Pop Quiz for Wednesday

[Philip Coates]

Okay, here's a test for how sharp you guys are

Some years ago, the following appeared in a famous speech by an American president:

“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.”

Whether you agree with any or all parts of it, what is wrong with this as a matter of -writing-? I.e., why would a thinker not want to put this in his speech or essay?

.

.

(Huge rewards of prestige and fame for the first clear-thinking person to identify this precisely. And in a single sentence.)

[anthony]

Phil,

It's a grammatical error, aren't it?

He switches from "a nation" as the impersonal subject of the sentence, to "and our faith"...

Tony

[ginny]

Okay, here's a test for how sharp you guys are

Some years ago, the following appeared in a famous speech by an American president:

“In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption.”

Whether you agree with any or all parts of it, what is wrong with this as a matter of -writing-? I.e., why would a thinker not want to put this in his speech or essay?

.

.

(Huge rewards of prestige and fame for the first clear-thinking person to identify this precisely. And in a single sentence.)

Jimmy Carter on Juy 15, 1979.

As for reward, I'm not interested in prestige and fame. I like Godiva chocolate and pretty jewelry.

[jriggenbach]

Phil,

It's a grammatical error, aren't it?

He switches from "a nation" as the impersonal subject of the sentence, to "and our faith"...

Tony

No. The reason no "thinker" would "want to put this in his speech or essay" is that E. B. White might have written it differently, and E. B. White's way of writing is the only valid way of writing, and it would be monumentally embarrassing to be caught publicly writing in any way different from E. B. White's way.

Yawn.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Okay, here's a test for how sharp you guys are

Some years ago, the following appeared in a famous speech by an American president:

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption."

Whether you agree with any or all parts of it, what is wrong with this as a matter of -writing-? I.e., why would a thinker not want to put this in his speech or essay?

.

.

(Huge rewards of prestige and fame for the first clear-thinking person to identify this precisely. And in a single sentence.)

Please, Phil, don't tell us.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Hint: It goes deeper than any grammar error.

[Brant Gaede]

Hint: It goes deeper than any grammar error.

I knew it! I just knewed it!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Okay, here's a test for how sharp you guys are

Some years ago, the following appeared in a famous speech by an American president:

"In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption."

Whether you agree with any or all parts of it, what is wrong with this as a matter of -writing-? I.e., why would a thinker not want to put this in his speech or essay?

.

.

(Huge rewards of prestige and fame for the first clear-thinking person to identify this precisely. And in a single sentence.)

Okay: Here goes-------------

This construction does not engage the listener in any positive, interactive way.

--Brant

brilliance in action

[9thdoctor]

The point of view is too foreign to me, how to critique “the writing” without trashing the ideas? Besides, as presidential bully pulpit drool goes, is it really unusual?

[Dragonfly]

If I'd heard that phrase, I'd have said "speak for yourself". It implicitly accuses the audience. That's fine for a bible-thumping preacher, but not for a President of the United States, whom you'd expect to inspire his audience, not to berate it.

[Philip Coates]

Hint: It's not the ideas or the grammar, but how the ideas are presented. There is a certain logical problem. Also: This kind of thing we've heard many, many times from politicians. (They and their speechwriters often seem to specialize in this.)

[9thdoctor]

If you’ve got something interesting to say, make it snappy. This game rivals the paint drying channel for thrills.

This reminds me of the Tie-In Contests on the Leonard Peikoff radio show. There were reports of people playing these episodes outdoors, and squirrels were falling from the trees from sudden onset narcolepsy.

[Philip Coates]

Your impatience is of zero relevance. Not everyone has seen the thread.

It's only from earlier this afternoon.

Edited July 8, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Admitting Error, Taking My Beating, Wiping Egg off My Face

I was rereading Bob Palin's post and was going to declare him the winner for pointing out the illogic of the comparison between the two halves of Carter's statement. Bob said:

"What does "“hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God" have to do with "self-indulgence and consumption?" Carter implies that it is "self-indulgence and consumption" that destroys "hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God" in his statement. How? "

Here is what I was going to say in elaboration of Bob's point: The second list in Carter's statement is in some way contrary to or inconsistent with what precedes. And to make a valid 'but' or 'however' or other negative comparison, you must have a clear item of comparison. For example, "I used to be optimistic, but now I don't see much good as going to happen." The contrast is on attitude toward the future. [from a grammar site] "The engineers claimed that the bridge was safe; however, they were still not prepared to risk crossing." The contrast is between two views of the bridge - that it's safe / that it's unsafe.

However, as I reread Carter's statement for the umpteenth time -- "In a nation that was proud of hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God, too many of us now tend to worship self-indulgence and consumption" -- it dawned on me that there -is- a reasonable axis of comparison: You can say these are positive traits in our culture. But now too many manifest negative cultural traits. So a change in cultural traits is the grounds for comparison.

The whole premise of this thread is that there I saw a deep error in logic, in the very structure of the writing, of the sentence. Whether or not you agree with the ideas. I agreed with Bob that the comparison is a poor one because I don't agree with Carter's ideas.

So I have to ***withdraw my quiz and apologize for my stupidity***. The whole premise of my starting this thread was wrong: The sentence, standing alone,IS valid logically. It just has a burden of proof and explanation that the rest of the text would have to discharge.

I was suggesting there was a problem with structure, with logic. Rather than a problem with the content of his ideas. That's wrong.

,,,,,,,,,,,

Here's an example of a recast sentence similar in structure to Carter's listing some -valid- ideas:

"In a nation that was proud of individual rights, personal ethics and responsibility, hard work, and the use of reason as a tool for solving things, too many of us now tend to worship crony capitalism and corruption in the workplace, irresponsible self-indulgence rather than effort, and mental laziness." It doesn't say what are the causes, merely that cultural positives, have changed to cultural negatives.

[jriggenbach]

Here's an example of a recast sentence similar in structure to Carter's listing some -valid- ideas:

"In a nation that was proud of individual rights, personal ethics and responsibility, hard work, and the use of reason as a tool for solving things, too many of us now tend to worship crony capitalism and corruption in the workplace, irresponsible self-indulgence rather than effort, and mental laziness." It doesn't say what are the causes, merely that cultural positives, have changed to cultural negatives.

Yep, that's how E. B. White would've written it.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

Gee, whiz, what a _______!?

I declare myself the winner.

--Brant

end it--end it now!--cut off the head!

[9thdoctor]

So I have to ***withdraw my quiz and apologize for my stupidity***. The whole premise of my starting this thread was wrong: The sentence, standing alone,IS valid logically.

Ugh, you had us scrutinize this Carter drivel for nothing? Here’s an idea, check out the chapter in

this book "On the Style of the Communist Manifesto". There’s a really great point he makes somewhere in there, I want you to fish it out and explain it to all and sundry. Seriously, it's a good essay.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Subject: Admitting Error, Taking My Beating, Wiping Egg off My Face

I was rereading Bob Palin's post and was going to declare him the winner for pointing out the illogic of the comparison between the two halves of Carter's statement. Bob said:

"What does "“hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God" have to do with "self-indulgence and consumption?" Carter implies that it is "self-indulgence and consumption" that destroys "hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God" in his statement. How? "

Where does Bob Palin say that? Where does he say anything on this board? Is he even registered here?

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Admitting Error, Taking My Beating, Wiping Egg off My Face

I was rereading Bob Palin's post and was going to declare him the winner for pointing out the illogic of the comparison between the two halves of Carter's statement. Bob said:

"What does ""hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God" have to do with "self-indulgence and consumption?" Carter implies that it is "self-indulgence and consumption" that destroys "hard work, strong families, close-knit communities, and our faith in God" in his statement. How? "

Where does Bob Palin say that? Where does he say anything on this board? Is he even registered here?

Ellen

I guess Phil has posted this thingy elsewhere too. There is no Bob Palin here. Not under Robert, Bob or Palin.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

On RoR. Not only did I screw up the quiz by posting something which didn't have an answer, but I posted the same identical mea culpa on both boards mentioning him here as well.

Early Alzheimer's, I guess.

...I'm sorry, what were we talking about?????????

(Maybe I should start drinking....)