3 ms·

You don’t get to freely acknowledge counter-examples and then magically say they “prove the rule” as if they don’t contradict your argument. THAT’S NOT WHAT THA

by galonk 7y ago

You don’t get to freely acknowledge counter-examples and then magically say they “prove the rule” as if they don’t contradict your argument. THAT’S NOT WHAT THAT MEANS. And it’s quite all right for me to respect the elderly in general while acknowledging the baby boomers didn’t heed environmental collapse, stole all they money from future generations, raised their cost of living/education while keeping their wages stagnant, and concentrated wealth while dismantling unions. You don’t get to cry “respect the elderly!” as a response to say, getting a parking ticket. It’s not a valid response to criticism of your generation either.

Jun8 7y ago
I thought about the same thing when I read that part. The formula "exception proves the rule" is generally misused (people not knowing that it's based on the archaic usage of prove which was "to test") in daily usage but this author, who is listed as a contributing editor for The Englewood Review of Books, making this mistake seems less likely. Interestingly, Wikipedia has an in-depth article on the usage of this phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule. It's stated that this phrase is derived from a legal principle of republican Rome: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted"). So, in this sense, the fact that books with old protagonists are rarely bestsellers proves the "rule" that the author stated.
- lazyasciiart 7y ago
  It's not "generally misused", it has acquired another and now more common usage. Anyone with a strong command of the English language would know that usage and would know that the original usage now reads as incorrect to most people, so it's either an accident or a deliberate miscommunication to use it.
  - balfirevic 7y ago
    So, what is the new, more common meaning? That exception to the rule somehow strengthens the rule?
    - msla 7y ago
      > So, what is the new, more common meaning? That exception to the rule somehow strengthens the rule? Yes. And the fact this meaning is meaningless, or at least a very dishonest tactic, doesn't really change the fact it's now the most common meaning. Pragmatically, the lesson here is that "the exception that proves the rule" is a bad phrase to use unless you're deliberately trying to confuse or derail the discussion.
      - Jun8 7y ago
        It's not meaningless, it's precisely how it was/is used in law, e.g. see https://english.stackexchange.com/a/14213 https://english.stackexchange.com/a/14213, also see the Snopes answer: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/exceptional-proof/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/exceptional-proof/. Two other idiomatic expressions that have similar confused usage are "proof is in the pudding" and "begs the question" (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/246664/why-can-i-not-use-beg-the-question-to-mean-raise-the-question-grammatically https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/246664/why-can-i...)
        msla 7y ago
        > It's not meaningless, it's precisely how it was/is used in law I mean the current common meaning is meaningless; to wit: "Exceptions to the rule I just propounded make the rule stronger, as opposed to disproving it." > Two other idiomatic expressions that have similar confused usage are "proof is in the pudding" and "begs the question" The first is misquoted ("The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is immediately obvious) and the second is a horrible translation which would have gotten a failing grade in any school which taught Latin and which should be forgotten.

by galonk 7y ago

Jun8 7y ago

I thought about the same thing when I read that part. The formula "exception proves the rule" is generally misused (people not knowing that it's based on the archaic usage of prove which was "to test") in daily usage but this author, who is listed as a contributing editor for The Englewood Review of Books, making this mistake seems less likely. Interestingly, Wikipedia has an in-depth article on the usage of this phrase: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exception_that_proves_the_rule. It's stated that this phrase is derived from a legal principle of republican Rome: exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis ("the exception confirms the rule in cases not excepted"). So, in this sense, the fact that books with old protagonists are rarely bestsellers proves the "rule" that the author stated.

lazyasciiart 7y ago
It's not "generally misused", it has acquired another and now more common usage. Anyone with a strong command of the English language would know that usage and would know that the original usage now reads as incorrect to most people, so it's either an accident or a deliberate miscommunication to use it.
- balfirevic 7y ago
  So, what is the new, more common meaning? That exception to the rule somehow strengthens the rule?
  - msla 7y ago
    > So, what is the new, more common meaning? That exception to the rule somehow strengthens the rule? Yes. And the fact this meaning is meaningless, or at least a very dishonest tactic, doesn't really change the fact it's now the most common meaning. Pragmatically, the lesson here is that "the exception that proves the rule" is a bad phrase to use unless you're deliberately trying to confuse or derail the discussion.
    - Jun8 7y ago
      It's not meaningless, it's precisely how it was/is used in law, e.g. see https://english.stackexchange.com/a/14213 https://english.stackexchange.com/a/14213, also see the Snopes answer: https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/exceptional-proof/ https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/exceptional-proof/. Two other idiomatic expressions that have similar confused usage are "proof is in the pudding" and "begs the question" (https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/246664/why-can-i-not-use-beg-the-question-to-mean-raise-the-question-grammatically https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/246664/why-can-i...)
      - msla 7y ago
        > It's not meaningless, it's precisely how it was/is used in law I mean the current common meaning is meaningless; to wit: "Exceptions to the rule I just propounded make the rule stronger, as opposed to disproving it." > Two other idiomatic expressions that have similar confused usage are "proof is in the pudding" and "begs the question" The first is misquoted ("The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is immediately obvious) and the second is a horrible translation which would have gotten a failing grade in any school which taught Latin and which should be forgotten.