Premier Rock Forum

Rick Reuben wrote:How many more lameass excuses for these criminals will I have to read on this goddamn forum?

None. You are free to leave of your own volition.

big_dave wrote:

Skronk wrote:How could an elite be anything but a minority? On the same token, how can power be shared by all, yet still be considered power?

The word "elite" isn't comparitive, at all. Which is why the last page is so funny.

If every car manufacturer in the world went bankrupt and only Jaguar remained, Jaguar would still be a manufacturer of elite vehicles. Similiarly, if only Ford remained, it would not make Fiesta Sports any more 'elite'.

This is worse than the "luxury" argument where Bob tried to make the case that the comparisions he personally draws are built into the language that we all use only we are too stupid to see this.

The car analogy is an exceptionally retarded argument. How does a company that has no competition call itself elite? What would it compare itself to in order to have the label 'elite'?

How does an elite class form without an underclass?

I am going to use the simple OED, as it is way more reliable than any other bullshit internet dictionary:

• noun 1 a group of people regarded as the best in a particular society or organization. 2 a size of letter in typewriting, with 12 characters to the inch (about 4.7 to the centimetre).

Skronk wrote:The car analogy is an exceptionally retarded argument. How does a company that has no competition call itself elite? What would it compare itself to in order to have the label 'elite'?

Being elite, or 'elite' as a noun, is non-comparative even though being elite can be comparitive in the context of a sentence. At the most basic level, OED describes the word as meaning someone who bested or is the best and is recognised as such.

You can, of course, best something without competition.

This is a duplicate of the luxuries argument. The word doesn't imply the comparisons that were made by itself, we need sentences around the word.

How does an elite class form without an underclass?

The word "elite" doesn't imply this any more than the word "ape" implies all of evolution or the word "yellow" implies the entire spectrum. The meaning of the word does not imply your agenda.

You are free to use verbs and nouns to make comparisons, but comparatives are different words altogether. Better, worse, lesser, weaker, richer, poorer. These are comparatives, the words "luxury" and "elite" are not, and like it or not this sort of thing is political dogma at its most "thought cop". You introduce your own ideas into the language, and then claim that the language can't express any other idea, as it would be incorrect.

In other news, your ideologies and dogma do not change the meaning of the language you are speaking for everyone else that speaks it.

Big_dave's Language Lesson:

Best isn't a comparative, better is.
Rich isn't a comparative, richer is.

big_dave wrote:You can, of course, best at something without competition.

Once again, instead of answering my question head on, without any bullshit, you go the language route.

In order to qualify as the "best" or any variation thereof, as the "worse", as the "prettiest", etc., a comparison must be made.

If I were the only person left on earth, how could I use these to describe myself unless comparisons are made? I couldn't be the best person, I would be the only person.

big_dave wrote:You introduce your own ideas into the language, and then claim that the language can't express any other idea, as it would be incorrect.

Try to focus on 'elite' as it pertains to class. Can you do that?

If you're not going to answer my two questions, the ones that actually pertain to this argument, then you can kindly fuck off.

The language route is essential when someone is claiming language only answers to their particular dogma, and is otherwise incorrect.

Skronk wrote:In order to qualify as the "best" or any variation thereof, as the "worse", as the "prettiest", etc., a comparison must be made.

"Best" isn't a comparative word. Best means to succeed, and the best is someone or something who bests. If I invented a new musical instrument I would "best" if it sounded beautiful. If a lot of people recognised this I would become the "elite" maker of that instrument.

Whereas if I were a guitar maker, I could well be the "worst" or "greatest" or "most sexy" guitar maker as there are other people who making guitars.

Being successful or the best at something does not imply competition, as you are trying to claim. Neither does being elite, although being elite implies recognition.

If I were the only person left on earth, how could I use these to describe myself unless comparisons are made? I couldn't be the best person, I would be the only person.

If you succeeded at something, you'd be the best.

If you're not going to answer my two questions, the ones that actually pertain to this argument, then you can kindly fuck off.

For the "elite" requiring an underclass I'll respond to the idea and not the used and abused language.

In practical terms, political and economic ideology implies that success and failure require each other. I don't think it says as much about politics or economics as it says about the minds of those in power or those who seek success. In daily life we can see numerous examples of high-class products that like to imply that they are better than non-existent competitors so something competitive in implied. Being the best is not the concern, but merely being better.

To the conservative or libertarian mind, I think that success without competition is unappealing and we can see this everywhere, having good grades is not as important as having the highest grades. In the last century we saw right-wing sophistry taken to ridiculous abstractions with Nationalism and Racism, where it was no longer politically acceptable to have pride because one felt successful but because there were inferior bugbears everywhere. The master race was nothing with the juden, the American Dream was nothing without the commies.

This is fed by ideology and dogma, not the language itself. I would like people to become a little more aware and back away from purposeful libertarian/rightist moves to fuck up the common language by implying that their ideas (such as competition) are inherit in the language that we use.

Rick Reuben wrote:most better.

Ahaha.

I set myself the goal of baking scones. They were delicious. I bested.

The free market was not involved in my delicious scones.

big_dave wrote:The language route is essential when someone is claiming language only answers to their particular dogma, and is otherwise incorrect.

Skronk wrote:In order to qualify as the "best" or any variation thereof, as the "worse", as the "prettiest", etc., a comparison must be made.

"Best" isn't a comparative word. Best means to succeed, and the best is someone or something who bests. If I invented a new musical instrument I would "best" if it sounded beautiful. If a lot of people recognised this I would become the "elite" maker of that instrument.

Whereas if I were a guitar maker, I could well be the "worst" or "greatest" or "most sexy" guitar maker as there are other people who making guitars.

Being successful or the best at something does not imply competition, as you are trying to claim. Neither does being elite, although being elite implies recognition.

Being the 'best' at something implies surpassing others in a similar endeavor. You cannot be the best at something if you're the only one doing it, because you have nothing to compare your talent or lack of talent to.


Having an 'elite' implies a comparison to something 'lesser' or a norm.

Being successful is not the same as being the 'best'. "Success" in whatever way you look at it is acknowledging that you've done a satisfactory job, even in something that you have done alone. Being the best, however, implies you did better than another and everyone else.

big_dave wrote:

Skronk wrote:If I were the only person left on earth, how could I use these to describe myself unless comparisons are made? I couldn't be the best person, I would be the only person.

If you succeeded at something, you'd be the best.

What world are you living in? If I were the only driver on the road, how can I be anything except the only one? There can be no judgment of quality if I am the only one.

Another example is a soldier saying he's the 'best'. That implies that he is better at being a soldier than his fellow officers. A comparison must take place in order to establish your position. The only soldier cannot be the best because he is the only one.

If you're not going to answer my two questions, the ones that actually pertain to this argument, then you can kindly fuck off.

big_dave wrote:For the "elite" requiring an underclass I'll respond to the idea and not the used and abused language.

In practical terms, political and economic ideology implies that success and failure require each other. I don't think it says as much about politics or economics as it says about the minds of those in power or those who seek success. In daily life we can see numerous examples of high-class products that like to imply that they are better than non-existent competitors so something competitive in implied. Being the best is not the concern, but merely being better.

To the conservative or libertarian mind, I think that success without competition is unappealing and we can see this everywhere, having good grades is not as important as having the highest grades. In the last century we saw right-wing sophistry taken to ridiculous abstractions with Nationalism and Racism, where it was no longer politically acceptable to have pride because one felt successful but because there were inferior bugbears everywhere. The master race was nothing with the juden, the American Dream was nothing without the commies.

This is fed by ideology and dogma, not the language itself. I would like people to become a little more aware and back away from purposeful libertarian/rightist moves to fuck up the common language by implying that their ideas (such as competition) are inherit in the language that we use.

I didn't say competition is inherent in language, but to make a judgment, we rely on comparisons. There can be no 'elite' without a caste. There can be no 'superior' products without 'inferior' ones. There can be no 'rich' unless there is a 'poor'. If everything were a level playing field, there would be no need for these sorts of categorizations. There's no language manipulation, but there's enough baseless accusation from you to write a book.

Skronk wrote:Being the 'best' at something implies surpassing others in a similar endeavor. You cannot be the best at something if you're the only one doing it, because you have nothing to compare your talent or lack of talent to.

Having an 'elite' implies a comparison to something 'lesser' or a norm.

Why can't you grasp that it is your ideology that makes this implication, not the language itself?

Skronk wrote:What world are you living in? If I were the only driver on the road, how can I be anything except the only one? There can be no judgment of quality if I am the only one.

What about your own?

I didn't say competition is inherent in language, but to make a judgment, we rely on comparisons. There can be no 'elite' without a caste. There can be no 'superior' products without 'inferior' ones. There can be no 'rich' unless there is a 'poor'. If everything were a level playing field, there would be no need for these sorts of categorizations. There's no language manipulation, but there's enough baseless accusation from you to write a book.

No, I am saying that you are writing your own biases and agenda into the language itself. You might be unaware of it, but you are. What is more you are claiming that words like success and elite mean only what you want them to mean, i.e. comparative significance, when they demonstrably have different uses outside of your rather libertarian view point.

At a basic level of language, success does not imply comparisons or competition. Please see how it is your politics that bolts on this significance, that it is not inherit to the language itself.

big_dave wrote:

Skronk wrote:Being the 'best' at something implies surpassing others in a similar endeavor. You cannot be the best at something if you're the only one doing it, because you have nothing to compare your talent or lack of talent to.

Having an 'elite' implies a comparison to something 'lesser' or a norm.

Why can't you grasp that it is your ideology that makes this implication, not the language itself?

How the hell is it a ideological implication? Tell me how you can be better at something without having something be lesser?

big_dave wrote:

Skronk wrote:What world are you living in? If I were the only driver on the road, how can I be anything except the only one? There can be no judgment of quality if I am the only one.

What about your own?

I can make the judgment that I am a good driver because I compare my current driving to my previous instances behind the wheel, but I cannot correctly say that I am the best driver anymore, because I am the only one.

big_dave wrote:No, I am saying that you are writing your own biases and agenda into the language itself. You might be unaware of it, but you are. What is more you are claiming that words like success and elite mean only what you want them to mean, i.e. comparative significance, when they demonstrably have different uses outside of your rather libertarian view point.

Focus on the usage at hand, for fucks sake. In whatever way you use the words 'elite', 'better', 'best', they all imply that it is above another.

big_dave wrote:At a basic level of language, success does not imply comparisons or competition. Please see how it is your politics that bolts on this significance, that it is not inherit to the language itself.

Implications are inherent in the language we use, and they are not established by the speaker. Success is achievement, and isn't subjected to the same implications as the words "better" or "worse".