<p>i dont like this thread much</p>
<p>Katharos...
That was most obviously not serious.</p>
<p>"Hyde Park is as safe as UChicago is fun."</p>
<p>Then everyone's in trouble on both fronts.</p>
<p>I like UChicago's kind of fun. But my idea of fun is not so mainstream.</p>
<p>Your "idea of fun is not so mainstream"? How pretentious can you get?</p>
<p>Is that a challenge?</p>
<p>Haha. Yes, that makes me "pretentious." I'd like to point out the fact that what you have said makes no sense. What I meant is that I don't like crazy parties where everyone has the intention of getting drunk, etc. I just generally do not find many things categorized as "fun" to be actually fun. My idea of fun is not that of many college students (including many of those at UChicago who have such parties). Now, how exactly does this make me "prententious"? Help me out, because I simply do not understand.</p>
<p>There's really no point in randomly pointing out something about another's statement, especially when that something is incorrect and incoherent (or just false). </p>
<p>Sorry, but you did not succeed in making me look "prententious," you've just made yourself look like an idiot.</p>
<p>I have to agree with Nietzsche, sans the last "idiot" comment. There was nothing pretentious about Nietzsche's post.</p>
<p>I think Debaser felt that your statement was pretentious because you detached yourself from the "mainstream" in what Debaser felt was to place yourself in a more superior position.</p>
<p>I don't think that is what you meant...fun is subjective.</p>
<p>However, there is one thing in this situation that is totally fact and internationally unanimous: I'm fantastic.</p>
<p>By using "mainstream," you're granting yourself a position of distinction. Do you even know what pretentious means? Now go throw on some Indie rock records, perhaps they'll help in your quest for authenticity.</p>
<p>Very true. Fun is subjective. Fun at Chicago, for most people, does not necessary mean attending frat parties and drinking. I know students here who get together to read Don Quixote and discuss it for the fun of it, which one could most definitely call "not so mainstream." It is an indisputable fact and not pretentious in any way. I am sure there are students like this at most every school, but a disproportionate percentage of these type of students seem to gravitate toward UChicago.</p>
<p>And Eric, you most certainly are fantastic. :)</p>
<p>My S who is now home for a couple of weeks assures me there is plenty of "traditional fun" to be had a Chicago. In fact, he said that students who are unaware of it must be actively hiding from it.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I think Debaser felt that your statement was pretentious because you detached yourself from the "mainstream" in what Debaser felt was to place yourself in a more superior position.
[/quote]
This is precisely the problem. It is incorrect to assume that because I do not like something mainstream, that I consider myself "superior." There is such a thing as having a different conception of something without that implying that it is inferior or superior. If I have a different idea of fun that does not mean that I think it is a superior form -- I really just don't like many kinds of "traditional fun," which, again, I will repeat is to be had at Chicago (I have witnessed it myself!).
[quote]
By using "mainstream," you're granting yourself a position of distinction. Do you even know what pretentious means? Now go throw on some Indie rock records, perhaps they'll help in your quest for authenticity.
[/quote]
If I thought that you were still a salvageable case, I would tell you that assuming things about people while having a terrible sense of logic are a bad combination and that you should work on at least one of the two. You cannot assume either that I am one of those people who intentionally distinguishes himself -- I really don't and you cannot assume that I am one of those Indie-rock-loving, gothic-cloths-wearing people from one single statement. If you need that people provide context,explaination, and analysis to every comment made, you will have trouble in the real world where quick jugements are useful only if you have a decent way of thinking and a decent sense of logic. What you have not yet understood is that to grant myself a position of distinction is not the same thing as proclaiming myself superior.</p>
<p>Your rambling, incoherent diatribe tells me two things:</p>
<p>You still don't understand what pretentious means, and further, you don't know what logic is either. Now look up pretentious, and stop trying to argue over your head. Then you'll understand why this statement is so flawed:</p>
<p>"What you have not yet understood is that to grant myself a position of distinction is not the same thing as proclaiming myself superior."</p>
<p>I will not argue with someone who does not even understand my arguments. I know what both of those words mean... You obviously don't. If you can give me precise flaws in my arguments then I would be extremely surprised and impressed.</p>
<p>Sorry, but this is not "over my head" as you have said. I think it is you who is pretentious, it is you who cannot argue due to your lack of understanding, and it is you who does not understand logic.</p>
<p>Listen, you cannot say that to be "distinct" is to be "superior." For example, if I "distinguish" myself as a person who senselessly murders groups of random people, I am distinct in that I do something that is not normal, but that does not mean that I am superior or that what I'm doing is more correct.</p>
<p>You don't seem to understand the very words which you use: distinct is not necessarily to be taken in a postitive way.</p>
<p>Please, tell me the flaw in my argument.</p>
<p>"Please, tell me the flaw in my argument."</p>
<p>OK. This is what I said:</p>
<p>"By using 'mainstream,' you're granting yourself a position of distinction."</p>
<p>And you replied:</p>
<p>"What you have not yet understood is that to grant myself a position of distinction is not the same thing as proclaiming myself superior."</p>
<p>You continue to elaborate this point in your next post, except there's one small problem. Point to where I made some sort of superiority claim in my statement. Ding ding! All aboard the logic train, last stop is you and your classic strawman argument. And finally, after you've gone on and on about how you've distinguished yourself, the definition of pretentious is as follows:</p>
<p>"Claiming or demanding a position of distinction or merit, especially when unjustified."</p>
<p>Also, now we have gems like "If you can give me precise flaws in my arguments then I would be extremely surprised and impressed."</p>
<p>I never once made a point about superiority, but now I see that you've made it for me. Just stop.</p>
<p>Oh, what warm unity we bring to this forum.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Point to where I made some sort of superiority claim in my statement. Ding ding!
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You called him/her pretentious.</p>
<p>pretentious 1 : making or possessing claims (as to excellence, superiority, greatness)</p>
<p>The definition you quoted was not a very good one. But if you read carefully it uses the word "merit." But, nevertheless, saying "distinction or merit" essentially gives the word two definitions because distinction and merit are not really synonymous. And, in contrast to your definition, Nietzsche was certainly not unjustified in making his claim.</p>
<p>I quoted the Merriam Webster, which I always prefer. It's just downright superior. Now that's pretentious. :-)</p>
<p>I don't find that a very accurate definition, but I got mine from both American Heritage and Princeton, though I'd be curious as to what Oxford English has to say.</p>
<p>And it's irrelevent besides, on two fronts:</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I elaborated on what I meant by it, in saying "using 'mainstream,' you're granting yourself a position of distinction. Do you even know what pretentious means?"</p></li>
<li><p>He's clearly illustrated his sense of superiority anyway, it just took some coaxing. See my last post.</p></li>
</ol>