First definition, then debate. A source so we all may speak the same 'language'

[Wry Catcher]

Not every definition will please all, but by using this source there may be a way for all of us to communicate more effectively.

THE VOTER - Educating voters since 1999;

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Ah, define the terms, you define the debate.

You do that, language becomes just sound, the environment becomes just fury.

 

[Gunny]

Learn to read. There's a sticky at the top of the forum.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Ah, define the terms, you define the debate.

You do that, language becomes just sound, the environment becomes just fury.

Interesting comment; I suppose I'd agree if I defined the terms. Did you bother to look up some terms and see if they were 'politically neutral' and convey convential meanings?
Many 'arguments' presented on threads become non-sensical when one 'sees' an apple when the other posts an aardvak [though often it provides humor].

Examples:

Capitalism
an economic system in which the means of production, such as land and factories, are privately owned and operated for profit. Usually ownership is concentrated in the hands of a small number of people. Capitalism, which developed during the Industrial Revolution, is associated with free enterprise, although in practice even capitalist societies have government regulations for business, to prevent monopolies and to cushion domestic industries from foreign competition. Opponents of capitalism say that the economy should be organized to serve the public good, not private profit. Supporters say capitalism creates wealth, which creates jobs, which create prosperity for everyone

socialism
a political system in which the means of production, distribution and exchange are mostly owned by the state, and used, at least in theory, on behalf of the people. The idea behind socialism is that the capitalist system is intrinsically unfair, because it concentrates wealth in a few hands and does nothing to safeguard the overall welfare of the majority. Under socialism, the state redistributes the wealth of society in a more equitable way, with the ideal of social justice replacing the profit motive. Socialism as a system is anathema to most Americans, although many social welfare programs like Medicare and Medicaid (once derided by their opponents as "socialized medicine") and Social Security are socialistic in effect, since they are controlled by the government and effect a measure of income redistribution that could not happen if market forces were the sole factor in the economic life of society.

classical economics
the dominant theory of economics from the eighteenth century until superseded by neoclassical economics in the twentieth century. It is associated with Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations (1776) John Stuart Mill's Principles of Political Economy (1848), and the work of David Ricardo (1772-1823), who were the first to systematically establish a body of economic principles. The basic idea was that the economy functioned most efficiently if everyone was allowed to pursue their own self-interest. Classical economics therefore favored laissez faire; the primary economic law was that of competition.

Keynesianism
the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946), and his followers. The Englishman Keynes's best known work was the General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, published in 1936 at the height of the Great Depression. Keynes shifted the attention of economists from microeconomics to macroeconomics. Much of his book is on the causes of unemployment. Keynes stated that the economy had no self-balancing equilibrium that resulted in full employment, as classical economics insisted. On the contrary, it could be in equilibrium at less than full employment (the first time this theory had been proposed). Keynes believed it was therefore the job of government to stimulate spending through deficit financing to ensure full employment. Keynes's theory was vastly influential. Since then governments have tended to accept a responsibility to provide full employment-although they have not always been successful in doing so.

neo-classical economics
an economic theory that built on the foundation laid by the classical school of Adam Smith and David Ricardo. Neo-classical economics, developed in the twentieth century, retained a belief in the value of a free market economy but also developed a theory of prices and markets that did not depend on the classical theory that the value of a good depended on how much labor it incorporated. Neoclassicists argued that price was dependent solely on the forces of supply and demand.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Learn to read. There's a sticky at the top of the forum.

there's so much shit on these pages I have no clue what you mean. could you be more specific?

where is this sticky? what does it say? is it easily identifiable?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Not every definition will please all, but by using this source there may be a way for all of us to communicate more effectively.

THE VOTER - Educating voters since 1999;

how about trying to define what you mean right from the start? you can send idiots to a definition, but it is most likely they will refuse to accept it in practice, because their minds don't work that way.

I try to avoid people who cannot agree on definitions. I have had a long running thread before where we got lost because of definitions. it was funny when we found out that is what it was all about, but that in itself is a learning experience worth having too.

---

try this: put up definitions in the OP. you will still get crap. people's minds do not work the way you want them to.

and I still am lost to what sticky and where it is supposed to be that Gummy Bear (affectionate nickname) is talking about

 

[Baruch Menachem]

It is normative practice for folks who are going to do evil to redefine evil in positive terms.

English is an old language, and we all speak it, well or ill. Base language is not that hard.

But you play games with the definitions, you even start to discuss how things should be defined other than how we are use to them, and I have intense doubts about where you are going with it.

We leave things alone like this, if you want to redefine words, you are starting up an intellectual version of find the lady in a deck of three cards.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Not every definition will please all, but by using this source there may be a way for all of us to communicate more effectively.

THE VOTER - Educating voters since 1999;

how about trying to define what you mean right from the start? you can send idiots to a definition, but it is most likely they will refuse to accept it in practice, because their minds don't work that way.

I try to avoid people who cannot agree on definitions. I have had a long running thread before where we got lost because of definitions. it was funny when we found out that is what it was all about, but that in itself is a learning experience worth having too.

---

try this: put up definitions in the OP. you will still get crap. people's minds do not work the way you want them to.

and I still am lost to what sticky and where it is supposed to be that Gummy Bear (affectionate nickname) is talking about

Gunny is like Oddball, nee dude; a smug and arrogant jerk. That aside, I understand fully what you mean by " because their minds don't work that way"; I refer to them as the willfully ignorant.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It is normative practice for folks who are going to do evil to redefine evil in positive terms.

English is an old language, and we all speak it, well or ill. Base language is not that hard.

But you play games with the definitions, you even start to discuss how things should be defined other than how we are use to them, and I have intense doubts about where you are going with it.

We leave things alone like this, if you want to redefine words, you are starting up an intellectual version of find the lady in a deck of three cards.

you don't get IT, do you?

example: leftist

???

does that include liberals, Democrats?


ex: conservative

??

does this equal Republican?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

but I see where Baruch wants to go -- by his projection of his fears. He knows full well the right has done what he is afraid of others doing.

by your inner fears ye shall be known.

 

[Wry Catcher]

but I see where Baruch wants to go -- by his projection of his fears. He knows full well the right has done what he is afraid of others doing.

by your inner fears ye shall be known.

Ignorance benefits the dishonest. When one puts a flashlight on an issue those fearful of the light scurry to the shadows.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Nah, I see a guy setting up three walnut shells and a dried pea on a table, and he want me to make a bet.

No bet.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

but I see where Baruch wants to go -- by his projection of his fears. He knows full well the right has done what he is afraid of others doing.

by your inner fears ye shall be known.

Ignorance benefits the dishonest. When one puts a flashlight on an issue those fearful of the light scurry to the shadows.

Ignorance benefits the dishonest, but so does deceit and deception and deflection. So does misdirection, misinformation and misconception. I could go on using most of the alphabet, but I won't.

There is much written about group think and group identity and such. People can ignore anything they desire. Denial is not ignorance either. Denial is the activity of pushing what is in ones face into the background.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Nah, I see a guy setting up three walnut shells and a dried pea on a table, and he want me to make a bet.

No bet.

The closed mind of an ideologue who fears the light?

 

[Foxfyre]

Well actually I wish we could all agree on basic definitions of the terms we use.
But, of course, discussions too often eventually dissolve into various interpretations of:

You're an idiot
You're a bigot
You're stupid
You're a whore/douche/c*nt/write in your uncomplimentary adjectve of choice here
and
Fuck You

And none of that needs much definition.

So thanks for the idea Wry though I think it will probably prove to be an exercise in futility.

(I did bookmark the site as I think it might come in handy now and then.)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well actually I wish we could all agree on basic definitions of the terms we use.
But, of course, discussions too often eventually dissolve into various interpretations of:

You're an idiot
You're a bigot
You're stupid
You're a whore/douche/c*nt/write in your uncomplimentary adjectve of choice here
and
Fuck You

And none of that needs much definition.

So thanks for the idea Wry though I think it will probably prove to be an exercise in futility.

(I did bookmark the site as I think it might come in handy now and then.)

Of course you bookmarked the site. You're too stupid a fuckin' idiot to not need help with definitions.

 

[Ragnar]

Twenty-first-century America is divided into two major parties - Democrat and Republican, and they have very little in common.

Well that's about as far as one need go to figure out thevoter.org is full of crap.

Something close to standard Lincoln/Douglas format is the best one can hope for forum-wise on the "internets" and your lucky to get that much structure. (or even something close to it)

Heck, your lucky to define an issue in the OP and have a reasonable debate on the merits of the definition, let alone resolving anything at all.

Plus it's fun to poke folks with sticks from great distances.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Twenty-first-century America is divided into two major parties - Democrat and Republican, and they have very little in common.

Well that's about as far as one need go to figure out thevoter.org is full of crap.

Something close to standard Lincoln/Douglas format is the best one can hope for forum-wise on the "internets" and your lucky to get that much structure. (or even something close to it)

Heck, your lucky to define an issue in the OP and have a reasonable debate on the merits of the definition, let alone resolving anything at all.

Plus it's fun to poke folks with sticks from great distances.

They have much in common, depending on what you are comparing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Well actually I wish we could all agree on basic definitions of the terms we use.
But, of course, discussions too often eventually dissolve into various interpretations of:

You're an idiot
You're a bigot
You're stupid
You're a whore/douche/c*nt/write in your uncomplimentary adjectve of choice here
and
Fuck You

And none of that needs much definition.

So thanks for the idea Wry though I think it will probably prove to be an exercise in futility.

(I did bookmark the site as I think it might come in handy now and then.)

Of course you bookmarked the site. You're too stupid a fuckin' idiot to not need help with definitions.

Yeah I love you too Dante.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Well actually I wish we could all agree on basic definitions of the terms we use.
But, of course, discussions too often eventually dissolve into various interpretations of:

You're an idiot
You're a bigot
You're stupid
You're a whore/douche/c*nt/write in your uncomplimentary adjectve of choice here
and
Fuck You

And none of that needs much definition.

So thanks for the idea Wry though I think it will probably prove to be an exercise in futility.

(I did bookmark the site as I think it might come in handy now and then.)

Of course you bookmarked the site. You're too stupid a fuckin' idiot to not need help with definitions.

Yeah I love you too Dante.

[youtube]zLGWyfGk_LU[/youtube]