How Did An Idiot Like Kerry Get Into Yale?

<p>Hm. Let's see:</p>

<p>National Universities: Northwestern: 11; Georgetown: 25. Point: NU</p>

<p>Top 100 Law Schools: Northwestern: 10; Georgetown: 14. Point: NU
Top 50 Business Schools: Northwestern: 4; Georgetown: 27. Point: NU
Top 50 Medical Schools: Northwestern: 20; Georgetown: 46. Point: NU
Top 50 Engineering: Northwestern: 21; Georgetown: >50. Point: NU
Top 50 Education: Northwestern 7; Georgetown: >50. Point: NU
So far: Northwestern: 6; Georgetown: 0.</p>

<p>Should I keep rattling these off for you?</p>

<p>And I don't know if you've actually ever been to Georgetown or not (it doesn't seem like you have), but it is FAR from a hotbed of intellectuals. I stayed there for 3 weeks last year, and I certainly didn't see anyone discussing the meaning of life or the writings of Nietzche. If getting drunk and yelling really loudly is your idea of intellectualism then Georgetown will be perfect for you.</p>

<p>Of course I don't need to tell you this. We will see in 4 years :D</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I'll look foward to yours in 7 years

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Let me guess:</p>

<p>Harvard, Princeton, MIT, Yale, Stanford, CalTech, Duke, UPenn, Dartmouth, Brown or WUSTL?</p>

<p>I personally do not think it makes a difference, especially if one plans to attend professional/graduate school. My remark about Northwestern was not in regard to the status of the school, which is indubitably high, but it was rather a chide at how the preponderance of the student-body is pre-professional.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I don't know if you've actually ever been to Georgetown or not (it doesn't seem like you have), but it is FAR from a hotbed of intellectuals.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Part of the reason I was hesitant in submitting my deposit; however, with Emory, Northwestern, and Georgetown in my hand, I decided that Georgetown was the better intellectual bastion.</p>

<p>Utter the word 'Northwestern' and the first comment you hear is 'Pre-professional'. </p>

<p>Ironically enough, one of the best philosophy professors in your department, the chair, just took a position in Georgetown's...</p>

<p>
[quote]
the meaning of life or the writings of Nietzche.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You call that intellectualism? Hah, no wonder you did not find any.</p>

<p>Primitive hasn't even been accepted to a college yet. What are you talking about? haha. Maybe you should concentrate on getting into college rather than looking forward to a job.</p>

<p>And I was making the same point about Georgetown. I'm glad we can agree.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And I was making the same point about Georgetown. I'm glad we can agree.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do not think Northwestern is more intellectual than Georgetown, but it is definitely close. I can list many schools that are ranked lower than NU, but are still more intellectual. USNews rankings do not correlate with the degree intellectualism. For example, Rice is much more intellectual than Northwestern and Georgetown.</p>

<p>I'm saying they are nearly identical universities in terms of pre-professionalism. I do not care if you label Northwestern a 'pre-professional' school because that is one of the reasons I chose Northwestern. I actually shunned 'intellectual' schools (UChicago) because I do not care to be in that kind of atmosphere.</p>

<p>Let's just drop this subject and be done with it. We're both going to good schools. If you want to be with the 'intellectual' group then I'm sure you'll find it at Georgetown, and I'm sure I'll find the 'pre-professional' group at Northwestern. The End.</p>

<p>I really hate to support ucbenz because he is a republican and an Ohio State fan (whereas I am very liberal and attend Michigan), but nspeds-you are a douchebag. "indubitably".....Who says that anymore? Go out and get drunk or have some fun man.</p>

<p>
[quote]
but nspeds-you are a douchebag.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Enormous contribution to humanity.</p>

<p>i second that...nspeds, you are the consummate douchebag/tool</p>

<p>sorry confused, you aren't any better than him :) You are too naive and dont seem to have much idea of the real world.</p>

<p>Ok, I haven't checked this in a while, so here goes: The standard usage of the word 'rhetoric', particularly in this context, is 'persuasive language'. If you're going to go down the 'abstract connotations' road, then I'm going to choose the fifth option you gave ("Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous"), because from my point of view, that's the one that seems to suit the situation best. I have no reason to choose the fourth option - if you meant 'style', say 'style'. As an aside: this is a very nice demonstration of you deliberately obfuscating your argument (see below). </p>

<p>As to abstruse: it is you who said your argument is abstruse, not me. Ergo, you yourself are admitting that it is confusing. From this there are thus only two possible conclusions: that you deliberately obfuscated your argument, or that you are incapable of writing in a coherent manner (and are gracious enough to acknowledge the fact). Since I don't think you have any trouble with the English language (in fact, quite the opposite) and I have no reason to believe you to be forthright in admitting your own faults, I concluded that you deliberately obfuscated your argument. I would speculate as to the reason for this, but since I doubt any of them will work to your advantage, I'll take the high road and leave it at that. </p>

<p>I'm curious as to what you meant when you used 'euphemism'. According to the OED (I looked it up just for you, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken), it means to use a more favourable or less offensive word instead of a harsher or more offensive (but more accurate) one. I don't detect a euphemism in "obfuscating your argument to the point of incomprehension..."; if anything, I used a hyperbole.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Ok, I haven't checked this in a while, so here goes: The standard usage of the word 'rhetoric', particularly in this context, is 'persuasive language'.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>What is your source?</p>

<p>
[quote]
If you're going to go down the 'abstract connotations' road, then I'm going to choose the fifth option you gave ("Language that is elaborate, pretentious, insincere, or intellectually vacuous"), because from my point of view, that's the one that seems to suit the situation best.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I do not care about your opinion; if it is predicated on an analytic or quantitative framework, then I am all ears. Otherwise, your comments are about as good as the vulgar remarks that have been advanced against me.</p>

<p>
[quote]

As to abstruse: it is you who said your argument is abstruse, not me. Ergo, you yourself are admitting that it is confusing.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I am admitting that it is difficult to understand, and those who are not up to the task, like you, will fall under the class of individuals who suffer from this dilemma.</p>

<p>By the way, I thought we were communicating in English? </p>

<p>
[quote]
From this there are thus only two possible conclusions: that you deliberately obfuscated your argument, or that you are incapable of writing in a coherent manner (and are gracious enough to acknowledge the fact).

[/quote]

Wow, the idiocy continues. I shall copy and paste my previous response about coherentness:

[quote]
So rhetoric has an effect on the coherency of an argument? I never knew that. We should keep it a secret, however; for we would not want the philosopers to know...</p>

<p>Facetiousness aside, word-choice has no effect on the truth-function of a statement - unless the quantifier is modified, of course. Since the truth-function of a schema is constant when the subject and predicates are replaced at will, rhetoric has no effect on the coherence of the schema itself.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>If you cannot understand the above, then odds are you do not know the implications of the term 'coherent'</p>

<p>You seem to extol the virtues of coherentism, yet you do not follow it. You commit the fallacy of the false dilemma. You fail to advance the possibility that my style of writing or the ideas I espouse are simply beyond you. I am not trying to be arrogant; I deliberately employed an abstract philosophical argument to demonstrate the complexity of any blanket statements regarding shifts in liberal ideological tendencies. Usually, comprehending such material requires years of research and training in analytic philosophy. Since you do not even use 'coherent' correctly, it is lucid that you lack the desideratum for understanding what I write. Morever, when I am inundated with compliments from my professors regarding my writing style and ideas, it is difficult me to heed the advice of someone I barely know, and someone who obviously has nothing but a smattering of the point I am advancing.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I concluded that you deliberately obfuscated your argument. I would speculate as to the reason for this, but since I doubt any of them will work to your advantage, I'll take the high road and leave it at that.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>More linguistic sleight-of-hand; 'take the high road'? You commit a false dichotomy and you rendered your conclusion from it. You deliberately employed a faulty argument for the purpose of lambasting me, and then you compliment your divine inclination toward maturity. This would not be so absurd if your arguments were not self-referentially incoherent.</p>

<p>Before accusing me of being incoherent, learn how to render coherent statements and propositions of your own. From your manner of writing, it is abundantly clear that your knowledge of logic is scant. Respond in a couple years once you have acquired the requisite skills.</p>

<p>
[quote]
I'm curious as to what you meant when you used 'euphemism'. According to the OED (I looked it up just for you, just to make sure I wasn't mistaken), it means to use a more favourable or less offensive word instead of a harsher or more offensive (but more accurate) one. I don't detect a euphemism in "obfuscating your argument to the point of incomprehension...";

[/quote]
</p>

<p>The remark was in regard to your implicit denial that you are simply inept at comprehending the argument I am postulating. This was obscured by the your accusatory writing style, as if I were the only possible person who could be held accountable for your inability to comprehend. The euphemisms placed you on a cushion, and it overshadowed the illicit logical connections you were covertly making against me.</p>

<p>
[quote]

I am admitting that it is difficult to understand, and those who are not up to the task, like you, will fall under the class of individuals who suffer from this dilemma.

[/quote]

What's so hard? You said the problem was with me, that if your argument was abstruse it was a problem with my comprehension, not your ability to deliver a coherent argument. Yet I wasn't the one who stated (nor, for that matter, believe) your argument is abstruse, you did. That means you recognise your argument is hard to follow. The rest follows logically: either you deliberately obfsucated your argument or are incapable of writing a clear one. Take your pick. (There is a third possibility, that you were being facetious, but I think you ruled it out). </p>

<p>Also, what a ridiculous thing to say. I understand my argument fine, which is why I wrote it. Besides, as you said, if you can't follow my argument, it must mean that you aren't up to understanding it. There can't possibly be anything wrong with the way I presented it.</p>

<p>And for all your analysis, you failed to notice one thing: I have not once commented on your actual views, so don't accuse me of not understanding them. As a matter of fact, I haven't even read them. If you read back over everything I wrote, all I did was point out the inherent contradiction in your phrase "abstruse rhetoric" (one you fail to recognise) and then respond to your two posts - and from that, you managed to wrap it up in the larger argument about your writing style and then accused me of not being able to understand your argument. Where in my original post (quoted below) did I state or imply that I don't understand your argument (or, for that matter, have even read it)? If it wasn't clear enough: I was being facetious. Again, if you didn't pick that up, that's not my problem (actually, it is, but you would never admit that about your own argument, so I won't either). </p>

<p>
[quote]
'Abstruse rhetoric'? Now there's an oxymoron. Abstruse means difficult to comprehend. Rhetoric is language used in such a manner as to be persuasive. I don't quite see how you expect to be persuasive if you're simultaneously (and deliberately) obfuscating your argument to the point of incomprehension...

[/quote]
</p>

<p>On coherent: two definitions, both of which are intended; one, a logical argument that hangs well together; two, a lucid argument that is clear and consistent. I'm not saying your argument isn't necessarily true, I'm just commenting on the fact that you said it wasn't lucid, that it doesn't 'hang well together'. (Presumably an abstruse argument is not a lucid one, again, and I can't stress this enough, you said that it was abstruse, not me.)</p>

<p>
[quote]

By the way, I thought we were communicating in English?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Based on the fact that I used 'ergo'? It's in all the English dictionaries: just because it's unmodified from the original Latin doesn't mean it's any less acceptable in English.</p>

<p>Round 1 of the Thesaurus Touting Championship</p>

<p>nspeds v. cevonia</p>

<p>Recap:
nsped lead off the round with complex words such as predicate, desideratum, euphemism, and proposition. However, cevonia quickly countered with even longer words that include: abstruse, facetious, and obfuscate.</p>

<p>Result:
This is a tough decision as each opponent performed masterfully under pressure, but cevonia pulled out a little known Latin word to clinch the victory in the final seconds.</p>

<p>Winner: cevonia</p>

<p>I'm honoured I won, but I will have to point out, in all fairness, that both abstruse and facetious were first used by the most honourable opponent.</p>

<p>
[quote]
What's so hard? You said the problem was with me, that if your argument was abstruse it was a problem with my comprehension, not your ability to deliver a coherent argument. Yet I wasn't the one who stated (nor, for that matter, believe) your argument is abstruse, you did. That means you recognise your argument is hard to follow.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>...for a person of your intellectual caliber. Last I checked, not a single philosopher ever simplified an argument because of the cognitive deficiencies of the listener. If you cannot understand it, which is understandable since I do not expect you to, then it is not my problem. I would be alarmed if no one understood it, but my professors seem to have no problem, so I could care less about your whining.</p>

<p>My avowal that my argument is abstruse does not detract from its overall character; it is a warning to those, such as you, who may have difficulty in comprehending it. Many arguments and texts and propositions are difficult to understand, but we do not start by blaming the other, do we? I know I do not. If I encounter a term that is alien to me, I consult a dictionary and attempt to understand. You should do the same. </p>

<p>The legal profession is especially known for abstruse readings, yet you do not see law students blaming judges and legal academics; unless the work is poorly written, the author is not accountable. You can argue that my writing is poor, but I have competing opinions that are far more credible than yours, so it is of no concern.</p>

<p>I do realize that since I read difficult texts, I may not be able to recognize its difficulty; but, if anything, that is more of an incentive for you to make an effort to understand it. If you intend to attend a college, a top tier one at that, then you better get accustomed this.</p>

<p>
[quote]
The rest follows logically: either you deliberately obfsucated your argument or are incapable of writing a clear one. Take your pick. (There is a third possibility, that you were being facetious, but I think you ruled it out).

[/quote]
</p>

<p>You commit the false dichotomy again (how many times is it now? Do you not know what a logical fallacy is?). You are implicitly rejecting the possibility that you simply cannot understand my argument. I am not accountable for your ineptitude; to claim so is bordering on absurdity.</p>

<p>
[quote]
And for all your analysis, you failed to notice one thing: I have not once commented on your actual views, so don't accuse me of not understanding them. As a matter of fact, I haven't even read them.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>There was nothing to read; I do not think I posted my views. Once again, I propounded an abstract argument with the purpose of exposing the difficulties in advancing blanket statements regarding ideological shifts in liberalism, as the issue is far more complex than it appears. The rest of these posts are reactions from trivial posts such as yours.</p>

<p>
[quote]
On coherent: two definitions, both of which are intended; one, a logical argument that hangs well together; two, a lucid argument that is clear and consistent. I'm not saying your argument isn't necessarily true, I'm just commenting on the fact that you said it wasn't lucid, that it doesn't 'hang well together'.

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Great. I maintain that my argument is logically coherent, and that is all that matters. I can translate it in truth-functional schema if you desire.</p>

<p>
[quote]

By the way, I thought we were communicating in English?

[/quote]
</p>

<p>I was being facetious.</p>

<p>
[quote]
Result:
This is a tough decision as each opponent performed masterfully under pressure, but cevonia pulled out a little known Latin word to clinch the victory in the final seconds.</p>

<p>Winner: cevonia

[/quote]
</p>

<p>Hardly the mark of objectivity.</p>

<p>It matters not. I am not here to win; I am getting irritated at this person's logical incoherence, but the humor is refreshing.</p>

<p>HAHAHA. You're all nuts.</p>

<p>Round 2 of the Thesaurus Touting Championship - Three Way Bout</p>

<p>cevonia v. nspeds v. knightmare</p>

<p>Recap:
cevonia accepted his round 1 win over nspeds with incredible grace but he was missing one thing. Namely, big words. He tended to the British spelling of "honor," but he did not use any other words that have not been previously used. nspeds recovered from his demoralizing loss in incredible fashion with ineptitude, dichotomy, and schema. The round was concluded with a lackluster performance by knightmare. I think he forgot his thesaurus at home.</p>

<p>Result:
nspeds did not show any ill effects from his first round lost, and he overcame the tough offense of both cevonia and knightmare to seal his first win of the championship. </p>

<p>Winner: nspeds</p>

<p>Updated Standings:
Player W ---- L ---- T
cevonia 1 1 0
knightmare 0 1 0
nspeds 1 1 0</p>