@userr2684291 On the contrary, I think "yourself" is just pretentious and nonsensical. It makes no sense. And just because people say it, doesn't mean it makes sense or is correct. People say a lot of things. "And you?" is short for "And how are you?". And of course, after the first question there is always the answer, which is followed by "Yourself?" or something of that sort. I didn't clearly state "I am fine. Thanks!" here because that is just implied. "How are yourself?" - Really?
That is outrageous.
I never heard any native speaker say "And, how are yourself?", because that is crazy. If that is crazy, then it's short form "And, yourself?" is crazy too. No, blasphemous!
@AIQ And yourself? doesn't expand into How are yourself?. I never said that, and there's no reason to assume that's what it expands into. How are you, yourself? would work. When I said people say it, I meant "people often say it"; "it's an established thing people frequently say and/or recognize".
Regarding the issue of it making sense: language is different from some strict, formal, in-all-respects consistent logic. It makes sense, but this characteristic might only hold within the range of possible usages of a particular idiom. Sometimes it's just difficult to say what these rules are. I think, actually, that there's a pretty strict, though exception-ridden, idiosyncratic logic behind everything in language, but whatever.
At any rate, it sounds like you're trying to "herd cats". You're fighting a losing battle.
Oh, and, you could say (I'm good, etc.) How's yourself? as a reply to How are you?. Probably even How is yourself? in some non-standard variants. That (the former) might be bordering on non-standard, but I've heard it a couple of times, so it's probably established in some present-day dialects.
@userr2684291 I disagree with yourself. I don't know what battle you are referring to. There isn't one. It's often used, yes, but so is How you doin'? But I, for one, would never use that. If I want to be friendly and informal, I would say "How's it going?" or "How is your day going so far?" but never "How is yourself?". And about language being all bendy like a snake, yes, but that doesn't mean I can just make anything up.
language is different from some strict, formal, in-all-respects consistent logic. - Sure, but that doesn't justify "How is yourself?" to mean "How are you?".
Because myself think that "How are/is yourself?" is not bendy, but broken. Have you used that term in that way though? It works because people understand what it is supposed to mean. I can say "Wasssup?" and yourself would know what myself mean. But "Wasssup?" is just, really, terrible.
@userr2684291 Not really. If you are going to mention "usage", then it needs to be in comparison to something. That something in this case is "How are you?" or "And you?", both of which have significantly greater frequency. I have seen only few people use "And yourself?" or any other variation of those. And most of those times, they seem to be trying to be cool.
"And yourself?" is short for "And how are yourself", which is the long version - avoided because it is just sounds awful.The "And yourself?" is logically developed/came to being in line with "And you?" (which is short for "And how are you?") to make it sound more fancy.
I guess ourselves have to agree to disagree on this.
There's no such thing as "broken" or "incorrect" language in common usage. People make mistakes alright, but if the majority of people do use a certain expression, it's part of their common language.
@AIQ I'm not sure why you keep repeating this claim. Because no one would say And how are yourself?, And yourself? can't possibly expand into that.
It's possible that for some people it expands into And how are you (, yourself)(?)? and for others perhaps And what about yourself?, but I leave that judgment for someone else to make.
Yeah. Kinda funny how everyone tolerates everyone (and that's okay, we shouldn't interfere with what others believe in), but not once do they ask themselves, "Wait a second. So among all these religions mine is the only one that's right?". The absurdity of there being a large number of religions should lead one to an obvious conclusion.
Everyone thinks they're right. Even I think I'm right, haha.
They have other sorts of calendars in other parts of the world, though, so I don't find that performance very funny.
That is because everybody is right. We all live in our own consciousness. Truth is, there is nothing outside of our consciousness. userr is nothing but a figment of my imagination
Well, true to an extent. You wouldn't believe in something if you thought it was wrong. However, this thought I just employed might not mean just that, because thinking is a rational process.
To be honest, I've had something of a frustrating day (with the court system in the US), so to be able to banter with y'all here so lightheartedly does feel unreal (or at least surreal) to me
exactly. And every choice has its own causality. "Oh you think I am going to go with the red ball? No, black ball for me." That thinking itself is causality
Well yeah, it might not. But we're getting closer, are we not?
Most of the things on the macro scale have been described as following some rules. You know how everything works, basically. And even on the micro scale. If we had a large enough microscope I'd say we'd discover more.
The proof by induction is left as an exercise to the reader, haha.
@userr2684291 Well, I have a theology exam tomorrow, and I was just reciting a verse from Quran that said "people with faith and those of Jews and Christians and [this other religion I can't anglicize] who do good things will be rewarded in kind in the afterlife".
There's also this thing that who knows if the verses are contradictory, maybe our dogmatic interpretations are.
That's a worm of cans I'm not willing to . . . do wormy things about.
@EddieKal Say you have a function that oscillates above and below a certain path but in larger scales it looks simply straight. Something like y = 2000 + 0.001sinx. Is it definitely a straight line? No. Does that matter on a big enough scale? No.
That's free will right there for you.
@userr2684291 I didn't get that. You're saying the labels are arbitrary, right?
You can't determine intentions. So whether I'm being nice to you as some sort of smart gimmick or I just mean it or whether those two are the same thing, who cares.
I know for a fact that taking it too far isn't helpful. To bang our heads against the wall that we're being selfish when we're being selfless doesn't help anything
I mean, okay, whatever the intent was, it seems like one of those things Christians say, "We all really believe in the same god.". Except one of these gods says you can't eat cow meat, the other one says you can't eat pork. The third one lets you eat whatever you want.
So I think there is a conflict. I know the example is a little stupid, but it's superficial things like that that people latch on quickly and prove their loyalty to their tribe with.
Then you also have these polytheistic religions... etc. There is obviously a conflict.
And not everyone can be right. But everyone thinks their ways are right.
That there is an origin, and that this origin is from a supernatural force, and that that supernatural force is at least one of those three omni-s (and BTW, that's a concept put forward by the Greek and expanded and explained by Muslims and Christians, although there have been enough rebuttals of it anyway in both religions at least AFAIK)
What I do know is that, to be fair, often the most outrageous beliefs of a group in any religion are handpicked and mocked. I'm not a particularly religious person myself, but I don't throw it out either.
When you read a text, be it of a Hindu, Islamic, Christian etc. POV, they are on to something and it's an appeal to modernity that we're sometimes too ignorant of the truth in the opinions of the previous generations.
I mean, sure, it changes nothing. Flat Earths and the discrepancies in the teachings are still "wrong".
@userr2684291 Well this conversation has been unfocused general remarks, no?
@It'sOver Interesting example. I was thinking of the butterfly effect in a multi pendulum system. Doesn't the butterfly effect tell us every little bit adds up however small it it? If we assume the world is a chaotic system with absolute causality, like a double pendulum, it is 100% deterministic
I guess, for the most part and for most people, in the modern world, religions, political affiliations and football teams are nothing more than sides to pick.
True. I was waiting for the store to open the other day, and some guy started preaching some BS to me. It was actually nice because I had 30 mins to kill.
When I started asking him questions, he said "God doesn't care about that," so I said "Well I do," and then he told me being rational is wrong, and that I should be more spiritual because that's the most important type of intelligence.
@It'sOver But the problem is "who is doing the looking?" "it looks like y=2000 to whom?" You'd have to have a subjective entity to be able to say "it looks like". This comes down to the old "if a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there, does it make a sound? Does it even happen?"
@userr2684291 To me, whenever someone starts a conversation like that, whether or not I agree with them, I see that I have given some things some thought that they seem not to have given any, so there's simultaneously a lot that I can and may want to say and that I don't want to spend the next 20 minutes discussing things with a total stranger, so it gets weird and awkward for me and I just mostly confirm what they say and move along.
@EddieKal Do we really need to know what the path looks like to make our decisions?
It's not my job to correct the beliefs of every random person, only if I feel they're willing to listen. And then I wouldn't be using rhetoric, just talking till my jaw drops off
Maybe, if they were like this one guy that I met at the transplant ward, that went "Trump"ing their opinions for three bloody hours and wouldn't shut up, then I would. But someone like that would rather yell and jump around like a monkey than let some light be shed on their idiotic beliefs.
Why is to "Trump" opinions not a new sense of the verb already, BTW. It sounds so fitting.
To spew enough garbage that the people's head spin and the lies warp themselves into a truth.
@AIQ I mean if I meet someone random that wanted to explain to me how the government is poisoning kids by vaccinating them, I wouldn't show much of a reaction unless I know they're willing to listen.
@userr2684291 No, repeating a lie so often and with such intensity that truth itself gets out of the building
@EddieKal Well, I guess a superstitious crowd will object to what they don't understand in a similar fashion, regardless of religion, region, or historical era.
We had this awesome PM, so awesome that Lincoln or any other humanist in history would envy him, called Amir Kabir. He reinforced vaccination against smallbox back at 1848 (Google). Back then, anti-vaxxers refrained, claiming they insert genies into the blood that possess the kid.
He imposed heavy fines for people that refrained, 5 tomans. Which was a lot back then, I think. People—often so poor they would only have seen one meal a day their whole life—still paid the fine and didn't vaccinate.
It is said that he then headed to a desert and cried for a day.
Thanks to the efforts of famous colleges and scholars in Iran in the early twentieth century, the anti-vaccination superstitions almost vanished completely
Now, with the advent of social media, and more and more Iranians spending their time there, especially older people, the anti-vaccination bullshit spread by paranoid westerners is gaining some following. I don't have the figures to know if it's serious or not, but I hear from anti-vaxxers every now and then these days.
@It'sOver That is what I thought. I thought anti-vaccination would be an extremely minority concern in most countries. I thought only in the US can you find throngs of rednecks attacking vaccination as a transgression against their bodies.
Nothing out of the ordinary is happening. Propaganda on TV, social and economical distress for everyone but the wealthy 1 percent, some funny squirrelhead abroad being an arsehole
@AIQ Well, the US govt. accidentally shot a plane full of Iranians back then and nothing happened to them. Why would Iranian govt. accidentally shooting a plane full of Iranians cause anything to happen?
Language Overflow
Language Overflow