The death of the question

raah!

The Corinthian wrote: »

Generally when one speaks generically of the 'status quo' it would imply to the whole of Society. Otherwise you can naturally have a status quo in subsets, but you really have to specify them when you mention the term.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo

Well, not wanting to be pedantic, it does in that the status quo of "people here" and of Society as a whole are not exactly the same on topics like the Bible, or in many other areas - so you do have to be clearer.

That's exactly why I mentioned it. I was actually quite clear that I meant the status quo of a subset rather than the whole. And there are several indicators to a plurality of status quo.

Advanced, no. However clearly I have knowledge of the term. Not word, btw.

Very good. You should read people's posts before responding to them and going in a circle like this. Unless you're unable to read, it's quite clear a distinction was made between status quo's.

Actually in most cases people defer to experts, and this can be a problem because many experts are flawed, or lack objectivity ('fashion' and politics in the social sciences is a good example of this) or base their 'science' on flawed axioms or logic (e.g. intelligent design).

That's why to truly question something people occasionally need to go back to first principles. Why do we all wear red hats? Why is it so important? What is a red hat?

And to question things which a certain scientist has arrived at after 4 years of study would require to go and do 4 years of study to travel from first principles to this later state.

Why did your post start with the word actually? Do you have some sort of other motive in replying to my posts? Why are you rephrasing my posts as though you are teaching me something?

If you are making general points then there is no need to quote specific parts of my post.

The Corinthian

raah! wrote: »

That's exactly why I mentioned it. I was actually quite clear that I meant the status quo of a subset rather than the whole. And there are several indicators to a plurality of status quo.

No, you were not and there were not.

And to question things which a certain scientist has arrived at after 4 years of study would require to go and do 4 years of study to travel from first principles to this later state.

Does one need to study for four years to be able to assess a single question?

Why did your post start with the word actually? Do you have some sort of other motive in replying to my posts? Why are you rephrasing my posts as though you are teaching me something?

Between that and the snipe about my literacy, you're beginning to sound quite defensive.

raah!

The Corinthian wrote: »

No, you were not and there were not.

Does one need to study for four years to be able to assess a single question?

Between that and the snipe about my literacy, you're beginning to sound quite defensive.

More irritated than defensive. I don't see why you keep quoting my posts with nothing relevent other than pedantic nitpickery. Which you later recant, only to hide behind how clear my meaning was. Status quo in no way is a term which exclusively refers to entire countries. Restricting its use in such a manner is wrong.

The Corinthian

raah! wrote: »

More irritated than defensive. I don't see why you keep quoting my posts with nothing relevent other than pedantic nitpickery. Which you later recant, only to hide behind how clear my meaning was. Status quo in no way is a term which exclusively refers to entire countries. Restricting its use in such a manner is wrong.

Because you say so? I'm sorry but that is not what is typically perceived when someone speaks in general terms about status quo, as you did.

I've recanted nothing and originally responded simply to what you wrote. If that was not your meaning, fair enough; clarify and then move on. No biggie. But please don't try to justify your cavalier use of the term.

raah!

raah! wrote: »

I have found the opinions expressed here to be fairly prevelent amongst my peer groups. The whole idea of not questioning the status quo loses most of it's significance if we are not talking about that status quo held up by our own peers.

The Corinthian wrote: »

So when you are discussing the status quo, you don't really mean the status quo. You mean the prevalent views of a subset of society. OK.

Here is your post where you say the status quo cannot be applied to a subgroup, after quoting above post where explicit reference to a subgroup was made.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Generally when one speaks generically of the 'status quo' it would imply to the whole of Society. Otherwise you can naturally have a status quo in subsets, but you really have to specify them when you mention the term.

Here you contradict yourself and say that it is acceptable once one specifies that one is speaking about taht subset.

Now you can say that I never specified it, but the bold part of the quote obviously implies that.

You could make an argument that my first post was referencing an absolute status quo, but terms like "this" and all those subsequent posts (particularly the posts before you mentioned this distinction) show that I obviously had in mind the status quo of that particular subset of society. Namely, "people on here".

You have also given no support to the claim that status quo means the average views of a country. There is certainly nothing to support this in the etymology of the word.