?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Thoughts on political correctness - Nothing to See Here — LiveJournal

Feb. 13th, 2007

09:43 am - Thoughts on political correctness

Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Comments:

[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:February 13th, 2007 10:15 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Interesting. I think of the typical/common meaning of the word as being:
      adj 1: expressing yourself easily or characterized by clear
             expressive language; "articulate speech"; "an
             articulate orator"; "articulate beings" [ant: {inarticulate}]

... but I do note that you are correct that it can certainly mean "able to pronounce words", "able to enunciate".

I think that being able to enunciate particularly well certainly can be a compliment ("You have extremely good enunciation."), however is doesn't go so far as my usual usage of the word (and interpretation of what others mean when they use the word) ... of being an exceptionally good orator or exceptionally good at getting your ideas across (doesn't have to be public speaking [oration]; can be 1-to-1).

I definitely don't have to agree with the politics or ideas of someone to think they're a good orator or good at making their point.

One can be perfectly logical while accepting certain things on faith. Mathematics is about as logical as you can get, and lemmas are used all the times in proofs. There is very little difference between a stated matter of faith and a lemma in a logical/philosophical discussion. The one big difference is you may go back and attempt to prove a lemma, whereas you likely won't do so with the matter of faith.

I've known some very intelligent, very logical, and very articulate religious people.

Interesting point though. I had not really thought about the alternative definitions of "articulate".
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:urox
Date:February 13th, 2007 10:30 pm (UTC)
(Link)
"I've known some very intelligent, very logical, and very articulate religious people."

I never said that religious people weren't. I am saying that I am skeptical of religious beliefs as the basis of arguments since you can't argue with a religion.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:February 13th, 2007 10:40 pm (UTC)
(Link)
Oh, totally agree. If you don't share the beliefs of the person making an argument and if those beliefs are the foundation (lemmas) of the argument, then of course you don't have to be swayed by their argument.

That said, you can still listen to them and note have respect for the fact that they explained very well (i.e. being articulate) what their reasoning was for getting from point A (lemmas) to point Z (conclusion), and that their logic was sound, given A, even if you don't accept A as a starting point, and thus do not accept their conclusion, Z.

What I'm trying to do is separate "clarity of expression" along with use of logical argument, and "ability to sway me to their way of thinking". The former is being articulate. The latter may require the former (or may rely on charisma), but is by no means an absolutely necessary product of the latter.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:urox
Date:February 13th, 2007 10:56 pm (UTC)
(Link)
But I *don't* want to listen to someone where I disagree with the premise or lemma. That's the foundation of a straw man argument.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:mavjop
Date:February 13th, 2007 11:54 pm (UTC)
(Link)
That is an acceptable attitude. Your not listening doesn't change the fact that their argument may be articulate and/or logical, though.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]
From:anemone
Date:February 14th, 2007 11:12 pm (UTC)
(Link)
You can't argue with non-religious axioms either. We all have axioms.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)