Okay, idiot, we are now officially at odds. I'm so sick of your uneducated, overconfident person pretending to have half a clue about what he's saying. Oh, so you think the Romantic poets are aptly described as "intellectual" when they were, in fact, rebelling against the intellectualism of the Enlightenment? The problem isn't that you're wrong about whether poets are made or born or what "intellectual" means, but rather that you need to go back and finish junior college. Or are you too busy playing poker?
You're a joke, man. You obviously have a Wikipedia education in literature and logic. You can't even use a dictionary properly or even make any point without resorting to fallacious reasoning.
You're equivocating plain and simple. I have pointed this out to you, but you insist on continuing to do so. You keep trying to appropriate Keats, perhaps the archetypal Romantic, into your implausible revision of literary history, simply to win an argument on the internet.
If I know of anyone who dedicates a large amount of time to perverting the language just so he can be right about some non-issue, then I'd call him a dumb ***. No one cares about what some uninformed yahoo considers intellectual; people care about established conventions of language that allow them to address other persons--including uninformed yahoos. Calling Keats an intellectual because he used his brain is like calling Voltaire a Romantic because he had feelings.
Consider:
Changes in society, beginning in the 18th century and continuing into our own time, underlie the romantic movement. It starts as a reaction against the intellectualism of the Enlightenment, against the rigidity of social structures protecting privilege, and against the materialism of an age which, in the first stirring of the Industrial Revolution, already shows signs of making workers the slaves of machinery and of creating squalid urban environments.
http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/...#ixzz1wAYZMT1L
"Romanticism" is the label for a literary-philosophical-artistic-musical-political movement which is often seen primarily as a rebellion against the stifling intellectualism and rigid logic of the Enlightenment
http://public.wsu.edu/~brians/hum_303/humintro.html
Get over yourself, scrub. You're wrong. Again. Now go cry in the corner. And then fill out the application for the community college.
If you can't determine what Miyako meant in the post in question, then it's a problem with your reading, not Miyako's writing. For Chrissake, J, for whom English is a second language, understood it perfectly. Why can't you, as a native speaker, do the same?
We all know the answer. You are CONSTITUTIONALLY INCAPABLE of admitting you were wrong. You're a narcissist with some massive insecurity about art and culture. You have some big vendetta against Miyako, presumably, because she suggested you were wrong previously. And so you have no recourse but to demonstrate the inadequacies of your public school education in attempt to discredit her.
They have a name when for when you purposely misrepresent what someone says.
Straw Man
You commit the straw man fallacy whenever you attribute an easily refuted position to your opponent, one that the opponent wouldn’t endorse, and then proceed to attack the easily refuted position (the straw man) believing you have undermined the opponent’s actual position. If the misrepresentation is on purpose, then the straw man fallacy is caused by lying.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#StrawMan
I demand you cite where Miyako claimed that emotions were alone sufficient for the writing of poetry. Can't do it? I wonder why.
Fallacy
1. Miyako says Vendler isn't a formalist.
Therefore, Miyako is defending Vendler
Consider:
Non Sequitur
When a conclusion is supported only by extremely weak reasons or by irrelevant reasons, the argument is fallacious and is said to be a non sequitur.
http://www.iep.utm.edu/fallacy/#NonSequitur
You *seem* to have this sophomoric notion that including the word "seem" in an indictment excuses you from your logical responsibilities. In this, you are wrong.
Consider this similar fallacy:
1. Morpheus is attacking Miyako.
2. Therefore, Morpheus seems to hate Miyako.
The inclusion of "seem" does not avoid the error
It "seems" as though you want to kill Miyako. It "seems" as though you're the type of person who hangs corpses in his closet. It "seems" as though you might cannibalize children.
What's the matter? I said "seems".
Says the guy who thinks Keats was a big intellectual, metaphysics is medieval voodoo and the laws of logic and mathematics can, in no way, exist outside the physical universe. So if we can write Schneider off on the grounds of an exchange he had on the internet, then, surely, we can write you off too.