Gamma is illegal but tolerated in Jamaica. And here it's actually more legal than there

Ganja^

So i was right about the blood of christ thing?

I come from where I am currently located.

AKA "I'm from here".

It means "this is my home."

What brings this up? Did someone say this as an answer? Because that person is a pretentious asshole, then. Or is it from a poem? As poetry I think one can say something pretty interesting in unpacking a phrase like that. Or, just as easily, be a pretentious asshole in written form.

People who hold forth ambiguous statements as if they are profound are pretentious bores. "I'm from where I am" means the speaker has nothing genuine to say, and is bluffing you with bullshit. Granted, everyone does that sometimes, but applauding it only makes it worse.

It's not from anywhere, Invictus, it just came into my head, and I felt it could mean many different things. I wanted to know what you all thought it could mean.

I also cringe when I see people like tendmote shut down discussions by saying having your thoughts provoked by something they find boring is pretentious, but whatever. It's not the first time someone on the Internet has interpreted me that way

Tendmote tries to shut down virtually every discussion. It's just what he does.

Well, I'm an old man. Anyway, it's one thing to identify an ambiguity that's inherent in the real world, things like that are worth reflecting on. But a statement like "I'm from where I am" is just a person being unclear.

It's instructive though that most of you seem to think it's inherently an unconstructive, meaningless, or evasive non-statement. This is an interesting result if not altogether surprising.

I find it genuinely fascinating how topics whose main subject of concern is Being itself are frequently considered so trivial as to be unimportant, or so obvious as to be irrelevant.

What's funny is that for the same reasons it strikes me in the opposite way, that is, the most basic is the most important, rather than the other way around. Statements like these are interesting because they are true in a number of ways, each with myriad fundamental implications. In this case the nature of space and time are in play, and the statement could potentially be commenting on it, I think anyway.

That is some pretentious twaddle, and with a sneering, condescending tone that is entirely unwarranted. What the hell is wrong with you?

I say this all the time because I struggle to identify what my hometown is. I was born in Connecticut and moved away when I was 10. I lived in Florida from ages 10-15, then was in DC to finish up high school, and went up to Boston for college and have been up here working since. I don't really feel like I can say I'm from Connecticut because none of my formative years were there, and likewise it feels weird to say I'm from Florida or DC as well. I feel more from Boston now than I do from any of those other places, and if I end up somewhere else and settle down there in the near or distant future, I don't think I would be able to say I'm from Boston. I can most easily just say and feel that I'm from wherever I am.

If a lot of people disagree with you about something that is per se dependent on social conventions, the proper reaction would be to engage in self-criticism, not assume that everyone else is wrong and you're right.

If it's math, hey, perhaps the crowd is wrong. But when you're talking about a matter of ordinary language philosophy, popular opinion is sort of...gospel. Words mean what they are used to mean.

Reflect on this. Or be a typical internet argument troll and continue to imagine you're so much smarter than us.

Argumentum ad popularum is weak tea. Although it seems to be a favorite tactic (fallacy) here. Always play to the crowd.

And when do we declare that the public has convened and declared oneself wrong so you must change your POV? When three people post negative responses? Absurd.

No, it's literally true here when you're dealing with a matter of ordinary language philosophy. There's nothing else about language than how people use words. So what most people agree on IS the definition of a word.

Seriously, reconsider what you're saying. We're not arguing that the square root of 9 is 2 because most people say that, nor are we arguing that we should go to war with ISIS because most people say that; we're saying that, as most people take a conversational phrase to mean a certain thing, it DOES in fact have that meaning.

This is how it works.

"It's instructive though that most of you seem to think it's inherently an unconstructive, meaningless, or evasive non-statement."

That's Thucydides himself refuting you. #rekt

This is reminding me of the time it took me like 15 posts to prove that, indeed, the contrapositive of a conditional is equivalent to that conditional. That seriously happened, right on these forums! That was fun!

No, no it doesn't. Bazillions of people use the word literally incorrectly. That doesn't change the definition of literally just because tons of people say it that way. Bazillions of people use plural pronouns when they should use singular. That doesn't mean the plural is correct. There's such a thing as common language errors.

Wow Duff, I'm sorry you seem to have taken what I said personally. It was not directed at you particularly and furthermore wasn't meant to be derisive of anyone or their ideas or criticism. I tried to be careful to be validating of everything everyone here said; I started the thread precisely for the sake of criticism, and if trolling is starting discussions with the intent to harass, I testify that that is my last wish.

In some sense your reaction gets to the heart of the matter though. Why is it that you think I'm insisting I'm right and everyone else is wrong? I don't believe I'm doing that. Providing my perspective, yes, denigrating others' - I hope not.

I wonder if you could comment on what I was saying about how the demand for a particular context, to me, suggests an impatience, on a lot responders' parts, with things considered ultra-broad or all-inclusive.

For instance I'd wager you would also hear the phrase "everywhere is somewhere" or "everything is anything and anything is everything," and other statements along these lines, and react similarly? Which is to say basically you consider such things meaningless, time-wasting, trolling, pretension, etc.?

Am I wrong? Once again this is not an attack in disguise. I reiterate that I made the thread precisely for the purpose of giving your perspectives a hearing, not so that I could laugh at you or something cruel like that.

@DuffMcWhalen @Putin33

Thucydides himself said "it just came into my head, and I felt it could mean many different things." As such it is just words. There's no idea behind it, so don't worry about what it means. Nothing is *meant* at all.

@Thucydides
Sorry I made you cringe, but you asked the question, and my answer was credible. Not everything that pops in your head is a keeper.

PS: "everywhere is somewhere" and "everything is anything and anything is everything" get the same reaction from me.

PPS: "Tu quoque" fallacy is popular here as well - "discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position" (thanks wikipedia! my source of knowledge.)

"(thanks wikipedia! my source of knowledge.)"

Understatement of the year.

As to prescriptive versus descriptive grammar, I'm actually with Duff - a descriptivist. However as a descriptivist, this means you do not have to play by the dictionary's rules nor anyone else's, and can instead play by the rules of connotation and wordplay. And anyway, several other people here offered a meaning that was divorced of an assumed conversational context. Many seemed to think it means "this is my home," which I agree is a possible reading, just as I agreed your readings were possible Duff.

To me y2k is closest onto how I felt about it when it first popped into my head. I had just taken a bike ride around my neighborhood in New Orleans after being abroad, and have just visited my hometown in Texas. Yet I felt at home in each place. I began to realize - it is because where I am is where I'm from.

But I was hoping to see if anyone here felt the same way, or even better if anyone thought the statement in that sense was really true, for them or anyone, and if not, what it meant to them.

Well, to a prescriptivist that's right. But not a descriptivist. And, while people using "literally" to mean things that are not actually, literally true brings tears to this old reactionary's eyes, the descriptivists are right, ultimately.

For example, "pretend" used to just mean to make a claim, true or false. That's where we get the word "pretender" to mean a royal claimant, and have the word apply both to people with a rightful claim and to total frauds. But, over the years, "pretend" came to mean many other things. When it comes to a claim, outside of the "pretender" example itself the claim is always an untrue one, whether a lie or just fantasy. So languages change through widely accepted "errors." That's their nature.

That was for Putin33's 10:29 post.

Whence this idea that language is meaningless without context? Have you never stumbled across some scrap of paper, some line of verse, and had it strike you personally in a funny way? This happens to me all the time. I know I'm not the only one. It happened with your name tendmote. I think your name is apt because whenever I try to turn the discussion toward the universal, you respond by dismissing it, and insisting on a particular, which I find funny given your name: tendmote tending his motes.

Of course I doubt that's what you meant when you made your name, but so what? Words don't just mean one thing. A good descriptivist knows that

Linguistic descriptivism is self-defeating. It effectively means language cannot be taught.

Well, Thucydides, I'm trying to do you a favor. If you have "universal" aspirations, and dwell on every random thought that pops into your head at the same time, your mental process is just going to turn into a pinball machine. You've got to have some standards for what's significant, and what's not.