Porn vs. Art

[quadraginta]

Mmm ... I think you'll find that it's "from", "different from". Interesting departure, given this, don't you think:

Trusting you're duly enlightened, but feel free to conduct your own research.

Okay.

Different from, Different to, Different than

by Maeve Maddox

We all have our pet grammar peeves, usages that, when we hear them, affect us like the sound of a fingernail against a chalkboard.

I’ll bet I’m not the only one who shudders to hear sentences like these:

A boxer is different than a Doberman.
This car is different to that one.

Yet, are these usages really incorrect?

According to the entry for different from, different to, different than at Bartleby.com,

These three have been usage items for many years. All are Standard and have long been so (different to is limited to British English, however), but only different from seems never to meet objections.
​

Hope that helps.

But to answer your question, it depends on exactly what our respective rankings are. I have no doubt that if he's honest our respective rankings, even if different (highly likely), will nonetheless lead to the same conclusion as to which actor has the most acting merit, generally.

I thought you were going to answer the question. That isn't an answer, it's an evasion. A clumsy one.

 

[JFrankA]

Sadly, my ability to know your answer does not rely on paranormality, so the JREF Challenge is somewhat irrelevant. Now, if you're prepared to wager $1 million of your own booty and organise the test ...

Oh, so you don't know what my answer is, then. I see. You lied and, once again, dodge questions.

I'll take you up on your wager once you have directly answered the points and topics I've made to you. Otherwise, I will see the way you bet the same way you make a point: by cowardly avoiding the challenge.

Oh but this made sense. I'd think about responding, if only to keep you in the game.

I am in "the game". I just refuse to play by your rules.

 

[Southwind17]

Okay.
Hope that helps.

Sure. It helps to show that this (check out the quiz) is what happens when one's idea of "research" is frantically rushing to find biased support for a position instead of objectively considering all of the available information. But that's your style to a T, isn't it!

I thought you were going to answer the question. That isn't an answer, it's an evasion. A clumsy one.

I thought you were going to paint a picture for me. That isn't a picture, it's just oils abstractly smeared on canvas. Clumsily too! See how that works?!

 

[Southwind17]

Oh, so you don't know what my answer is, then. I see. You lied and, once again, dodge questions.

Put up or shut up, I say.

 

[JFrankA]

Put up or shut up, I say.

If you actually read the thread and your own article, I have put up several times.

You should heed your own advice.

 

[Southwind17]

If you actually read the thread and your own article, I have put up several times.

There or so many past tense verbs I could substitute for "put" to make this statement correct, many of which would surely precipitate mod action! Accordingly, "stuffed" works quite nicely, and acceptably, I feel.

 

[JFrankA]

There or so many past tense verbs I could substitute for "put" to make this statement correct, many of which would surely precipitate mod action! Accordingly, "stuffed" works quite nicely, I feel.

Enough of this silly, petty tripe.

Are you going to sincerely, seriously debate the questions I put to you, have an honest, meaningful debate where ideas are exchanged or discussed or are you just going to insult people all day making yourself look like nothing more than an ignorant troll?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=369

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=636

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=637

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=644

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=672

As you put it: "Put up or shut up".

 

[Southwind17]

Enough of this silly, petty tripe.

Are you going to sincerely, seriously debate the questions I put to you, have an honest, meaningful debate where ideas are exchanged or discussed or are you just going to insult people all day making yourself look like nothing more than an ignorant troll?

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=369

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=636

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=637

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=644

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php...&postcount=672

As you put it: "Put up or shut up".

No worries. I'll endeavour to review these posts tomorrow and revert; see if I can help you with your obvious anguish.

 

[JFrankA]

No worries. I'll endeavour to review these posts tomorrow and revert; see if I can help you with your obvious anguish.

Thank you. That's fair. Take all the time you wish.

All I want is a debate, you challenge my opinions, I challenge your opinions. I feel that this whole thread (and much of the later pages of the previous thread about this same topic) became nothing more than an subtle insult hurling contest. And yes, I willingly admit that I am guilty of it as well, for that, I apologize. So let's address the issues and the debate rather than throwing subtle insults, maybe we can actually learn something from each other.

 

[Southwind17]

Thank you. That's fair. Take all the time you wish.

All I want is a debate, you challenge my opinions, I challenge your opinions. I feel that this whole thread (and much of the later pages of the previous thread about this same topic) became nothing more than an subtle insult hurling contest. And yes, I willingly admit that I am guilty of it as well, for that, I apologize. So let's address the issues and the debate rather than throwing subtle insults, maybe we can actually learn something from each other.

to be continued ...

 

[quadraginta]

Sure. It helps to show that this (check out the quiz) is what happens when one's idea of "research" is frantically rushing to find biased support for a position instead of objectively considering all of the available information. But that's your style to a T, isn't it!

Your cite doesn't appear to support your objection. It says ...

The expressions different from and different than have been used almost interchangeably for at least 300 years.

Different from is preferred to introduce a phrase; however, different than may also be used.
...

Different than is preferred to introduce a clause; however, different from may be used if more words are added.

Of course, if you want to play Dueling Experts here's another one.

The Finer Points of GMAT Grammar

There are many stock phrases in American English that sound fine to the casual ear but just don’t pass muster on the GMAT. “Different than” is one of them. We use "than" to indicate comparison: taller than, no less talented than, smaller than, greater than, much better than. It implies a quantitative comparison: more X, less Y.

We were discussing this sentence.

Originally Posted by quadraginta
If his ranking is different than yours, which one of you is right?

A "quantitative comparison", don't you agree?

I can play this game as long as you like. You'll just keep losing, which is great fun for me.

The fact is that as usages become part of common parlance they gain legitimacy in the opinion of all but the most tedious pedants. Meanwhile the tedious pedants fail to agree even among themselves. As Bartleby (biased support???) explained, the 'from/than' debate has been fought and lost by such pedants for a long time. Deal with it.

 

[tesscaline]

I'm sorry, this demonstrates nothing, other than your ability to demonstrate nothing.

Wrong. It demonstrates that you claim "per se" is of "critical importance" to your claim.

So the fact that I stated that it means "in and of itself" ...

<insult redacted>

You included "simply" instead of "exactly" (when you didn't even use exactly at first, you used purely) in your definition (as a synonym), which "per se" does not mean, and then your example went on to use "per se" in a manner that is not consistent with it's actual definition.

Attempting to insult those calling you on your errors doesn't make your errors any less glaring. Sorry.

 

[Ron_Tomkins]

This feels like the beginning of the end of the thread as we know it.

Nevermind. It was clearly a mistaken hunch of mine. Looks like the sillyness is gonna keep going. But I am glad that at least, the true monster is now coming out and being discussed: Sophistry and poor (and perhaps intentional) use of language to defend irrational claims.

 

[Southwind17]

Your cite doesn't appear to support your objection. It says ...

The expressions different from and different than have been used almost interchangeably for at least 300 years.

You'll be aware, I assume, that "effect" and "affect" are used interchangeably by many. If I were to ask you what "affect" that has on your argument how would you respond?!

Different from is preferred to introduce a phrase; however, different than may also be used.

...

Different than is preferred to introduce a clause; however, different from may be used if more words are added.

But then we see a short quiz to test understanding of what is preferred, thus:

Quiz

1. This dress is different from/than the one in the catalog.
2. How is this salad dressing different from/than last night’s dressing?
3. His moustache made him look different from/than his brothers.
4. Chopsticks are very different to hold from/than a fork and knife are.
5. He treated me differently from/than I would have expected.
6. He treated me differently from/than what I would have expected.

Answers

1. different from (preferred because it introduces a phrase)
2. different from (preferred because it introduces a phrase)
3. different from (preferred because it introduces a phrase)
4. different than (preferred because it introduces a clause)
5. differently than
6. differently from

It seems your misapplication:

If his ranking is different than yours, which one of you is right?

... is analogous to Q&A 3, don't you agree? So I suppose "from" is preferred over "than".

Of course, if you want to play Dueling Experts ... I can play this game as long as you like. You'll just keep losing, which is great fun for me.

OK, maybe not an outright win for me, but victory nonetheless using the away-goals rule.

 

[Southwind17]

Wrong. It demonstrates that you claim "per se" is of "critical importance" to your claim.

Sure, it demonstrates that (which is self-evident and not denied anyhow ). But I asked you to show me where I'm using the term "per se" incorrectly, following your allegation that I am. What you quoted demonstrates nothing in that regard.

You included "simply" instead of "exactly" (when you didn't even use exactly at first, you used purely) in your definition (as a synonym), which "per se" does not mean, .

You misunderstand, which could be partly my fault, in which case I apologize. When I wrote:

Let's try "simply", instead of "exactly", although it should suffice for both ...

... in response to:

What, exactly, do you think "per se" means?

I meant let's substitute "simply" for "exactly" in your question. Which is why I then went on to define "per se" in a very simple way thus:

per se in and of itself

I should have thought you could have figured this out given that you used the word "exactly" in your question but I didn't, in my "simple" definition!

... and then your example went on to use "per se" in a manner that is not consistent with it's actual definition.

If by "actual definition" you mean my "simple" definition then I disagree. I consider my example wholly consistent. If, however, you're alluding to a different definition then, please, feel free to share it with us.

Attempting to insult those calling you on your errors doesn't make your errors any less glaring. Sorry.

Glaring? My errors?

 

[Southwind17]

Nevermind. It was clearly a mistaken hunch of mine. Looks like the sillyness is gonna keep going. But I am glad that at least, the true monster is now coming out and being discussed: Sophistry and poor (and perhaps intentional) use of language to defend irrational claims.

You might wish to consider why people have taken to not responding to your posts, except you yourself. I know - loneliness - terrible affliction - wouldn't wish it upon anybody (well, not many).

 

[BenBurch]

This is all nonsense.

Art worthy of the name intends to arouse.

It is successful in relation to its ability to arouse.

Arousal to lust is not qualitatively different from arousal to hate or arousal to beauty.

Most porn does not rise to the level of art only because most porn does such a really terrible job of arousing anything other than wonderment that somebody would actually pay for such a dreadful work.

But a really good **** is by its nature art whether done in the flesh or done on film or merely imagined and written about in words.

It is art in the same way that a really good dance is art or a really good symphony is art or a really good parallel-beam routine is art.

And those who want to say otherwise are no more or less than prudes, and have some really deep pathologies for which they ought to seek professional help.

 

[Southwind17]

This is all nonsense.

I believe you meant to place a colon ":" there instead of a period "." Seriously, that's the only way I can make any sense of the nonsense!

 

[not daSkeptic]

So if something can intrinsically be art simply because it was created by an artist, then what defines one as an artist?

 

[Toke]

So if something can intrinsically be art simply because it was created by an artist, then what defines one as an artist?

Have you not been paying attention to the tread?

Artists are people who make art.
(they have to wear the correct type of hat too, an artists hat*.)

*That is the kind of hats worn by artists.