Bale is a winger, no he is a full back etc. blah blah blah

[StartingPrice]

About 2 posters :-|

Im demonstrating that players dont need to have primary position

If i was to be pushed to answer "What is his position?" i would say left sided player

So anyone saying "He is a winger" is correct as is anyone saying "He is a Fullback"

No. More than two posters.

I've explained why I made the distinction...after saying to you literally, or referring to you inmy original post in this thread, that I don't have any problem with anyone saying 'he is a left-sided player'. I have been saying this for weeks, actually.

If I were pushed to say what his position is I would say: "full-back, who can also play on the wing". Said it dozens of times.

The point about saying 'he is a winger' bneing correct, I have actually explained in the post you are responding to.
But there again, you have already ignored what I have 'literally' said several times already, so why change the habits...:-|

All players have a primary position.

 

[chrissivad]

as others and my self have said plenty of times why he is also a winger. But you seem to ignore them all the time :|

 

[StartingPrice]

as others and my self have said plenty of times why he is also a winger. But you seem to ignore them all the time :|

Are you really going to make me go through all of those threads to show you the, literally, dozens of times, where I have said he is a full-back who can also play on the wing? :-|

Seems I didn't ignore it.

 

[Raxscallion]

No, I mean ignorant, as in someone who ignores something. if I didn't read it, I would be ignoring it, that may be rude, it would also be ignorant. Or do you believe forming an opinion about something someone has said, without reading it, is just rude? To me anyone who demonstrates such a proclivity is actually ignorant.

Nope, that's fair enough. I was just checking. Your post could have been read either way, and the number of people who appear to believe that ignorant means 'rude' is staggering. The irony when the word is misused like that is physically painful to me. :-D

To be fair, your use of it isn't quite right either. Ignorant means 'uninformed', not 'ignoring something'.

 

[StartingPrice]

Nope, that's fair enough. I was just checking. Your post could have been read either way, and the number of people who appear to believe that ignorant means 'rude' is staggering. The irony when the word is misused like that is physically painful to me. :-D

Don't want to sound ignorant, like, but do you have a skin condition making you incredibly sensitive...The Singing Detectivemg::grin:

 

[Raxscallion]

Don't want to sound ignorant, like, but do you have a skin condition making you incredibly sensitive...The Singing Detectivemg::grin:

Self-confessed pedant. :grin:

 

[Paq]

Because some posters were being abusive about anyone who didn't 'understand' that Bale IS a winger. I was demonstrating that if a player has a primary position, even if they have a secondary position, it is more accurate, if you are to give them one descriptor, to use the primary one...therefore, although he can be described as a winger (as that is his secondary position...ATM), that is only a secondary position. If you were pushed, therefore, to give a simple one phrase answer to the question: "What is his position"?, it is more accurate to say 'full-back' than 'winger'. Therefore, anyone who 'doesn't understand that he IS a winger' isn't an idiot...which was actually posted.
Honestly, Chris, this is all in my original post in this thread, you are making me repeat myself.



I insisted on the more exact language of primary classification, for the reason give to Chris, above.
Please, try to take this on board...I answered people who said 'Bale IS a winger', 'Anyone who can't see Bale is a winger is an idiot', 'See, Bale IS a winger'. I chose to do that by demonstrating that his primary position is as a full-back. I never anywhere said anyone specifically said "Bale's primary classification is as a winger" - that is a spin you are putting on this, for your own purposes.
Your are still trying to turn a post I made to clarify that I wasn't trying to deny anyone their opinion (as to Bale's best position), into an in depth philosophical argument, where none exists.

REBRAB - sadly, I have answered Chris several times, on this...and have again, above. If you read my first post in the thread, you, too, may not feel the need to ask it.

Mate, sorry but in response to me saying very clearly that people have not been arguing that Bale's primary classification is as a winger, you just said "On several threads over several weeks. It is the only thing I am interested in." So have they been arguing that or not?

I'm not trying to turn this into anything, least of all an 'in depth philosophical argument' but you've been adamant that it's a fact that Bale is a full back and have stated that it's an academic argument based on use of language. You've tried to introduce specific language to make your point. I've pointed out to you that that specific language actually argues a different point.

If people were saying 'Bale's primary classification is winger', they would be factually wrong as a glance at the OS confirms. But people arguing that 'Bale is a winger' are not factually wrong as you've claimed them to be. People can argue that Bale is a winger regardless of his 'primary classification'. Do you see the difference?

 

[StartingPrice]

Mate, sorry but in response to me saying very clearly that people have not been arguing that Bale's primary classification is as a winger, you just said "On several threads over several weeks. It is the only thing I am interested in." So have they been arguing that or not?

I'm not trying to turn this into anything, least of all an 'in depth philosophical argument' but you've been adamant that it's a fact that Bale is a full back and have stated that it's an academic argument based on use of language. You've tried to introduce specific language to make your point. I've pointed out to you that that specific language actually argues a different point.

If people were saying 'Bale's primary classification is winger', they would be factually wrong as a glance at the OS confirms. But people arguing that 'Bale is a winger' are not factually wrong as you've claimed them to be. People can argue that Bale is a winger regardless of his 'primary classification'. Do you see the difference?

Of course I see the difference.
I've made the distinction several times myself.
If you say Bale is a full-back who also plays on the wing, you are, de facto, saying he is a winger.
But if you say 'Bale IS a winger', 'Anyone who can't see that Bale IS a winger is an idiot', 'See, Bale IS a winger' - where the implication is clearly (if unstated) that he is a winger to the exclusion of being a full-back, then you are being factually incorrect, because you are attmepting to fix his primary position as 'winger' as part of an argument that he 'should be converted into a winger permanently'.
And that is what I am arguing against.
Theefore, if it is established that his primary categorisation is 'full-back', then it is not 'idiotic' to say he is a full-back. Nor is it 'idiotic' to say that he is a 'winger'. But if only one categorisation is requested, it is MORE accurate to say he is a 'full-back', than to say he is a 'winger'.

I see you have returned to the 'academic argument based on use of language' - ignoring the fact that I have already explained that to you. It is an academic argument based on the use of language, as opposed to a footballing argument based on opinion. I didn't say it was a question of langauge to vex Noam Comsky...surely you can see that:shrug:

No. I thinik I've answered this already. I didn't say anyone said: 'Bale's primary classification is as a winger' - they implied it. Which is why I wanted to establish the difference between a primary categorisation and a secondary. Can you see this?

I actually requested these people, on several occasions, to clarify, if they were saying 'I would prefer to see Bale converted permanently into a winger', which, taken in conjunction my frequent statements that Bale is a full-back who can also play on the wing, negates the position you are tryint to take. As their response was, uniformly, 'He's a winger', it supports the position I am taking...that their unspoken content was that Bale's primary categorisation was as a winger.

Does your study of logic exclude subtle nuances of language?

 

[nailsy]

:shrug:So, is Modric a centre midfield player or a leftsided player?

He's a full back.

 

[Raxscallion]

He's a full back.

:stupid:

He's a line-backer.

 

[Paq]

Of course I see the difference.

[FONT=&quot] Not ‘of course’ at all but ok, good.

[/FONT]

I've made the distinction several times myself.

Ok

If you say Bale is a full-back who also plays on the wing, you are, de facto, saying he is a winger.

[FONT=&quot] No you’re not. You’re saying that he is a full back who also plays on the wing[/FONT].

But if you say 'Bale IS a winger', 'Anyone who can't see that Bale IS a winger is an idiot', 'See, Bale IS a winger' - where the implication is clearly (if unstated) that he is a winger to the exclusion of being a full-back,

[FONT=&quot]Exclusion of another position is not the natural implication[/FONT]

then you are being factually incorrect, because you are attmepting to fix his primary position as 'winger' as part of an argument that he 'should be converted into a winger permanently'.
And that is what I am arguing against.

[FONT=&quot] This simply isn’t true. You rightly state that ‘is’ and ‘ought’ are separate principles but that’s irrelevant. The ‘ought’ argument is not the argument people are making. I haven’t seen anyone explicitly try to fix his primary position as winger and saying that he is a winger isn’t implicitly fixing his position either if you accept that his primary classification is full back, which people do.[/FONT]

If you think Bale is a winger then it’s likely you view him as a winger who can play at full back; just like if you think he’s a full back, you likely view him as a full back who can play as a winger. Saying that he’s either a full back or a winger doesn’t exclude the other position. The perspective of your opponents, as I read it, is that Bale is a winger who is classified as a full back. Of course people will not type ‘Bale is a winger whose primary classification is fullback’ – why would they? Who speaks like that? They’ll say ‘Bale is a winger’. They’re not arguing that his primary classification is winger or that it ought to be (that it ought to be probably does underpin their thinking but it isn’t their argument).

The difficulty with this discussion has been that what is being offered are subjective positions where you seek an objective argument based on the language you’ve introduced. That’s fair enough but the language you’ve introduced hasn’t been sufficiently clear to make the distinction between the academic and the football argument. I see why you’ve chosen it but one can still respond to you with a subjective view that is valid and sound and not factually incorrect as you claim it to be. Essentially, different arguments are taking place.

Theefore, if it is established that his primary categorisation is 'full-back', then it is not 'idiotic' to say he is a full-back.

[FONT=&quot]I agree, it is not idiotic[/FONT]

Nor is it 'idiotic' to say that he is a 'winger'.

[FONT=&quot] I agree, it is not idiotic[/FONT]

But if only one categorisation is requested, it is MORE accurate to say he is a 'full-back', than to say he is a 'winger'.

This is probably the crux of the matter.If only one categorisation is requested for the purpose of attaining his primary classification (according to the OS for example), then accuracy doesn’t even come into it – left back would be the factually correct answer. But who is asking that question? If only one categorisation was sought for some other purpose, then the answer given may well be different. To elucidate my point, we could do two polls. The first “Is Bale primarily classified as a full back?” Overwhelmingly the answer would be yes. The second poll reads “Is Bale a fullback or a winger?” the results would be more split.

I see you have returned to the 'academic argument based on use of language' - ignoring the fact that I have already explained that to you.

[FONT=&quot] I haven’t ignored you; your answer was unsatisfactory and didn’t address the point I was making[/FONT]

It is an academic argument based on the use of language, as opposed to a footballing argument based on opinion.

[FONT=&quot] Yes, I understood this the first time you said it. Like I said, you introduced specific language to make your point and that language actually argues something else. If you’re going to set this up as an academic argument based on language, you must use language which accurately reflects your argument as well as sufficiently defining the parameters of the argument[/FONT]

I didn't say it was a question of langauge to vex Noam Comsky...surely you can see that:shrug:

[FONT=&quot]Yes, I can[/FONT].

No. I thinik I've answered this already. I didn't say anyone said: 'Bale's primary classification is as a winger' - they implied it.

[FONT=&quot]Ok, that isn’t the answer you gave me first time round but if that’s what you meant then fair enough. Incidentally, I don’t think this has been implied[/FONT]

Which is why I wanted to establish the difference between a primary categorisation and a secondary. Can you see this?

Ok.

I actually requested these people, on several occasions, to clarify, if they were saying 'I would prefer to see Bale converted permanently into a winger', which, taken in conjunction my frequent statements that Bale is a full-back who can also play on the wing, negates the position you are tryint to take.

[FONT=&quot]I don’t think you understand my position. Like I said, the is/ought distinction is irrelevant. [/FONT]

As their response was, uniformly, 'He's a winger', it supports the position I am taking...that their unspoken content was that Bale's primary categorisation was as a winger.

[FONT=&quot]I've addressed this above; I don’t think this is the implication. We’ll have to agree to differ.[/FONT]

Does your study of logic exclude subtle nuances of language?

I’ll leave you and others to offer a conclusion on that one…

 

[StartingPrice]

Paq and myself seem to be the only people interested in this, so I am going to send him a PM.

:hello: