The worst topic religion or politics?

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]What is grammatically wrong with the phrase "I am not into politics"?

And lets not forget that the school and its language lessons is not there to teach us what is the "right" way to speak (well in special cases where a student really doesnt know how to express themselves or makes blatant mistakes it does) but to teach us a way to speak which utilises language in its fullest potential.

And a school essay is not the only communicational environment and deffinitely not the most important.

mindstorm

...I learned a lot though. :P

And thats deffinitely not a mistake. ;)

What is grammatically wrong with the phrase "I am not into politics"?

whoever

There is nothing wrong grammatically with that statement if you actually are implying that you have no interest in politics as a whole, which we have already established, is not the case.

The phrase "I am not into politics" implies that you are "not into" (which is slang to start off with, but I'll let it slide to prove my point), any form of politics. It is, quite obviously, an absolute statement.

Surely you cannot argue with me on something so obviously incorrect. All I was trying to overstate (as points sometimes need to be), is that English is a fickle language and not using it correctly can sometimes give off the absolute opposite of what you were trying to express in the first place.

It is obvious from your posts that your English is indeed very good and you are more than capable of expressing yourself brilliantly at it.I just wish more people took more pride in the way they communicate. I blame "txtspk".

how are ya C? Things been going well?btaylor2404

[QUOTE="mindstorm"]

[QUOTE="Teenaged"]What is grammatically wrong with the phrase "I am not into politics"?

And lets not forget that the school and its language lessons is not there to teach us what is the "right" way to speak (well in special cases where a student really doesnt know how to express themselves or makes blatant mistakes it does) but to teach us a way to speak which utilises language in its fullest potential.

And a school essay is not the only communicational environment and deffinitely not the most important.

Teenaged

...I learned a lot though. :P

And thats deffinitely not a mistake. ;)

[QUOTE="whoever"]What is grammatically wrong with the phrase "I am not into politics"?

akuma_od3

There is nothing wrong grammatically with that statement if you actually are implying that you have no interest in politics as a whole, which we have already established, is not the case.

The phrase "I am not into politics" implies that you are "not into" (which is slang to start off with, but I'll let it slide to prove my point), any form of politics.

Surely you cannot argue with me on something so obviously incorrect. All I was trying to overstate (as points sometimes need to be), is that English is a fickle language and not using it correctly can sometimes give off the absolute opposite of what you were trying to express in the first place.

And whats wrong with slang?

There is nothing obviously incorrect with that phrase. If we view language in a literal fashion then pretty much 90% of our every day discussions are "obviously incorrect". Which is simply not the case.

The styIe one uses is adjustable to the communication environment he/she is into. Slang or statements which are not to be taken at face value are but elements of a specific linguistic styIe, with its own connotations, its own limitations in meaning and so on.

Lets look at the phrase:

"I have no opinion on this matter".

Obviously the speaker has some opinion on the matter, because not having one would require having no knowledge of the subject at hand. But thats not the intention of the speaker. Thats not what he means. And the statement is deffinitily not "obviously incorrect" just because its not at face value.

[QUOTE="akuma_od3"]

[QUOTE="whoever"]What is grammatically wrong with the phrase "I am not into politics"?

Teenaged

There is nothing wrong grammatically with that statement if you actually are implying that you have no interest in politics as a whole, which we have already established, is not the case.

The phrase "I am not into politics" implies that you are "not into" (which is slang to start off with, but I'll let it slide to prove my point), any form of politics.

Surely you cannot argue with me on something so obviously incorrect. All I was trying to overstate (as points sometimes need to be), is that English is a fickle language and not using it correctly can sometimes give off the absolute opposite of what you were trying to express in the first place.

And whats wrong with slang?

There is nothing obviously incorrect with that phrase. If we view language in a literal fashion then pretty much 90% of our every day discussions are "obviously incorrect". Which is simply not the case.

The styIe one uses is adjustable to the communication environment he/she is into. Slang or statements which are not to be taken at face value are but elements of a specific linguistic styIe, with its own connotations, its own limitations in meaning and so on.

Lets look at the phrase:

"I have no opinion on this matter".

Obviously the speaker has some opinion on the matter, because not having one would require having no knowledge of the subject at hand. But thats not the intention of the speaker. Thats not what he means. And the statement is deffinitily not "obviously incorrect" just because its not at face value.

Ah, English. With its many pointless rules. You seem to be missing my point though. The OP posted an absolute statement. This cannot be denied. This is what I was pointing out. This is what I have been being a dick about just so that I could get my point across. If the OP had said "I am not into political dicussions". That would have been absolutely fine. But he didn't. He quite obviously ostricised the entire genre of politics as a whole. Unless you are reading another language to what I am, this is clearly what was said.

I honestly don't know how I can make this any clearer...

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]how are ya C? Things been going well?mindstorm

People how argue politics can be proven right or wrong through rational logic and facts. People in religion believe what an ancient book, with questionable origins, and what a voice in their heads tells them. Clearly religion is by far the worst.

The worst of the all is when religious people argue politics. This normally leads to discrimination or wars. Sadly thats not even a sarcastic joke, but fact.Diablo-B

True. Also already said on this thread is how politics and religion seem to go hand in hand. I believe this to be the case. Especially in America. Americans have "In God We Trust" printed on their money! You can't mix religion and politics any more than that...

I'd have to say religion because no one on either side of the fence can just let others be what they want.

Ah, English. With its many pointless rules. You seem to be missing my point though. The OP posted an absolute statement. This cannot be denied. This is what I was pointing out. This is what I have been being a dick about just so that I could get my point across. If the OP had said "I am not into political dicussions". That would have been absolutely fine. But he didn't. He quite obviously ostricised the entire genre of politics as a whole. Unless you are reading another language to what I am, this is clearly what was said.

I honestly don't know how I can make this any clearer...

akuma_od3

I see your point very clearly and I am just trying to show you how your point is, lets say, misled.

The "I am into x" phrase is in itself not specific as to what the "into" means. Thats up for interpretation.

Also the term "politics" (like pretty much every word, is not an unequivocal term. It can refer to the political situation in a country, it can refer to any sort of political activity, it can refer to political ideologies in an abstract sense and so on (and those only if we limit ourselves to the meanings that pertain to a more literal take on the word).

What will help you realise my point is the significance of the communicational environment.

If you ignore that, then like I said before, we are commiting thousands of mistakes when we converse every day. But they are not mistakes. They are what differentiates formal language from informal language.

I dont see how one can view absoluteness in ones statements as an indicator of what the words they used mean or imply.

[QUOTE="akuma_od3"]

Ah, English. With its many pointless rules. You seem to be missing my point though. The OP posted an absolute statement. This cannot be denied. This is what I was pointing out. This is what I have been being a dick about just so that I could get my point across. If the OP had said "I am not into political dicussions". That would have been absolutely fine. But he didn't. He quite obviously ostricised the entire genre of politics as a whole. Unless you are reading another language to what I am, this is clearly what was said.

I honestly don't know how I can make this any clearer...

Teenaged

I see your point very clearly and I am just trying to show you how your point is, lets say, misled.

Also the term "politics" (like pretty much every word, is not an unequivocal term. It can refer to the political situation in a country, it can refer to any sort of political activity, it can refer to political ideologies in an abstract sense and so on (and those only if we limit ourselves to the meanings that pertain to a more literal take on the word).

What will help you realise my point is the significance of the communicational environment.

If you ignore that, then like I said before, we are commiting thousands of mistakes when we converse every day. But they are not mistakes. They are what differentiates formal language from informal language.

I dont see how one can view absoluteness in ones statements as an indicator of what the words they used mean or imply.

Ok, fair enough. From your point, you are absolutely correct. However, if the word "politics" is such a broad term that can encapsulate so many little different things, would you for one ever say "I hate politics!"? No, because you are making such a broad (and almost obviously, uninformed) statement. It would be like me saying "I hate cars", when in fact, I only hate Toyotas. It is up to the poster to at least make the effort to discribe what form of politics he is talking about. The mere fact we are even still debating this shows the confusion it can cause not to be more specific about something.

I agree we are making thousands of errors even with our best grammar hats on right now. However, we are getting our points across in, at least, some detail and I think it is very obvious where you are coming from and I hope I am at least making myself as clear as you are.

I understand, and actually agree with most of your points. The only point I think we disagree on is my belief that one should take it upon themselves to at least put a bit of damn effort into making a statement.

Maybe if you don't understand either it would be the worst. I feel both topics offer interesting debate and beats topics like some of the crap I've seen on here. My fave topic of the day had to be "What part of your body do you eat?" yeah that was a real interesting one.

Ok, fair enough. From your point, you are absolutely correct. However, if the word "politics" is such a broad term that can encapsulate so many little different things, would you for one ever say "I hate politics!"? No, because you are making such a broad (and almost obviously, uninformed) statement. It would be like me saying "I hate cars", when in fact, I only hate Toyotas. It is up to the poster to at least make the effort to discribe what form of politics he is talking about. The mere fact we are even still debating this shows the confusion it can cause not to be more specific about something.

I agree we are making thousands of errors even with our best grammar hats on right now. However, we are getting our points across in, at least, some detail and I think it is very obvious where you are coming from and I hope I am at least making myself as clear as you are.

I understand, and actually agree with most of your points. The only point I think we disagree on is my belief that one should take it upon themselves to at least put a bit of damn effort into making a statement.

akuma_od3

I understand how the phrase will require some clarification in case someone isnt sure of what is meant by it, but thats a common occurance in every day speech. We speak sometimes vaguely but the communicational environment is such that some vagueness is easily interpreted since we know what the speaker rationally refers to. Like in the example I gave you with the phrase "I have no opinion on this matter".

Well "cars" is not such a broad or non-specific term as "politics". "Politics" has more abstract-ness to it than the word "cars", obviously.

The confusion is created when one chooses to take a statement expressed in a casual conversation, at face value, and demand a fully descriptive statement in stead of the shortnend one which aims in conveying the message in a short form.

Well, maybe you have that expectation because, strictly speaking a forum somehow isnt as casual as an oral speech (due to the fact that it is in written speech which creates problems of tone interpretation, lack of facial expressions to "read" into the thoughts of the speaker etc), but really though, it would be exhaustive if we put so much effort every time we wanted to enter a casual discussion, and especially since such "irregularities" are SO common in every day speech.

To summarise:

I understand how one might request some sort of clarification or how such ways of expression may be a pet-peeve to some (I can sympathise here), but ultimately you can't call it a mistake. Because it isnt.

The worst topics are topics complaining about other topics. I don't understand what is so "bad" about having a religious discussion or debate. I don't involve myself much in politics, but see it in the same light.

Both are "the worst" because they involve personal opinions and beliefs...

People are usually set in their ways one way or the other for both of these. Most of the religious and political discussions I've heard boil down to the other person just waiting for their chance to speak.

The thread title and the OP don't quite sync up.. anyway in terms of war I'd go with people.

I heard a lot more absurdities in religious threads than in political threads.

I heard a lot more absurdities in religious threads than in political threads.

one_plum

I hate American polities as much as I hate all the Christian ones. I know a lot more about UK politics then I let on, but I don't go talking about it here often because I tend to escape all that when I'm resting in front of my PC.

Politics is less interesting.

Religion becuase their threads are full of trolls. Political threads are the best.

But I also hate these sort of threads, and hate replies like "Politics! It's so pointless! how can you discuss stuff like that, it's so boring!", you aren't making yourself sound very smart. Stick with your music/movies/girl advice threads and quit complaining.