're going to need some Taski and desu in here to keep up with the A material.

[Mao]

Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.

Hey, I tried.  But some things just kept trying to drag me back into discussion on the matter.  I even Bel-Aired the thread man, what more do you want from me?  Am I going to have to rickroll it?  Maybe start adding more image spam to get people to lighten up?

[Turnsky]

hnnnngh... trying to be creative here...

bah

[Mao]

Also:  This was linked to me yesterday during the evolution debate and again today, leading me to several potentially awkward situations at work.

HADAWKIN!

I literally lol'd.

[Sunblink]

Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.

Well.


I have a new debate for you all. Riddle me this, forumites: in an earlier post, I had said that I had emasculated my sister's boyfriend through not shedding tears during certain moments in Avatar when he, himself, did. Does this make me manlier than him, an actual man?

But the actual conundrum exists not in the question itself, but in the words. 'Manlier' in that usage insinuates strength and unemotionality but by traditionally assigning such behavior to the male gender, it patronizes the strength of womanhood. It implies that this kind of strength is reserved only for men, while women are considered overemotional, oversensitive creatures. Thus it insinuates that a show of emotion would be considered womanly, and therefore weak. The word womanly as an adjective is normally used to deride someone. This flaw in the English vocabulary promotes the perceived weakness separating both sexes, promoting a stereotype of men as macho creatures meant to protect the frail, weak, defenseless woman. Why should strength only be considered an accomplishment of man? In order for me to be acknowledged as emotionally stronger than my sister's boyfriend, I must be referred to as "manly" - a descriptor of the opposite sex. This type of thinking lurks everywhere.

And that is why we should all stop wearing bras.

Forumites, your thoughts?





No, but seriously, please don't give me your thoughts.

I didn't take a word of this seriously. Oh god. And please don't kill me, moderators, please please please

[Mao]

...Keaton I love you and if you want to stop wearing your bra.. you go ahead.  While you're at it, just hold on a sec.. I want photo evidence of this...historic... moment as you remove it.  Make sure to remove your shirt too, I want to capture the actual moment you free yourself from your bonds for all to see.

[Turnsky]

Seriously, make this thread more entertaining.

Well.


I have a new debate for you all. Riddle me this, forumites: in an earlier post, I had said that I had emasculated my sister's boyfriend through not shedding tears during certain moments in Avatar when he, himself, did. Does this make me manlier than him, an actual man?

But the actual conundrum exists not in the question itself, but in the words. 'Manlier' in that usage insinuates strength and unemotionality but by traditionally assigning such behavior to the male gender, it patronizes the strength of womanhood. It implies that this kind of strength is reserved only for men, while women are considered overemotional, oversensitive creatures. Thus it insinuates that a show of emotion would be considered womanly, and therefore weak. The word womanly as an adjective is normally used to deride someone. This flaw in the English vocabulary promotes the perceived weakness separating both sexes, promoting a stereotype of men as macho creatures meant to protect the frail, weak, defenseless woman. Why should strength only be considered an accomplishment of man? In order for me to be acknowledged as emotionally stronger than my sister's boyfriend, I must be referred to as "manly" - a descriptor of the opposite sex. This type of thinking lurks everywhere.

And that is why we should all stop wearing bras.

Forumites, your thoughts?





No, but seriously, please don't give me your thoughts.

I didn't take a word of this seriously. Oh god. And please don't kill me, moderators, please please please

heh, actually if a man cries that just proves he's more emotionally stable than one that vehemently believes being a pillar of non-emotion (i shall cite Keanu Reeves' entire acting range outside of bill & ted for an example).
It's okay to express one's self, in other words. and i second Mao's statement. 

[Sprocketsdance]

Keaton... omg... all I have to say is... you win.. you TOTALLY win    

>.> and.. here's a match for that travesty the women race enslaves itself with *tosses lighter fluid as well*

[Mao]

...Also, for you Dr. Tran lovers out there:

MAEK POAST!

[Magic]

Why not? It's in the spirit of the English language.

[ShadesFox]

I was trying to aviod posting here, but I may as well. I watched said movie. Yes, the one the thread was originally about. It wasn't that bad really. I had a severe case of fridge logic after the fact, like "the colonel wanted to start shit, had a monster flying gun ship and incendiary rockets, but no proper bombs?" and "Who is paying these scientists?  They aren't in it for nothing and the corp seems to dislike them a lot, so why are they still there?"

It really wasn't that bad either really. "Oh it is just Dances with Thundrcats in Space Ferngully!". I'm still trying hard to figure out why this is supposed to be a bad thing. No new ideas under the sun and all that. At least the combination is unique. I also have no problem with the whole planet being alive. I don't think it is reasonable at all, the sheer time lag of signals going from one end of the planet to the other would preclude it from being a single entity. Maybe the Navi are poly thestic~  On a similar note, some times expaining how things work makes it less fun. I'm looking right at you midichlorians. I'm sure that if you isolated a midichlorian and looked at it under a microscope it would look like a middle finger. Right at the fans. It would be facing the nearest Star Wars con.

[Keleth]

I have here, What is demanded of this thread.

I don't have tits no. . . but I do have a GIANT PAIR OF BOOBIES!

[Turnsky]

i too have drawn ze big boobies:

[ShadesFox]

I know you said that you were relaxing you standards about what you would draw, but, the depths of your depravity knows no bounds

[Turnsky]

I know you said that you were relaxing you standards about what you would draw, but, the depths of your depravity knows no bounds D:

oh you want depraved, do ye?


BEHOLD IT'S SPLENDOR!

[Keleth]

D:

THE HORROR!

THE HOOOOOOOOOOROR!

The .. . HUGE MANATEEEEEEEEE~!

[ShadesFox]

I shall build an idol to it.

[bill]

Thanks for improving the thread y'all