Thread: President of the US of A

[QUOTE=gugi;1630980]This is not the first time you are bringing violence. Why would there be a civil war? Why do you think losing in free and fair elections makes it acceptable to resort to killing your political opponents?


I'm by no means suggesting violence. I just know too many people that openly feel that way. Two sides that think so differently can only live peacefully for so long. It's the last thing I'd like to see, but I'm not ignorant to seeing that it's a possibility...

Originally Posted by honedright

Free speech is not an entitlement, and Americans (if that's who you meant) are not "entitled to free speech." Maybe just a form of speech on your part, but worth addressing. I know you prefer clearly defined terms.

It is a perfectly good term:

en·ti·tle·ment
noun
the fact of having a right to something.

Come on, let's use common sense. Using correct words is very important, but nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking when there is no confusion or even the possibility for confusion is a waste of time.

->Reveal<-

I really hope I don't have to defend my use of 'common sense' by quantifying 'common'...

Originally Posted by gugi

It is a perfectly good term:

en·ti·tle·ment
noun
the fact of having a right to something.

Come on, let's use common sense. Using correct words is very important, but nitpicking for the sake of nitpicking when there is no confusion or even the possibility for confusion is a waste of time.

->Reveal<-

I really hope I don't have to defend my use of 'common sense' by quantifying 'common'...

Ok, thank you for clarifying because "entitlement" could mean:

1) The condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
2) The feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges, such as free speech)
3) A right to benefits specified especially by law or contract (free speech could be considered a benefit)

Not sure why you would expect someone to know exactly which definition you meant when there are multiple meanings. I certainly wasn't "nitpicking" as you say (or do I need to look that one up as well...) but only adhering to the same standard of clarity you seem to request from others. The implication that requesting clarification demonstrates a lack of common sense... well

Ok...

Nitpicking
adjective
looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.

Is it just a small or unimportant error in defining free speech as a right, a special privilege given, or as a benefit? No, I don't think it's a small error because it has big implications. Certainly worthy of, and necessary to, correct.

Thank you for playing, have a nice day!

Hey guys....were all in this thread deep enough and we've all said things now and it's clear tempers are boiling. Just pointing out that we should all stand back and refrain from calling each other names including slurs or name lables about political parties and mental intellect. Remember....were all here cause were friends and share a common interest but look at what's going on here in this thread right now. We're dividing and drawing sides. I included have made comments too so I'm not more righteous than the other but.......let's take five and be brothers and wetshavers again for a moment and remember why we are here and why we are friends. Just trying to say y'know ,somebody should. Hope yer okay with that ?

Originally Posted by honedright

Not sure why you would expect someone to know exactly which definition you meant when there are multiple meanings.

Very simple - the context in which I am using it. I don't see how any of your objectionable meanings would make a logical sense. Plus as far as I can tell you are objecting to possible nuances not to the general meaning of 'having a right to something'

Since you are implying I am holding other people to different standards than myself here are the differences:

Case A) I asked for the precise definitions of the words a poster was using
* AFTER I had tried in good faith to understand his meaning within the context of his use
* AFTER he disagreed with my understanding of those words
* AFTER the general definition of those words had been proven inadequate to understand his point and it had become clear that it is a matter of nuance.
* AFTER I have waded in the nuanced differences in an attempt to understand his point

Case B) You are asking me for definitions in order to 'keep me to a standard I have set', not because you do not understand my point. Here is why:
* You have not shown that the general usage of the word fails to convey my point
* You are objecting to some nuance, but have not attempted to explain what constitutes that nuance


I am sorry, but when the most general definition of a word from the dictionary conveys the point, challenging it on the basis of 'lacking clarity' is nitpicking.

Originally Posted by honedright

Ok...

Nitpicking
adjective
looking for small or unimportant errors or faults, especially in order to criticize unnecessarily.

Is it just a small or unimportant error in defining free speech as a right, a special privilege given, or as a benefit? No, I don't think it's a small error because it has big implications. Certainly worthy of, and necessary to, correct.

It is completely unimportant to my argument. Which, slightly abstracted is: 'people don't have A, they have B instead'.
You are not taking issue neither with 'not having A', nor with 'having B', but rather with the meaning of 'have'. Yes, the precise nature of the having is important, but it's a completely different topic, the word I used to convey 'have' is perfectly acceptable to make my point 'B instead of A', so you are indeed nitpicking.

Originally Posted by OCDshaver

The real fruits of the collective labor (or the trickle down) is not so much in the money that you may or may not have but in the overall efficiency that the economy achieves. ... The benefit that we see comes in the lower prices and ease of bringing goods to the market in abundance at prices that people can afford.

I agree completely but the lower price part. It never came. Once the efficiency was established, the price of the products increased, size and quantity decreased for the higher market price (just look at girl scout cookies for instance), and the greed was established it never trickled down to the masses like it was supposed to. All the while the 1%ers were constantly figuring out ways to increase their profit margins at our expense.

The idea that rich people are holding all the wealth and not sharing it is a silly assumption.

Its not a silly assumption its a fact. The 1%ers that it was designed to benefit kept the wealth. If you don't agree then please show the entire middle class of the US where they saw the wealth as prices on everything skyrocketed out of control.

Originally Posted by honedright

Ok, thank you for clarifying because "entitlement" could mean:

1) The condition of having a right to have, do, or get something
2) The feeling or belief that you deserve to be given something (such as special privileges, such as free speech)
3) A right to benefits specified especially by law or contract (free speech could be considered a benefit)

Not sure why you would expect someone to know exactly which definition you meant when there are multiple meanings. I certainly wasn't "nitpicking" as you say (or do I need to look that one up as well...) but only adhering to the same standard of clarity you seem to request from others. The implication that requesting clarification demonstrates a lack of common sense... well

Not looking for this thread to become a grammar lesson but I do need your help with this above post. Can you please explain to me how any of the 3 meaning of the word entitlement you listed above would change the context of the statement "They are entitled to free speech". Maybe I'm missing something.

Originally Posted by gugi

Very simple - the context in which I am using it. I don't see how any of your objectionable meanings would make a logical sense. Plus as far as I can tell you are objecting to possible nuances not to the general meaning of 'having a right to something'

Since you are implying I am holding other people to different standards than myself here are the differences:

Case A) I asked for the precise definitions of the words a poster was using
* AFTER I had tried in good faith to understand his meaning within the context of his use
* AFTER he disagreed with my understanding of those words
* AFTER the general definition of those words had been proven inadequate to understand his point and it had become clear that it is a matter of nuance.
* AFTER I have waded in the nuanced differences in an attempt to understand his point

Case B) You are asking me for definitions in order to 'keep me to a standard I have set', not because you do not understand my point. Here is why:
* You have not shown that the general usage of the word fails to convey my point
* You are objecting to some nuance, but have not attempted to explain what constitutes that nuance


I am sorry, but when the most general definition of a word from the dictionary conveys the point, challenging it on the basis of 'lacking clarity' is nitpicking.

"Case A) I asked for the precise definitions of the words a poster was using
* AFTER I had tried in good faith to understand his meaning within the context of his use
* AFTER he disagreed with my understanding of those words
* AFTER the general definition of those words had been proven inadequate to understand his point and it had become clear that it is a matter of nuance.
* AFTER I have waded in the nuanced differences in an attempt to understand his point"

Just because you have a different process to, and different reasons for, requesting clarity on terms, that doesn't invalidate my process and reasons. Besides this sounds exactly like what you are doing now. Nitpicking.

"Case B) You are asking me for definitions in order to 'keep me to a standard I have set', not because you do not understand my point."

False - You did set the standard, understanding your point had nothing to do with my query, only understanding your meaning of a word which has multiple meanings.

"You have not shown that the general usage of the word fails to convey my point
You are objecting to some nuance, but have not attempted to explain what constitutes that nuance"

False - This had nothing to do with supporting or understanding your point, I'm not even sure if you had a point. And I did post the nuances of the different definitions, so again false.

Now all of this is belaboring the thread, and is way off topic.

So if this is where the discussion is going, and it seems to be going nowhere, I'm out. I've said pretty much all I want or need to say (probably too much already, I know...) about "The President of the US of A." Yeah, I know, so sad