i closed the post and then reopened it. milo is commenting on how you discuss this specific topic. you have a stance, he states, if this is your stance or observation, he doesn't understand it. in a discussion we often take what people say at face value, it doesn't mean we know you.
he said
Why you would ascribe a cliché argument like "literature is timeless" to me is baffling,
this is not a poem opf yours, its views you profess to be your own, someone saying 'all gays should die' in a discussion would lead me to believe the person is anti gay. it's not rocket science is it. should a person say it in a poem isn't as clear cut. if you say you believe this or take that stand point we can't help but reply as if you're telling the truth. we haven't gained knowledge of who you are, we're merely replying to your point of view. are you crazy, i haven't got a clue, do i agree with your views? certainly not i think in the main they don't hold water,
you call him out for not using source, it's a discussion, he gave his pov more than once and reasons for it, even source material which was interesting, are you saying don't believe him because he didn't back it up but believe you because you copy and pasted a few poems. so lets be clear, inferences from a discussion are to be expected, it even a given, i can respond with certainty as to what your reply will be, simply by seeing how you react to previous post. i can if needed wind you up in order to make a bad pov seem better than yours but here that isn't the case. your premise of knowledge or poets has to be based on objectivity and that's an impossibility by just reading their poetry alone. what you're arguing is a subjective pov and at best that can only be a good guess. unless you know, you only think or guess.
no name calling no attacks, subjective is when you think or have personal bias, objective is when you actually know for fact.
the question i now ask is this,
can you definitively state after read a poets poems to objectively know, or partly know that person.
it's one word answer yes or no
to say to me 'i think i do' or anything resembling 'i think i do' isn't good enough, doesn't cut the mustard, doesn't fit the foot, doesn't fly. because that would be you being subjective.
if you say yes, yet you've had access to media outside the poem doesn't walk either.
Try and notice what i've just done.
one simple question, and i'm fine with 99.9 percent certain 'cause i know nothing can be 100% :J:
a works stands alone by the words within it and nothing else. we need not have knowledge of a truth or a person associated with it, we need not know if it's fact or fiction. it stand or falls by the text that forms the poem.
rowling wrote a love story after the harry potter book under a pen name and it bombed (i shit you not) then a college professor said he though he recognised the style to mrs rowling's she blushed a lot and said, "yes, it's mine i wanted to see how a book of mine would go under a pen name...it fuckin bombed fell flat did shite. after the world knew she'd wrote the shitty book it hit the best seller list. her book didn't stand on it's own
he said
Why you would ascribe a cliché argument like "literature is timeless" to me is baffling,
this is not a poem opf yours, its views you profess to be your own, someone saying 'all gays should die' in a discussion would lead me to believe the person is anti gay. it's not rocket science is it. should a person say it in a poem isn't as clear cut. if you say you believe this or take that stand point we can't help but reply as if you're telling the truth. we haven't gained knowledge of who you are, we're merely replying to your point of view. are you crazy, i haven't got a clue, do i agree with your views? certainly not i think in the main they don't hold water,
you call him out for not using source, it's a discussion, he gave his pov more than once and reasons for it, even source material which was interesting, are you saying don't believe him because he didn't back it up but believe you because you copy and pasted a few poems. so lets be clear, inferences from a discussion are to be expected, it even a given, i can respond with certainty as to what your reply will be, simply by seeing how you react to previous post. i can if needed wind you up in order to make a bad pov seem better than yours but here that isn't the case. your premise of knowledge or poets has to be based on objectivity and that's an impossibility by just reading their poetry alone. what you're arguing is a subjective pov and at best that can only be a good guess. unless you know, you only think or guess.
no name calling no attacks, subjective is when you think or have personal bias, objective is when you actually know for fact.
the question i now ask is this,
can you definitively state after read a poets poems to objectively know, or partly know that person.
it's one word answer yes or no
to say to me 'i think i do' or anything resembling 'i think i do' isn't good enough, doesn't cut the mustard, doesn't fit the foot, doesn't fly. because that would be you being subjective.
if you say yes, yet you've had access to media outside the poem doesn't walk either.
Try and notice what i've just done.
one simple question, and i'm fine with 99.9 percent certain 'cause i know nothing can be 100% :J:
a works stands alone by the words within it and nothing else. we need not have knowledge of a truth or a person associated with it, we need not know if it's fact or fiction. it stand or falls by the text that forms the poem.
rowling wrote a love story after the harry potter book under a pen name and it bombed (i shit you not) then a college professor said he though he recognised the style to mrs rowling's she blushed a lot and said, "yes, it's mine i wanted to see how a book of mine would go under a pen name...it fuckin bombed fell flat did shite. after the world knew she'd wrote the shitty book it hit the best seller list. her book didn't stand on it's own