Ages old debate of reading vs. listening to books

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Except for the part where you dismiss the possibility of one person being both very literate AND a listener. It's not an either/or thing. Some highly literate people listen to audiobooks. To deny that is pointless. The direct connection you're implying between literacy and how someone chooses to consume books is fictional (as well as being a textbook example of a non sequitur).

A case in point: I'd like to consider myself a pretty literate chap, but I do quite a few long car journeys on business, and listen to audiobooks in the car on such journeys. I really don't think that doing so degrade my reading abilities!

[sealbeater]

Alright, fun's fun but I've had enough. Dropping out of this thread.

EDIT: Ok, now I'm out....for now.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Yes it is a joke. As funny a joke as believing that you would have granted a "listener" the same reprieve had they made a similar "mistake."

Actually I would have. There has been no harping from me on spelling mistakes at all. Even the homonym mistake I corrected, I took care to not dwell on it nor call it out.

Not counting the other "mistakes" I've overlooked.

EDIT: I mean...it's a web forum..."interpert" instead of "interpret" is a very understandable mistake esp when typing a quick response on the web. Not quite the same thing as "going too the fare". That's an obvious mistake of a different calibre.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

The direct connection you're implying between literacy and how someone chooses to consume books is fictional (as well as being a textbook example of a non sequitur).

I keep trying to leave but they keep dragging me back in.

So, someone who literally is illiterate, as in, cannot read or write a single word, if they were to consume audiobooks by the truckload, would you say they were literate? Because the actual definition of the word would imply otherwise.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A case in point: I'd like to consider myself a pretty literate chap, but I do quite a few long car journeys on business, and listen to audiobooks in the car on such journeys. I really don't think that doing so degrade my reading abilities!

I would say that would depend on the ratio. I've already posted research that states that "summer loss" is a real thing.

Quite a few long car journeys interspersed with periods of actual reading, I doubt you would lose much, if any.


Listen to audiobooks for a year and not the written word for an equivalent time frame? I would be curious to see.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by HarryT

A case in point: I'd like to consider myself a pretty literate chap, but I do quite a few long car journeys on business, and listen to audiobooks in the car on such journeys. I really don't think that doing so degrade my reading abilities!

Exactly so!
If literacy were to be measured on a running scale, however, there would be many things that could cause us to be "less literate." Such as putting down a book to eat or to sleep. I don't know about you, but I am hopelessly illiterate while I'm sleeping. Embarrasingly so. I only hope that all of that watching and listening to my dreams doesn't permanently affekt my abilty to comperhand stuffs.

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

So, someone who literally is illiterate, as in, cannot read or write a single word, if they were to consume audiobooks by the truckload, would you say they were literate?

Of course not. Neither has anyone else here, for that matter. But that's a strawman anyway. Where are these hopelessly illiterate audiobook junkies you're suggesting exist?

My point is that someone's literacy (or lack thereof) cannot be accurately accessed by whether or not they like to listen to audiobooks. Not in and of itself. There is no inherent connection between liking audiobooks and being less literate. Which is what you've been trying to imply.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Of course not. Neither has anyone else here, for that matter. But that's a strawman anyway.

It's actually not a strawman. I'm asking you a question, directly, not saying that you said something you didn't say and then arguing against that false statement.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

Where are these are no hopelessly illiterate audiobook junkies you're touting?

Notice how I'm refraining from commenting on your very interesting sentence structure? That's because I understand that you are typing fast and it's ok. I actually do know or rather, did know a man who was functionally illiterate but enjoyed audiobooks.

[HarryT]

It's your statement that "If someone is a listener, then by definition, they aren't that literate." that I have major issues with, I'm afraid, because you're clearly implying that listening and reading are mutually exclusive, which of course they are not!

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by HarryT

It's your statement that "If someone is a listener, then by definition, they aren't that literate." that I have major issues with, I'm afraid, because you're clearly implying that listening and reading are mutually exclusive, which of course they are not!

Well...I kinda think they are but I can see how that "listener then by" statement" could rub wrong. That was me having some wordsmithing fun. The actual meaning of the word "literate" means "well-read". Does well-read mean ingested a great many books or does it mean "reading a great many books? Are we going to be including "well heard" to our definitions of literacy? I listened to Alan Greenspan's "The Age ofTurbulence" once but I certainly didn't read it. Shall I go tell my friends I read it? No, why would I? It's a completely different activity. Plus I was driving...multitasking...not something I have to worry about when I read.


A question I asked earlier, anyone can respond. If audiobooks are just as good, why bother to learn how to read at all?

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Notice how I'm refraining from commenting on your very interesting sentence structure? That's because I understand that you are typing fast and it's ok.

A literate person should know the definition of "refrain."

Originally Posted by sealbeater

I actually do know or rather, did know a man who was functionally illiterate but enjoyed audiobooks.

I'd point out the difference between being completely illiterate--which is what were actually talking about:

Originally Posted by sealbeater

So, someone who literally is illiterate, as in, cannot read or write a single word,

and being "functionally illiterate." Which is a different thing that we weren't talking about.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

My point is that someone's literacy (or lack thereof) cannot be accurately accessed by whether or not they like to listen to audiobooks. Not in and of itself. There is no inherent connection between liking audiobooks and being less literate. Which is what you've been trying to imply.

Sure. However, I think it's a decent indicator. Absent handicap, if you prefer audiobooks to reading, I think that's because you aren't that versed in reading and you should probably go practice some more. That's just me, not trying to be inflammatory, just the facts. If you would rather listen to someone else read to you, well....

[DiapDealer]

Originally Posted by sealbeater

Absent handicap, if you prefer audiobooks to reading, I think that's because you aren't that versed in reading and you should probably go practice some more.

And I (and apparently several other literate others) think you're making a huge unsubstantiated assumption.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

A literate person should know the definition of "refrain."

I do. Don't you? I could have crucified you about your sentence structure but I didn't. That's called "refraining". I held back my initial impulse to have a great deal of fun with you. Are you implying that I don't know what "refrain" means? If so, please demonstrate how.

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

I'd point out the difference between being completely illiterate--which is what were actually talking about:



and being "functionally illiterate." Which is a different thing that we weren't talking about.

"What were". What were what? What we were, maybe? Now, I'm going to start having fun with you. Put down the headphones man. Focus.

Wow. I asked you a specific question about a specific set of conditions. The "functionally illiterate" person I was referring to could read and write his own name and that was about it. Not "completely illiterate" but "functionally illiterate". However, he wasn't the focus of the question, just the inspiration for it. So, I hope you can understand how I can ask a question about one thing that was inspired by a similar thing but not exactly the same. With me so far?

Sigh. Nevermind. I can see you are so desperate to score internet ego points you are tripping over your own words. Go have some tea and take a breather.

[sealbeater]

Originally Posted by DiapDealer

And I (and apparently several other literate others) think you're making a huge unsubstantiated assumption.

"Several other literate others"? Not the choice of words I would pick. Seems a bit...redundant. You are well within your rights to think that. I'm not sure just how literate you are as my previous reply will have made clear but I am sure I care far less for others opinions than apparently some others do for mine.

As I previously stated the last time I tried to disengage from this thread, if you like audiobooks, more power to you! I really mean that. I don't care how you assimilate info. Just don't call it reading.