Posted By General Hobbs on 04/01/2007 8:33
AM Something that I feel needs to be defined is what exactly is an intellectual. If you look back at my Gore post, I merely stated my view that he was not an intellectual per se, but never said he was not an intelligent man. You can be a man of ability, a man of proven achievement, but not be the "classic" intellectual.
Same with a man who is "beautiful". There's a derogatory term that my friends use for men who are "beautiful"...pretty boys. One of my friends would never date a guy who had model looks...she'd prefer a more manly guy. She would pick Daniel Craig over Pierce Brosnan for example. Craig is beautiful to her.
So when one wants to bandy terms like intellectual and beautiful, you really need to define your terms. What is an intellectual person? John Kerry was described as an intellectual, what exactly has he done to merit that term? Do you mean someone who is educated and articulate? ( and if you add clean, you can include Barack Obama in the list)
stolen from Wikipedia:
"There are, broadly, three modern definitions at work in discussions about intellectuals. First, 'intellectuals' as those deeply involved in ideas, books, the life of the mind. Second, and here largely arising from
Marxism, 'intellectuals' as that recognizable occupational
class consisting of lecturers, professors, lawyers, doctors, scientist, and suchlike. Third, cultural "intellectuals" are those of notable expertise in culture and the arts, expertise which allows them some cultural authority, and who then use that authority to speak in public on other matters."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual I think the Original poster was using the first definition, one who is predominatly concerned with ideas.
While your flames about Democrats are funny, i think by at least 2 if not 3 of those definitions Kerry and Gore would qualify as intellectuals. you can certainly use an alternative definition of intellectual: academic focused on arts and the humanities, in which case only a few thousand intellectuals are in the US.
Using the definition that an Intellectual is concerned with using logic, analysis, and other intellectual methods of solving problems, then I think that
RAW often emerges at the top. As others have pointed out:
1) there is no way to knowing what the designers intent was
2) the game should have a single set of rules, not different rules in every shop
3)
GW's refusal to issue
FAQs means that they stand by their rules, no matter how ridiculous the result.
What General Hobbs has done is actually a pretty classic attack on intellectualism: set up a straw man (a guy arguing comma placement), knock it down, and then claim by analogy that since at least one result of pure
RAW analysis is incorrect (or "feels" incorrect), all such
RAW analysis is therefore suspect.
Hobbs is using instinct, or perhaps the idea that through common sense one can create a more viable ruleset. That can happen for him, however I think many people have discovered that common sense tends not to be as universally applicable as you think, especially when rules interpretations go against you.
This is the weakness of intellectualism in public fora: intellectual arguements are complicated and nuanced, and instinctual arguments are simple and inutitive. It's easier to say "just say no" than to say "drug use can have benefits, and addiction can more suitably treated than punished."
As a final note, remember the following:
Intelligence and facts win debates.
Passion and empathy win arguments.
