Columbia University - Remote Learning As Campus ‘Rancor’ Puts Jewish Students On Edge

[Sam]

No. Not really.

If you are legitimately intent on wanting to retain the original intent and meaning you quote and don't paraphrase. When you paraphrase, you interpret and therefore put your own meaning and intent into what they say.

This isn't just wrong, it's willfully discarding common practice and imagining that the meaning of a thought cannot be adequately conveyed through translation. We don't need to play stupid with language.

"When you paraphrase, you interpret and therefore put your own meaning and intent into what they say" is meaningfully equivalent to "Restating a thought necessarily replaces the original meaning for the inferred meaning", which falsely suggests that the two must be at odds. Example:

Antoine de Saint-Exupery: "It is only with the heart that one truly sees: what is important is invisible to the eyes."

Paraphrase: "You can't see what's important without understanding things at an emotional level."

Now, two people might end up disagreeing on original intent, which is why having a comparison between the paraphrase and the original text can be helpful and is often provided. But that can be resolved with a grammatical and syntactical deconstruction, which we've had to do here a few times already.

The whole of language — of communication — depends on the fact that meaning can be separated from a particular vehicle of communication. What we've found often the case here is that people don't like the essential meaning of what they write, even as they are unable to demonstrate a flaw in the reader's inference.

-Sam

[Cow Poke]

This isn't just wrong, it's willfully discarding common practice and imagining that the meaning of a thought cannot be adequately conveyed through translation. We don't need to play stupid with language.....

Sam, you're just digging your own grave with that rake that keeps smacking you in the face while alternately hitting the dead horse.

If you would have used the quote function instead of your slippery little 'paraphrase', we wouldn't even be arguing this.

[Diogenes]

Not to be pedantic but the Bible clearly indicates that one day of the week should be treated differently than the others.

I'd consider it good manners and good grace to act as good on Wednesday and one would on Sunday. But if that proves too heavy a burden to bear, at least Sunday can be set apart.

-Sam

The contradictory "but" aside, last I checked, nothing in the Bible changed the day of the week of the Sabbath. If you're going to be pedantic, at least actually be pedantic.

[Sam]

The contradictory "but" aside, last I checked, nothing in the Bible changed the day of the week of the Sabbath. If you're going to be pedantic, at least actually be pedantic.

The comment was in response to Cow Poke's statement:

The fact that you think that people should act differently on one day of the week as opposed to others puts you in H_A's camp - she doesn't understand the Bible either.

My pedantic point did not necessitate a distinction between Saturday or Sunday as a holy day, as Cow Poke's statement only suggested that all days should be treated as equal in terms of actions taken on a given day. If you're going to criticize someone as not being pedantic enough, make sure you've got those ducks lined up exactly right!

-Sam

[Diogenes]

The comment was in response to Cow Poke's statement:

My pedantic point did not necessitate a distinction between Saturday or Sunday as a holy day, as Cow Poke's statement only suggested that all days should be treated as equal in terms of actions taken on a given day. If you're going to criticize someone as not being pedantic enough, make sure you've got those ducks lined up exactly right!

-Sam

To be a pedantic point, it would indeed necessitate the pedantic distinction of the Sabbath in its relation to the different calendar, otherwise it wouldn't be pedantic. If you're going to invoke being a pedant, I'm going to be pedantic about it.

[Sam]

To be a pedantic point, it would indeed necessitate the pedantic distinction of the Sabbath in its relation to the different calendar, otherwise it wouldn't be pedantic. If you're going to invoke being a pedant, I'm going to be pedantic about it.

That would be pedantic about an additional, ancillary point. It would not mean that the original point wasn't being pedantic. If Cow Poke says "You don't understand the Bible if you think people should act differently on one day than they do the others" then pointing out the Bible does indeed suggest that one day be treated differently than the others is a point of fact. It becomes a pedantic point when it's an unnecessary component to the point I'm making, which was

I'd consider it good manners and good grace to act as good on Wednesday and one would on Sunday. But if that proves too heavy a burden to bear, at least Sunday can be set apart.

Adding additional points of pedantry from there can only be supplemental; they cannot be subtractive.

-Sam

[Sparko]

That would be pedantic about an additional, ancillary point. It would not mean that the original point wasn't being pedantic. If Cow Poke says "You don't understand the Bible if you think people should act differently on one day than they do the others" then pointing out the Bible does indeed suggest that one day be treated differently than the others is a point of fact. It becomes a pedantic point when it's an unnecessary component to the point I'm making, which was



Adding additional points of pedantry from there can only be supplemental; they cannot be subtractive.

-Sam

This seems to have become a meta-pedantic argument, arguing pedantically about what a pedantic argument is. Only on tweb.

[Diogenes]

That would be pedantic about an additional, ancillary point. It would not mean that the original point wasn't being pedantic. If Cow Poke says "You don't understand the Bible if you think people should act differently on one day than they do the others" then pointing out the Bible does indeed suggest that one day be treated differently than the others is a point of fact. It becomes a pedantic point when it's an unnecessary component to the point I'm making, which was



Adding additional points of pedantry from there can only be supplemental; they cannot be subtractive.

-Sam

You are the one who invoked pedantry, if you're not going to be pedantic in full, it's not actual pedantry.

Of course, if we're going to be pedantic about keeping the Sabbath, I would be curious if you keep the Sabbath in full. I, of course, doubt it.

[Mountain Man]

This isn't just wrong, it's willfully discarding common practice and imagining that the meaning of a thought cannot be adequately conveyed through translation. We don't need to play stupid with language.

"When you paraphrase, you interpret and therefore put your own meaning and intent into what they say" is meaningfully equivalent to "Restating a thought necessarily replaces the original meaning for the inferred meaning", which falsely suggests that the two must be at odds. Example:

Antoine de Saint-Exupery: "It is only with the heart that one truly sees: what is important is invisible to the eyes."

Paraphrase: "You can't see what's important without understanding things at an emotional level."

Now, two people might end up disagreeing on original intent, which is why having a comparison between the paraphrase and the original text can be helpful and is often provided. But that can be resolved with a grammatical and syntactical deconstruction, which we've had to do here a few times already.

The whole of language — of communication — depends on the fact that meaning can be separated from a particular vehicle of communication. What we've found often the case here is that people don't like the essential meaning of what they write, even as they are unable to demonstrate a flaw in the reader's inference.

-Sam

This is instructive since your example paraphrase of Antoine de Saint-Exupery is not how I understood the original quote, but then, I am not a person who places a great amount of value in understanding things "emotionally", so I read it as saying that only with a clarity of conscience and empathy can we truly understand.

[Sam]

This is instructive since your example paraphrase of Antoine de Saint-Exupery is not how I understood the original quote, but then, I am not a person who places a great amount of value in understanding things "emotionally", so I read it as saying that only with a clarity of conscience and empathy can we truly understand.

And this can be a good example of how we get to common understanding of essential meaning through restatements. There can be a whole discussion of how the French original properly translates, what transliteration needs to take place, and what Exupery means by "the heart", both in this quote and in relationship to the entire work. Paraphrasing isn't a useful rhetorical tool just because it offers simplicity but because it can illuminate and expand essential meaning.

To the passage itself, I don't think the Fox represents the values of conscience and empathy: the Fox teaches the Prince what forming an emotional bond requires and how we can't "see" others through surface-level interactions and understandings. The Prince, through the Fox, realizes what his Flower was truly trying to say when she was being so difficult to him and the love she had hidden from him. The Fox is the turning point for the Prince; after their friendship, the Prince commits to going home and protecting his Flower from both danger and loneliness.

-Sam

[Sam]

You are the one who invoked pedantry, if you're not going to be pedantic in full, it's not actual pedantry.

Of course, if we're going to be pedantic about keeping the Sabbath, I would be curious if you keep the Sabbath in full. I, of course, doubt it.

Now you're just confused about what the word "pedantry" entails and what the point of my labeling a point as pedantic means.

-Sam

[Diogenes]

Now you're just confused about what the word "pedantry" entails and what the point of my labeling a point as pedantic means.

-Sam

If you don't want someone to be pedantic about your pedantry, it's best not to invoke pedantry and then not be pedantic enough to be pedantic about what constitutes the Sabbath.

[Cow Poke]

And this can be a good example of how we get to common understanding of essential meaning through restatements....

If there needs to be better understanding, it should begin with an actual factual accurate quote by the other person, and a follow-up question, perhaps, asking THEM to restate or clarify.

Use the quote function, Sam - it's 100% reliable - your paraphrase is slippery at best.

[Cow Poke]

Where have all the staunch defenders of these protesters gone?

[Mountain Man]

And this can be a good example of how we get to common understanding of essential meaning through restatements. There can be a whole discussion of how the French original properly translates, what transliteration needs to take place, and what Exupery means by "the heart", both in this quote and in relationship to the entire work. Paraphrasing isn't a useful rhetorical tool just because it offers simplicity but because it can illuminate and expand essential meaning.

To the passage itself, I don't think the Fox represents the values of conscience and empathy: the Fox teaches the Prince what forming an emotional bond requires and how we can't "see" others through surface-level interactions and understandings. The Prince, through the Fox, realizes what his Flower was truly trying to say when she was being so difficult to him and the love she had hidden from him. The Fox is the turning point for the Prince; after their friendship, the Prince commits to going home and protecting his Flower from both danger and loneliness.

-Sam

In my opinion, it is always better to quote someone directly rather than "paraphrase" what you want them to mean.