Discuss football with over 60,000 fans. Free Membership. Join now!

 FAQFAQ  RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

FootballsFuture.com Forum Index
FootballsFuture.com Home

Should I return it??
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> This aint sports talk!
View previous topic :: View next topic  

Should I return the sound bar?
Yes
44%
 44%  [ 38 ]
No
55%
 55%  [ 48 ]
Total Votes : 86

Author Message
Iggles


Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 24796
Location: Brooklyn
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mesa_Titan wrote:
Iggles wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
Where are words twisted?

"The best things in life are free"

If it's free, it falls under this category. Just because someone interprets it a certain way doesn't make it the end all be all interpretation.


The song (again, the source) was written to apply to non-material things and non-material things only. You're applying the words to material things in a fashion that was not the intent. Ergo, you're twisting the meaning.

"Treat others like you want to be treated" is the golden rule. Everyone knows this means that you should treat people with kindness because that's how you would like to be treated. This doesn't mean a self-harming masochist should go around stabbing and cutting people even though that's how they want be to treated.


OBVIOUSLY it doesn't mean that. Doesn't mean one couldn't interpret it that way. The basic concept would still be true.
No it wouldn't. Because the basic concept is the intent with which the words was written. Applying them in a fashion that clearly isn't the intent does not make it a valid interpretation.


Welp, I disagree.

The words aren't being changed, just the interpretation is.


But the point of the phrase is that it's a cultural touchstone, and the general agreement surrounding the meaning of the phrase and its usage is that it applies to immaterial goods. It's not really subject to interpretation. That your use in this context provoked such a reaction is a key indicator that you're misusing the phrase.


I don't agree. Just because there is a "general agreement" to an interpretation does not mean it can't be interpreted another way. Especially when the basic concept of the thing being free holds true. Material or immaterial, it makes no difference. Free is free, is it not?

The original interpretation is bogus anyways, you can't have love without something to love, something MATERIAL. You can't friendship without someone to share friendship with, MATERIAL. You can't look up at the beautiful stars without the stars being there, MATERIAL.


So if you disagree with the phrase, why use it?
_________________
Kelly Link wrote:
Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
EliteTexan80


Most Valuable Poster
Joined: 30 Apr 2007
Posts: 38123
Location: Three time Mr. fanTASTic!
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

shuebakka wrote:
Obviously, if anyone smells like bananas around here it's probably me.


No...no. That one's on me. Very Happy
_________________

iPwn, Kempes and Flaccomania: The official sig makers for THE ET80!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
iPwn


Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 45122
Location: Warbortles Nation
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anyway, this whole conversation stems from the fact that you said that J Pep's interpretation was not correct when it clearly was.

Mesa_Titan wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
I have a feeling you are being sarcastic. But you never know. So just in case, it means the best things in life arent possessions.


Nope, no sarcasm.

Like all proverbs, they are open to many interpretations.

Even if what you said was true (which it's not) who's to say things like love and good health aren't possessions? Do you not possess love? Do you not possess good health?

_________________

- Best since day one -
The road to success is always under construction - Gus Bradley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mesa_Titan


Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 55154
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iggles wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
Iggles wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
Where are words twisted?

"The best things in life are free"

If it's free, it falls under this category. Just because someone interprets it a certain way doesn't make it the end all be all interpretation.


The song (again, the source) was written to apply to non-material things and non-material things only. You're applying the words to material things in a fashion that was not the intent. Ergo, you're twisting the meaning.

"Treat others like you want to be treated" is the golden rule. Everyone knows this means that you should treat people with kindness because that's how you would like to be treated. This doesn't mean a self-harming masochist should go around stabbing and cutting people even though that's how they want be to treated.


OBVIOUSLY it doesn't mean that. Doesn't mean one couldn't interpret it that way. The basic concept would still be true.
No it wouldn't. Because the basic concept is the intent with which the words was written. Applying them in a fashion that clearly isn't the intent does not make it a valid interpretation.


Welp, I disagree.

The words aren't being changed, just the interpretation is.


But the point of the phrase is that it's a cultural touchstone, and the general agreement surrounding the meaning of the phrase and its usage is that it applies to immaterial goods. It's not really subject to interpretation. That your use in this context provoked such a reaction is a key indicator that you're misusing the phrase.


I don't agree. Just because there is a "general agreement" to an interpretation does not mean it can't be interpreted another way. Especially when the basic concept of the thing being free holds true. Material or immaterial, it makes no difference. Free is free, is it not?

The original interpretation is bogus anyways, you can't have love without something to love, something MATERIAL. You can't friendship without someone to share friendship with, MATERIAL. You can't look up at the beautiful stars without the stars being there, MATERIAL.


So if you disagree with the phrase, why use it?


I don't disagree with the phrase. I disagree with the interpretation that it has to be something immaterial like love, friendship, or the stars. (Which really isn't immaterial at all)
_________________

mission27 wrote:
Mesa_Titan is God.

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
iPwn


Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 45122
Location: Warbortles Nation
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mesa_Titan wrote:
I don't disagree with the phrase. I disagree with the interpretation that it has to be something immaterial like love, friendship, or the stars. (Which really isn't immaterial at all)
It isn't an interpretation, but the explicit intent. You can't change a phrase to mean something else when it never meant that and expect others to just accept it because the words work when you neglect the intent of the phrase.
_________________

- Best since day one -
The road to success is always under construction - Gus Bradley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mesa_Titan


Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 55154
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:47 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
I don't disagree with the phrase. I disagree with the interpretation that it has to be something immaterial like love, friendship, or the stars. (Which really isn't immaterial at all)
It isn't an interpretation, but the explicit intent. You can't change a phrase to mean something else when it never meant that and expect others to just accept it because the words work when you neglect the intent of the phrase.


Fine. Interpretation, intent, it's wrong. It can intend to portray that things like love, friendship, and the stars are as immaterial as they want. They're not.
_________________

mission27 wrote:
Mesa_Titan is God.

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
iPwn


Moderator
Joined: 10 Oct 2009
Posts: 45122
Location: Warbortles Nation
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 4:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
I don't disagree with the phrase. I disagree with the interpretation that it has to be something immaterial like love, friendship, or the stars. (Which really isn't immaterial at all)
It isn't an interpretation, but the explicit intent. You can't change a phrase to mean something else when it never meant that and expect others to just accept it because the words work when you neglect the intent of the phrase.


Fine. Interpretation, intent, it's wrong. It can intend to portray that things like love, friendship, and the stars are as immaterial as they want. They're not.
Do we need to define what material goods are now or are you just being difficult to be difficult?
_________________

- Best since day one -
The road to success is always under construction - Gus Bradley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19105
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Love - Not material
Friendship - Not material
Star (literal) - Material
Star (metaphorical) - Not material

Mesa, give up the ghost. You're not going to win this one. Despite resorting to hypertechnical pedantry, you're still not correct.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iggles


Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 24796
Location: Brooklyn
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 5:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
I don't disagree with the phrase. I disagree with the interpretation that it has to be something immaterial like love, friendship, or the stars. (Which really isn't immaterial at all)
It isn't an interpretation, but the explicit intent. You can't change a phrase to mean something else when it never meant that and expect others to just accept it because the words work when you neglect the intent of the phrase.


Fine. Interpretation, intent, it's wrong. It can intend to portray that things like love, friendship, and the stars are as immaterial as they want. They're not.


In the context of the song, why is love compared to the sky if the two are wildly different material goods?

The point is that, compared to material goods that require a direct purchase, such things as love or natural beauty are freely accessible at a given moment.

A view of the stars is essentially free. It actually does not cost money. Ditto for the sun in the sky. You're clearly wrong here.
_________________
Kelly Link wrote:
Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Mesa_Titan


Joined: 20 Feb 2008
Posts: 55154
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Iggles wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
I don't disagree with the phrase. I disagree with the interpretation that it has to be something immaterial like love, friendship, or the stars. (Which really isn't immaterial at all)
It isn't an interpretation, but the explicit intent. You can't change a phrase to mean something else when it never meant that and expect others to just accept it because the words work when you neglect the intent of the phrase.


Fine. Interpretation, intent, it's wrong. It can intend to portray that things like love, friendship, and the stars are as immaterial as they want. They're not.


In the context of the song, why is love compared to the sky if the two are wildly different material goods?

The point is that, compared to material goods that require a direct purchase, such things as love or natural beauty are freely accessible at a given moment.


But if you're given something material, it still falls under, "The best things in life are free"

I understand the meaning behind the saying, love is free to anyone, and while a material item might not be free to EVERYONE, it can be free to SOMEONE.

Which is why it is fine to be used in that context.
_________________

mission27 wrote:
Mesa_Titan is God.

#JDI
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 29448
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
I have a feeling you are being sarcastic. But you never know. So just in case, it means the best things in life arent possessions.


Nope, no sarcasm.

Like all proverbs, they are open to many interpretations.

Even if what you said was true (which it's not) who's to say things like love and good health aren't possessions? Do you not possess love? Do you not possess good health?
No, it absolutely is true. This is not open for interpretation. It originated from a song of the same name in the 1920's.

Quote:
The moon belongs to everyone
The best things in life are free,
The stars belong to everyone
They gleam there for you and me.
The flowers in Spring,
The robins that sing,
The sunbeams that shine
They're yours,
They're mine!
And love can come to everyone,
The best things in life are free.


It's clearly about enjoying non-material possessions and the little things in life. Any other interpretation is absolutely false.


No, you're wrong. Just because those few things the song mentions aren't material, it doesn't mean you can't interpret it that way. Saying there is only one interpretation and all others are wrong just makes you look close minded. Refer to the bold.

Quote:
The meaning of proverb: The really worthwhile things that add most to the quality of life can be enjoyed without spending any money


Did I spend any money? No. Did it make me happy? Yes. It was free, it made me happy. Best things in life are free. Pretty simple.

http://alivewire.wordpress.com/2007/07/06/english-proverb-the-best-things-in-life-are-free/


Even if you disregard the clear meaning of the message, you are saying the best things in life are stolen.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 29448
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

RuskieTitan wrote:
EliteTexan80 wrote:
LionsFTW wrote:
I swear that most of these people that are saying he should return it wouldn't do the same if faced with the same dilemma.


Nope, not really. A few months back at Sams Club, the lady forgot to scan my Ozarka water and read me my total. I informed her she didn't scan my water, she smiled and said thanks and scaned it.

That was a $3.00 package of bottled water, and I couldn't put it past myself to let the "error" stay as is. I could only imagine a $200 item not getting scanned. Maybe it's just me, I don't know. If you're gonna keep it when pressed into the same situation, have at it and good for you.

...just remember this when you make a mistake that could cost you dearly, and you're looking for someone to do "the right thing" on your behalf. Do unto others as you would want others to do unto you, you know?


See, I'd do that too (inform them that they didn't charge me for that). I think the folks who would return it think we all who want to keep it are heathens and go out of our way to rip people off Laughing

I see it as a case-by-case situation. Sometimes you obviously need to let the other party know, and sometimes it's up to you, where both paths are 'right' (IMO). The way he described the scenario, I felt he was well within his right to either keep it, or return it.


Or it could be that the slightest wiff of "judgment" causes folks to be defensive and jump to that conclusion.
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
fretgod99


Global Moderator
Joined: 05 Aug 2005
Posts: 19105
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Even if you disregard the clear meaning of the message, you are saying the best things in life are stolen.
I heart J Pep.
_________________

MrDrew wrote:
Can somebody give me a good reason there's not a giant statue to fret somewhere?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
J Pep 4 Step


Joined: 01 Apr 2007
Posts: 29448
Location: Greenvillain, NC
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 6:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

fretgod99 wrote:
J Pep 4 Step wrote:
Even if you disregard the clear meaning of the message, you are saying the best things in life are stolen.
I heart J Pep.


Mr. Green
_________________

CK on the sig
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Iggles


Joined: 22 Jun 2005
Posts: 24796
Location: Brooklyn
PostPosted: Tue Nov 27, 2012 8:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mesa_Titan wrote:
Iggles wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
iPwn wrote:
Mesa_Titan wrote:
I don't disagree with the phrase. I disagree with the interpretation that it has to be something immaterial like love, friendship, or the stars. (Which really isn't immaterial at all)
It isn't an interpretation, but the explicit intent. You can't change a phrase to mean something else when it never meant that and expect others to just accept it because the words work when you neglect the intent of the phrase.


Fine. Interpretation, intent, it's wrong. It can intend to portray that things like love, friendship, and the stars are as immaterial as they want. They're not.


In the context of the song, why is love compared to the sky if the two are wildly different material goods?

The point is that, compared to material goods that require a direct purchase, such things as love or natural beauty are freely accessible at a given moment.


But if you're given something material, it still falls under, "The best things in life are free"

I understand the meaning behind the saying, love is free to anyone, and while a material item might not be free to EVERYONE, it can be free to SOMEONE.

Which is why it is fine to be used in that context.


What value does that statement hold, then? "The best things in life are free" seems to suggest that there are things in life that are of lower value and things of greater value.

You're just saying that it's good to get things for free. Any things. WHy are the BEST things in life free?
_________________
Kelly Link wrote:
Television characters almost always have better haircuts, funnier friends, simpler attitudes toward sex. They marry magicians, win lotteries, have affairs with women who carry guns in their purses.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   

Post new topic   Reply to topic    FootballsFuture.com Forum Index -> This aint sports talk! All times are GMT - 4 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... , 30, 31, 32  Next
Page 31 of 32

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum




Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group