This conversation is closed.

In appreciation of Lesley Hazleton

"The only place appropriate for using the informal word 'Badass' in the TED community is when describing Lesley Hazleton."

Read the sentence above and state your view on the matter. Use examples from the talk above. Bonus Points are awarded to TEDdies who use split infinitives.



(See related debate :" Which TED speakers are actually Marvel Characters in disguise?"
also: "Which TED speaker is Batman?")

  • Jun 25 2013: Because, of course, we don't get enough people committing the No True Scotsmen fallacy, or using the word "faith" as if it referred to one thing alone, when she's talking about completely different concepts, in different fields of human experience?

    Yes. Kudos on preaching lukewarm woo, Lesley. Kudos on your lack of originality, too! I too have faith that many more will say the exact same nonsense you have, and people will applaud.
  • Jun 25 2013: Dear Dear TEDies,
    Thank you taking the time to write a reply. However, I would like to point out two things:
    1) Try not to hate too much here. We have enough hate and anger swilling around outside.
    2) Edward Long gets a bonus point! "(to) proudly wear the label". Good job Edward! Your split infinitives are cool.
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: Thank you sir. Hidden between "you" and "either" is the sign "to". It serves both verbs ("list" and "wear"). At the risk of sounding certain, and not wanting to be labeled a Fundamentalist Grammarian Zealot, I hereby disavow any sense of certainty about the appropriateness of my use of infinitives, and, further, I hereby confirm having some doubts.
  • thumb
    Jun 25 2013: You do realize that your certainty about the value of Ms. Hazelton's doctrine is a violation of her stated doctrine and makes you an "infidel"? Unless you have doubts about her pontifications you are, by her definition, a radical fundamentalist. With that in mind I ask you to either list your doubts about her clever musings, or proudly wear the label "I Am An Arrogant Fundamentalist Zealot".
  • Jun 27 2013: Brilliant!
  • Jun 25 2013: I don't quite get it or the comment by RS but I enjoyed the talk. Now to read a translation of the Koran
    • thumb
      Jun 25 2013: "No True Scotsman": A fallacy of Logic where a generalization is made true only when a counter-example is ruled shaky.
      • Jun 25 2013: An example from Dr. Wik E. Pedia:
        "The use of the term was advanced by British philosopher Antony Flew:

        Imagine Hamish McDonald, a Scotsman, sitting down with his Glasgow Morning Herald and seeing an article about how the "Brighton Sex Maniac Strikes Again". Hamish is shocked and declares that "No Scotsman would do such a thing". The next day he sits down to read his Glasgow Morning Herald again; and, this time, finds an article about an Aberdeen man whose brutal actions make the Brighton sex maniac seem almost gentlemanly. This fact shows that Hamish was wrong in his opinion but is he going to admit this? Not likely. This time he says, "No true Scotsman would do such a thing".[2]

        When the statement "all A are B" is qualified like this to exclude those A which are not B, this is a form of begging the question; the conclusion is assumed by the definition of "true A"."
        Isn't Anthony Flew a terrific name?