2 ms·

> he doesn’t argue, he argued, This phrase is so common it's practically correct. Search for "Plato argues" online for example.

keiferski 1y ago
Yes you’re right and I hesitated putting that in there, but in the article itself, it’s written in such a way that I found confusing. Especially when the rest of the text doesn’t seem very familiar with the sociology / philosophy of religion. Probably an unnecessary quibble to have, and I shouldn’t have included it.
- Tade0 1y ago
  I believe it's short for "(in his written works) X argues...". Past tense would indicate that there was a change in his views at some point.
- bloomingeek 1y ago
  Quibbling is what we humans do. It is both necessary and helpful for fleshing out all kinds of subjects. And I won't mention how fun it is to say. :)
90s_dev 1y ago
> This phrase is so common it's practically correct. In fact, that's how language works. Whatever emerges from organic use is correct language. We the people decide what proper English is, collectively, not a prestigious university or renowned scholar or classic textbook.
- _Algernon_ 1y ago
  Bet! I’m vibin’ 100% with your feels, fr fr!
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    Huh? You woulda said this comment also isn't valid English. Contractions, exclamations, shortucts of every kind, are legit. (Though some usuallyo only appear in certain mediums U+1F609.)
- keiferski 1y ago
  This is always used as some kind of gotcha, but it misses the obvious fact that people or institutions or textbooks arguing and implementing standards are themselves a part of that organic process. The organicness is the whole thing.
  - 90s_dev 1y ago
    Sure, I don't disagree. But so is deviating from that standard. I'm just talking about people who are overly restrictive of their own language usage. The best authors broke rules and made up words as needed.
  - jobs_throwaway 1y ago
    The point is that they're part of the process, not anything definitive

keiferski 1y ago

Yes you’re right and I hesitated putting that in there, but in the article itself, it’s written in such a way that I found confusing. Especially when the rest of the text doesn’t seem very familiar with the sociology / philosophy of religion. Probably an unnecessary quibble to have, and I shouldn’t have included it.

Tade0 1y ago
I believe it's short for "(in his written works) X argues...". Past tense would indicate that there was a change in his views at some point.
bloomingeek 1y ago
Quibbling is what we humans do. It is both necessary and helpful for fleshing out all kinds of subjects. And I won't mention how fun it is to say. :)

90s_dev 1y ago

> This phrase is so common it's practically correct. In fact, that's how language works. Whatever emerges from organic use is correct language. We the people decide what proper English is, collectively, not a prestigious university or renowned scholar or classic textbook.

_Algernon_ 1y ago
Bet! I’m vibin’ 100% with your feels, fr fr!
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  Huh? You woulda said this comment also isn't valid English. Contractions, exclamations, shortucts of every kind, are legit. (Though some usuallyo only appear in certain mediums U+1F609.)
keiferski 1y ago
This is always used as some kind of gotcha, but it misses the obvious fact that people or institutions or textbooks arguing and implementing standards are themselves a part of that organic process. The organicness is the whole thing.
- 90s_dev 1y ago
  Sure, I don't disagree. But so is deviating from that standard. I'm just talking about people who are overly restrictive of their own language usage. The best authors broke rules and made up words as needed.
- jobs_throwaway 1y ago
  The point is that they're part of the process, not anything definitive