AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Foxfyre wrote:

I suspect at times he is a liberal female.

I'd love to hear the rationale for this and what it means. lol. You're pathetic. You do great insult to my liberal sisters, they would never make the fashion mistakes I've made.

I mean, seriously, if you are going to try and insult me, at least be witty. Ticomaya could teach you a few things, he's at least on par when it comes to being clever.

That's right Tico, I think you're clever.
K
O

0 Replies

I wasn't trying to be witty. I was making an observation that you tend to be hypersensitive and become offended over the slightest comments, even those not intended to offend, which is much more likely to be the case with women instead of men. (Pop psyche 101 via Foxfyre who actually for peculilar reasons does have a bit of knowledge about that.) The propensity to attempt oneupmanship and attempt to vanquish your foe through childish schoolyard taunts and pointedly ad hominem insults does tend to be more of a male trait, however. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Now back to the 'young' adjective for which you took such enormous and exaggerated inappropriate offense sufficiently to attempt to derail the thread, it was NOT an affront or criticism or slight in the least. IF you had even attempted to put it into its proper context, you would have seen that I was referring to your exposure to the modern education system and how that likely colors your perceptions based on the very comments you were making. Your views are contrasted by those of Thomas Sowell who comes from a much different era providing a much different experience. He is an acknowledged expert on the subject to just about everybody except apparently you. The criticism, if you prefer to view it as such rather than as descriptive, was in the 'liberal' designation. The 'young' was to designate the era of the liberal.

And back to the thesis of this particular context, Sowell describes the net effect of a liberalism that so distorted history that rit esulted in erosion of patriotism for young Frenchmen who were thus conditioned to have no passion or will to resist an imperial Germany despite having the superior forces with which to do so. He sees the same kinds of liberalism in modern public education.

Those of you who are a product of the modern system may have some difficulty understanding or at least accepting what he is saying BECAUSE you are a product of the modern system. Your posts clearly demonstrate that you have bought into modern liberalism and that you agree with it. (As we have seen from some other comments, such phenomenon is not necessarily limited to the young--old liberals can also be caught up in it.)

Sowell describes the phenomenon as making a difference in WWII France. His question is will it make a difference here and now? I think it is an interesting question for those willing to stop and think and consider.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

The difference is that I don't waste mine your anyone else's time calling someone old and fuddy-duddy. It's irrelevant. As I get older, I do not doubt that my opinions will become more refined. What you imply however is that to be liberal is simply a juvenile world view and that had I your experience I would see it your way; a conservative way. The thing is about experience, is that there is always somebody with more of it than you. Tell me, would you abandon your opinions or for that matter even tolerate being talked to the way you address me from someone who had more life experience than you? I don't think so. If you have as much experience as you claim, you will know one thing that you learn very young, and that is that no great idea goes unchallenged. If that is the case, and I'm just some young whipper-snapper, then perhaps we are simply going through the motions. however, it's not my ideas you challenge, it's the fact that I challenge your ideas at all. As if it is unfathomable that a person of my life experience could even dare question you or your mentors or your experience.

If your views are so solid as you advertise them to be, you would not act so indignant to the idea of challenge. If they were so solid and mine were simply the naive misunderstandings of the world, then my words would simply break on your experience like waves on the cliff side.

I'm looking to be challenged too. I'm disappointed at what you conservatives came to offer. The truth is that I've met better liberals who made me defend my beliefs than this lot.

I've admitted to being young, but I've never initiate that topic. If I am addressed as being young, I have the choice to ignore, or accept. I accept I am young. Young only in context however. "Young" as it is being used in the context by foxfyre is meant to imply more than age and it is without dignity.

By the way okie, you don't want to go there with the "contend" bit again. I have the dictionary (multiple at that) on my side, and I had source after source to back it up. You and your fellows liked to scoff and roll your eyes at it but it was definitive (pun intended). Go ahead and make a fool of yourself if you want to though.

Remember, there's always someone with more experience, ready to shoot your idea down. Even you two. Perhaps, you forget how you would like to be treated, given that circumstance.

In short: Grow up.

T
K
O

Diest, I like your spunk and fight, for what you believe. I think you are on the right track in regard to a few things, you have an interest and you care about what is going on around you. That is alot more than what a majority of people have. You fight for what you believe in. And you try to provide a thoughtful and more detailed response to people, which is distinctly different than some people here that post snide remarks almost exclusively.

I do think if you would pick your fights a little more carefully, and don't get yourself out on a limb so far, then you would come out better. One example, the "contend" meaning, I think you should simply recognize you were wrong there, instead of taking the argument to the point at which you cannot even save face, and apparently you still cling to the thought that you can't be wrong on anything?

The age and experience factor, my opinion is that it helps, but it is not a fully paid ticket to being right 100% of the time. There is one thing worse than a young fool, it is an old fool. But at least most people learn a few things from age and experience, and although nobody is ever right all the time, I think most people become wiser with age and experience. I can't vouch for this, but it is my opinion that most people become more conservative with age and experience. In particular, as young people begin to have to become self sufficient, work at full time jobs, support a family, or run their own business, they tend toward a more conservative view. Participating in the American dream does something for a person, beyond just growing up in it or being educated about it.

Also, I feel that attitude has much to do about our politics. If we are happy and grateful participants in our role as responsible American citizens, we tend to be more conservative. If we grow up bitter, or remain bitter, or carry axes to grind around with us, we will not be happy people, and we will tend toward liberalism. You won't like that opinion, but I don't post my opinion here to be liked by everybody, I post my opinions to provide an honest contribution to the mix here.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I wasn't trying to be witty. I was making an observation that you tend to be hypersensitive and become offended over the slightest comments, even those not intended to offend, which is much more likely to be the case with women instead of men. (Pop psyche 101 via Foxfyre who actually for peculilar reasons does have a bit of knowledge about that.) The propensity to attempt oneupmanship and attempt to vanquish your foe through childish schoolyard taunts and pointedly ad hominem insults does tend to be more of a male trait, however. So I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

If I'm sensitive to this notion at all it is because I've been tolerating it ever since I arrived at A2K. It didn't mean anything when I arrived, and still doesn't. I'd rather my points were addressed, and not my age. I will not misrepresent myself and pretend to be older or more experienced. I resent that people exploit that in attempt to avoid my points.

Foxfyre wrote:

Now back to the 'young' adjective for which you took such enormous and exaggerated inappropriate offense sufficiently to attempt to derail the thread, it was NOT an affront or criticism or slight in the least. IF you had even attempted to put it into its proper context, you would have seen that I was referring to your exposure to the modern education system and how that likely colors your perceptions based on the very comments you were making. Your views are contrasted by those of Thomas Sowell who comes from a much different era providing a much different experience. He is an acknowledged expert on the subject to just about everybody except apparently you. The criticism, if you prefer to view it as such rather than as descriptive, was in the 'liberal' designation. The 'young' was to designate the era of the liberal.

The era of the liberal? How condescending. This speaks directly to my objections. You seem to think that my leftist views are unfounded in any real life experience. You don't know my life experience, but since I'm young, you seem to assume that I could not have any experience that would forge these beliefs of mine. Further, you refer to me as a product of my education, but you don't know anything about my education. If you did (especially in the context of patriotism), you'd be very wrong.

Sowell's article makes a claim that could NEVER be correct. It could never be correct because very little about our education system is uniform. You think that the education and the academic culture I experienced in Missouri is the same as someone in Illinois? Minnesota? California? Sowell's thesis is doomed from the start because he suggests a degree of homogeny which will never be present in our education system.

If my education system put blinders on me as you suggest and therefore I was unable to see the system I had participated in, then I'd still be able to see what others are going through. His assertion just isn't supported by my observations. Don't flatter yourself by telling me what I can see and what I can not.

Foxfyre wrote:

And back to the thesis of this particular context, Sowell describes the net effect of a liberalism that so distorted history that rit esulted in erosion of patriotism for young Frenchmen who were thus conditioned to have no passion or will to resist an imperial Germany despite having the superior forces with which to do so. He sees the same kinds of liberalism in modern public education.

I hope then that he is courageous enough to see how then the conservative movement damps the education system. Sexual education, evo/ID, and World History to name some.

Foxfyre wrote:

Those of you who are a product of the modern system may have some difficulty understanding or at least accepting what he is saying BECAUSE you are a product of the modern system. Your posts clearly demonstrate that you have bought into modern liberalism and that you agree with it. (As we have seen from some other comments, such phenomenon is not necessarily limited to the young--old liberals can also be caught up in it.)

Bought into modern liberalism. Yeah, sure, whatever. Just like you bought into conservatism. I'm sure you believe what you do for genuine reasons, I just ask for that same respect. Don't presume that you're in a position to judge my reasons.

Foxfyre wrote:

Sowell describes the phenomenon as making a difference in WWII France. His question is will it make a difference here and now? I think it is an interesting question for those willing to stop and think and consider.

The question is fine. Will it matter? The answer is yes, in my opinion. I just think that patriotism comes in more flavors than vanilla and if Sowell looks at our schools today and doesn't see patriots, then his definition of patriotism is far too limited.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I give up Deist. As you cannot or will not understand the thesis and seem to be incapable of addressing it other than by attempting to argue ad hominem along with misrepresentations, red herrings, and a few straw men thrown in for good measure, I will not continue this discussion with you. Perhaps I am the only one here who does find Sowell's point of view both provocative and pertinent. If so, I can live with that. I don't ask that anybody agree with it. But I rather insist on dealing with what is said rather than what another wants him to have said so he is more easily criticized and/or attacked. Do have a great day.

0 Replies

Count on it, Foxfyre, you are not the only one that finds Sowell's opinions not only provocative and pertinent, but exactly correct the vast majority of the time. I don't pass up an opportunity to read his columns if I see them, and I don't remember a time when I have disagreed with him much at all.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Diest, I like your spunk and fight, for what you believe. I think you are on the right track in regard to a few things, you have an interest and you care about what is going on around you. That is alot more than what a majority of people have. You fight for what you believe in. And you try to provide a thoughtful and more detailed response to people, which is distinctly different than some people here that post snide remarks almost exclusively.

Well thank you okie.

okie wrote:

I do think if you would pick your fights a little more carefully, and don't get yourself out on a limb so far, then you would come out better. One example, the "contend" meaning, I think you should simply recognize you were wrong there, instead of taking the argument to the point at which you cannot even save face, and apparently you still cling to the thought that you can't be wrong on anything?

I never needed to admit anything. I'm going to do this one last time.

Quote:

Like I said, definitive. It does NOT mean to advocate for or agree. In fact, as the definition illustrates content is the antonym of agree. You may have had more people agreeing with you, but it just mean more of you were wrong. You, ican, and whoever the third was, simply wanted an argument. so in terms of picking fights you shouldn't, I would put more attention on your modus operandi, not mine. It gets old having to keep proving this.

okie wrote:

The age and experience factor, my opinion is that it helps, but it is not a fully paid ticket to being right 100% of the time. There is one thing worse than a young fool, it is an old fool. But at least most people learn a few things from age and experience, and although nobody is ever right all the time, I think most people become wiser with age and experience. I can't vouch for this, but it is my opinion that most people become more conservative with age and experience. In particular, as young people begin to have to become self sufficient, work at full time jobs, support a family, or run their own business, they tend toward a more conservative view. Participating in the American dream does something for a person, beyond just growing up in it or being educated about it.

As people get older they get more conservative. I've heard that before. I've also heard that the more educated you are the more liberal you become. I'm not going to waste time with either theory. I'm not concerned why anyone else is liberal. My beliefs are mine, for my reasons.

okie wrote:

Also, I feel that attitude has much to do about our politics. If we are happy and grateful participants in our role as responsible American citizens, we tend to be more conservative. If we grow up bitter, or remain bitter, or carry axes to grind around with us, we will not be happy people, and we will tend toward liberalism. You won't like that opinion, but I don't post my opinion here to be liked by everybody, I post my opinions to provide an honest contribution to the mix here.

The more I read sentiment like this, the more I wonder if conservatives just don't understand liberals. For instance, I know many liberals don't understand conservatives, because when you say the word conservative, all they see in there head is some man shouting with a bible in their hand and a gun in the other. We both know that this caricature is inaccurate, but you have to acknowledge that there is a reason why people have this image in their head. Perhaps the bitter-angry-jaded liberal in your head is the mirror of the bible-gun-yelling conservative in many liberal's head.

I had a wonderful talk last night with my long time friend and admittedly far right conservative friend last night. He was passing through DC on his way back to Missouri from NY (Yankees vs Redsox game). He needed a place to stay, and so after I got off work we went to a nice bar witha veranda and chatted for a few hours. For years we have talked politics and while we don't agree on just about any topics or policies, we both find a great value in the other's opinions. He is getting ready to move to the area and attend Georgetown law in a year. in the meantime, he is working with... (I forget the name)... something about "Faith and Values." Anyways, the point is that we are both educated individuals with mutual respect and both with a history of student advocacy and public speaking. We represent opposing world views, but above all of this, is respect.

He may not agree with me, but he would never say that my views are based on being bitter or jaded etc.

As an interesting aside, he is a product of the same education system as I am. Is he more patriotic, or just more conservative? I think that Fox and Sowell are conditioned to thinking of patriotism and participation in our system as being a conservative thing. This just isn't so, it transcends political party and I'm positive that my friend would never question my sense of patriotism.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Count on it, Foxfyre, you are not the only one that finds Sowell's opinions not only provocative and pertinent, but exactly correct the vast majority of the time. I don't pass up an opportunity to read his columns if I see them, and I don't remember a time when I have disagreed with him much at all.

But our friend Deist doesn't find anything whatsoever to say positive about him.....or me for that matter since I obviously do. Why do you suppose that is?

0 Replies

Thanks for the explanation, Diest. I do not doubt you are patriotic, I just think you are wrong most of the time, politically. You are correct that the stereotype of conservatives that liberals see in their mind is definitely wrong, at least it doesn't fit the people I know.

I think most people are fairly reasonable, and actually fairly conservative. In fact I was around some people that bad mouthed Bush, but when specific issues arose in the conversation, they favored conservative solutions, and I guess they do not realize it is liberal policies that caused the problems with those issues discussed. I actually think most of the support for liberalism, or Obama this cycle, is just a boredom with what is happening, a feeling of need of change, a disenchantment with government spending, a general feeling we are going in the wrong direction, and perhaps tired of the war, but when most specific issues are discussed, they are not liberal when you get right down to it.

There are whacked out people at all points of the spectrum, but many people are just a mixed bag, they evaluate each issue in a vacuum rather than approaching it from a larger foundational principle, and I think therein lies the problem. The voter that I will call the mixed bag voter votes based on a pragmatic view of what they personally may see as beneficial to them, regardless of long term ramifications to the country and constitutional principles. Still, there is also a portion of the population, a core of people that vote based on long term principles, perhaps on both sides to the aisle, but of course I think the leftists are dead wrong. Thus the pendulum swings, largely based on the mixed bag voter, depending on which side of the aisle they go.

I am going to address the "contend" word in the next post.

0 Replies

Here is the post on the global warming thread a long time ago.

Diest TKO wrote:

okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. ....

T
K
O

I hope you made an error there, diest, as that shows you are really confused, more than I ever imagined.
...

What do you mean confused? Please reread.

"I don't contend..." meaning I wont argue with the following statement
"... the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth."

In short: Yeah, the sun provides energy to the earth. I know that, and I'm not going to argue against that idea.

You still need to retract your statements.

T
K
O

To repeat, admit it Diest, when you used the word, contend, you used it wrongly. Contend is to favor a position or view in opposition to an opposing view. If you had left out the word "don't," in front of the word "contend," then your statement would have been expressing your view accurately.

This is a test for you to demonstrate your ability to reason cogently, Diest.

0 Replies

We want to change our course toward full employment of all of the following principles, and away from their increasing abandonment:

THE DECLARATION OF INDEOPENDENCE
Adopted in Congress 4 July 1776

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Effective as of March 4, 1789

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I. Section 8. The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

CIRCA 1778:
Alexander Fraser Tytler, better known as Lord Woodhouselee (1747 - 1813)

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world's greatest civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency, from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

PRESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY

"No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and all of us are made better off whenever any one of us is made better off. A rising tide raises all boats."

CHANGE REQUIRED

Alas, too many Americans have already discovered "they can vote themselves money from the public treasure." An increasing number of Americans do this by electing candidates who ignore our Constitution and promise to vote and do vote Americans "money from the public treasure." As a result we are headed from "complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, and from dependency back to bondage."

To stop and reverse this damnable trend, we must find and support candidates who shun the politics of envy for the politics of freedom: the politics of securing our God given rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Who among the current candidates shuns the politics of envy for the politics of freedom? Indeed, who among all of us Americans shuns the politics of envy for the politics of freedom?

For us to be true Americans, we must root for everyone to become the best they can be, and we must stop seeking to suppress those who accomplish more than we do.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS HAVE BEEN LEGISLATING OR ADJUDICATING THE CORRUPTION OF OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC. WE WANT THAT CORRUPTION STOPPED AND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC RESTORED. HERE IS HOW WE CAN BEGIN TO ACCOMPLISH THAT CHANGE.

1. Reform the Federal Government to comply strictly with those powers delegated to it by the lawfully amended USA Constitution, and begin by terminating those federal departments not expressly authorized by the USA Constitution;

2. Appoint federal judges who will be bound by the USA Constitution, and who will fulfill their oath to support the U.S.A. Constitution, and remove from office any federal judge that cites foreign law in support of his or her decisions;

3. Remove all federal limitations and impediments to the development of USA petroleum reserves to facilitate USA energy independence of foreign countries;

4. In accord with the USA Constitution, Article I, Section 8, 1st paragraph, replace the current federal tax system with one that is uniform per each and every dollar value taxed regardless of who or what is taxed;

5. Prohibit individuals from being prosecuted on the basis of what they voluntary disclose on their tax returns.

6. Limit annual federal expenditures to annual federal income;

7. Require all voters to supply proof of U.S.A. citizenship and be lawfully registered at least 13 days before voting,

8. Repeal all Campaign Finance laws;

9. Repeal all federal charities;

10. Require all federal appointments recommended by the president to be voted on by Congress within 6 months from the time the President submits a recommendation to Congress;

11. Prohibit Congress from establishing any form of theistic or atheistic religion;

12. Permit the display of both religious and non-religious artifacts on selected areas of federal government property on a first come first serve basis;

13. Require the Congress to submit to the state legislatures for their approval a Constitutional Amendment that empowers three-quarters of the state legislatures to vacate USA Supreme Court decisions.

0 Replies

Of the philosophical quotes posted, I like this one best, Ican:

Quote:

"No American is ever made better off by pulling a fellow American down, and all of us are made better off whenever any one of us is made better off. A rising tide raises all boats."-JFK

This is perhaps the core principle of conservatism and the one principle that most eludes modern liberalism. It is even more interesting because it was provided by a Democrat.

On your list of principles however, two initially caught my eye:

Quote:

11. Prohibit Congress from establishing any form of theistic or atheistic religion;

Is this not sufficiently covered by the First Amendment? Has there been an issue or situation that prompted you to include it on your list?

Quote:

13. Require the Congress to submit to the state legislatures for their approval a Constitutional Amendment that empowers three-quarters of the state legislatures to vacate USA Supreme Court decisions.

This one is intensely intriguing. I'm planning to think more on it to satisfy myself there is no systemic problem with it, but it is possible that you have actually hit on the solution to deal with a rogue Supreme Court turning the Constitution on its ear.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

...
On your list of principles however, two initially caught my eye:

Quote:
11. Prohibit Congress from establishing any form of theistic or atheistic religion;

Is this not sufficiently covered by the First Amendment? Has there been an issue or situation that prompted you to include it on your list?

I too think it is sufficiently covered by the First Amendment. But we are apparently in the minority.

When a school teacher is dismissed for placing a bible on his classroom desk, that action is part of the establishment of the religion of atheism. Yes, atheism is as much a religion as theism. Atheism is based on the belief that God does not exist. Theism is based on the belief that God does exist. Both are based on faith, and neither can be proved to a certainty. In my case, I can provide mathmetical evidence, not proof, that the odds God does not exist is far less than one chance in 10 to the million power. But that's not zero.

Likewise when an attorney (I don't recall his name) continually attempts to remove "In God we Trust" from our buildings and money, that is a bald-faced attempt to try to establish atheism as a religion. When a block of granite on which are carved the Ten Commandments is ordered removed from a courthouse hallway, that is a bald-faced attempt to try to establish atheism as a religion. No one is compelled to be a theist by the presence of theistic artifacts. Likewise, no one is compelled to be an atheist by the presence of atheistic artifacts. But when a theistic artifact is forbidden to be placed in/on government property, that is an attempt to establish atheism as a religion.

Quote:
13. Require the Congress to submit to the state legislatures for their approval a Constitutional Amendment that empowers three-quarters of the state legislatures to vacate USA Supreme Court decisions.

This one is intensely intriguing. I'm planning to think more on it to satisfy myself there is no systemic problem with it, but it is possible that you have actually hit on the solution to deal with a rogue Supreme Court turning the Constitution on its ear.

Currently, my 13th principle is an attempt--note attempt--by me to propose a practical way to limit the power of the Supreme Court to legislate the law instead of interpret the law. This is the best way I can think of now. I'm open to suggestions.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Here is the post on the global warming thread a long time ago.

Diest TKO wrote:
okie wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:

I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. ....

T
K
O

I hope you made an error there, diest, as that shows you are really confused, more than I ever imagined.
...

What do you mean confused? Please reread.

"I don't contend..." meaning I wont argue with the following statement
"... the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth."

In short: Yeah, the sun provides energy to the earth. I know that, and I'm not going to argue against that idea.

You still need to retract your statements.

T
K
O

To repeat, admit it Diest, when you used the word, contend, you used it wrongly. Contend is to favor a position or view in opposition to an opposing view. If you had left out the word "don't," in front of the word "contend," then your statement would have been expressing your view accurately.

This is a test for you to demonstrate your ability to reason cogently, Diest.

Are you actively ignoring the definitions of the word as I have posted multiple times? Seriously, it's like you can't read for yourself the definition of the word and see that clearly the way I used to word is exact to the definition.

If the antonym of "contend" is to "agree" then if I were to insert "agree into the sentance where "contend" was it should have the exact opposite meaning.

I don't CONTEND that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

changes to...

I don't AGREE that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

You act as if I said the second sentence here, but I obviously said the exact opposite of what you claimed I said. Do you know what an antonym is?

This is incredibly simple, and like I said definitive in my defense. I'm not being the one tested, you are. Since you've made a big deal about this, your options are now to...

1) Back up your definition of the word. This would at least muddy the definition and give you some ground, but would never prove I used the word wrong since I've been able to find plenty of definitions to support my phrasing.
2) Admit you were mistaken, and apologize, then I'll forgive the poor manners, and we can move on.

T
K
O

0 Replies

This is very fascinating. I would let this pass as a trivial matter not worth discussing, but perhaps it serves a very important illustration here in the analysis of how your mind works, Diest. I will go through this again in an effort to try to explain as simply as I can a very simple definition of a word, and how it is to be used. It is not even a very obscure word, it is a pretty common word. The test will be to determine if you can grasp the simple meaning, and finally admit you have it wrong.

I have chosen the following dictionary, on line:

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/contend

And here are the definitions given:
intransitive verb
1 : to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle
2 : to strive in debate : argue
transitive verb
1 : maintain, assert <contended>
2 : to struggle for : contest

In an effort to expand or explain the above, surely you have heard the common usage of contending, to strive or vie in a contest. We commonly refer to teams as contenders, such as Super Bowl contenders or Pennant contenders. This simply means they are contending against an opposition to achieve. To contend means they are pushing toward or making a good effort or arguing for their ability to play well enough to win, to go to the Super Bowl or win the Pennant. Their effort is of course going to be opposed by other teams, but they certainly are not going to oppose themselves. Likewise, to argue is to contend, but it is arguing for, but not against a concept. You argue for something, in opposition to an opposing argument.

If you use contend in place of maintaining or asserting, or struggling for, then that would be virtually identical to the way you used the word, Diest, so if you say "I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth," then you can also insert the word, "maintain," or "assert," in which case you would have said "I don't maintain that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth" or I don't "assert" that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. Again, just as I said you would need to take the word, "don't" out of the sentence when you used "contend," you would also need to take "don't" out of the sentence if you used "maintain" or "assert."

To try to summarize, to contend means to struggle for, not struggle against. To contend that the sun contributes to the temperature, you are arguing for the fact that it does, not against it.

I don't know how many ways this can be explained, but you are obviously wrong in regard to a very simple definition of a word. If you cannot grasp this, and then admit to it, then I think you may be a hopeless case, beyond any hope that you could ever grasp more complex concepts in regard to politics, science, economics, or whatever that you are engaged in debate here.

I would also invite others to confirm the obvious here, and even liberals, I invite you to straighten out one of your own boys here, and we will see just how you respond, Diest. It is up to you, to see what you are made of?

0 Replies

The definition you chose does not even support your own claims.

okie wrote:

To try to summarize, to contend means to struggle for, not struggle against.

but YOUR definition YOU choose clearly states

Quote:

to strive or vie in contest or rivalry or against difficulties : struggle

red added.

You are trying to amend the definition to match your argument.

Your chosen source also includes

Quote:

to strive in debate : argue

So using YOUR source, had I substituted in "argue" what would the sentence mean?

I don't ARGUE that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

It means that I don't disagree with the following statement about the contribution of the sun on global temp.

As I said, the best you can do is muddy the definition, but you are still faced with the problem that I have plenty of sources backing me (which you've hardly acknowledged). So even if you validate that the word COULD be used the way you demand it is to be used, you are still faced with the problem that I've justified my use of the word and backed it up.

Remember, this whole thing started because you insisted I could not use the word the way I did. I have provided sources showing that I can in fact use it exactly as I did. I don't need to prove anything at this point.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

...
I don't ARGUE that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

It means that I don't disagree with the following statement about the contribution of the sun on global temp.
...
T
K
O

You continue to argue against the obvious, Diest. I pick out the above quote to try to explain it again. When you say you don't argue that the sun contributes to the temperature, you are also saying you do not contend, maintain, or assert. In other words, you do argue that the sun does not contribute to the temperature.

Now, you could also correct your statement to mean what you want or intend it to, by saying "I don't ARGUE against the idea that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth."

If I argue that the sun does contribute to the temperature, I am arguing that it does, not that it doesn't, and if I do not argue that the sun does contribute to the temperature, I am also not contending that it does, I am not agreeing that it does, I am not maintaining that it does, I am not asserting that it does, etc. etc.

The whole concept of arguing is that you are putting forth an argument for something, or against something, but if you argue against something, then you would also use the word "against" with the word "argue." If I argue that the sun contributes to the temperature, then I agree it does, and if I argue against the sun contributing to the temperature, then I do not agree that it contributes to the temperature.

You say you don't disagree that the sun contributes to global temp, which tells me then that you do agree. Otherwise the only position you have is none whatsoever, you don't take a position at all one way or the other, but I think the statement implies either a positive or a negative. In other words, if you do not contend or maintain that the sun will come up in the morning, you must think it will not. There is no in between, either it will or it won't.

0 Replies

You're floundering. If I have to use "against" in addition to the word argue, then you would have to use the word "for." You've lost your footing all together now. It's clear that you see that the word can mean struggle against, all that's left for you to do is acknowledge is that the word's definition goes beyond what you thought.

Like I said, I have nothing to prove. I've met my burden of proof. You however choose a standard for yourself which you will never meet. The balls is in YOUR court, and you're the only one there. How come you still can't make a basket?

T
K
O

0 Replies

I don't CONTEND that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.
I don't ARGUE that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.
I don't MAINTAIN that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.
I don't ASSERT that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

Logic tells me that you either do contend, argue, maintain, assert, or you don't, that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. I think any reasonable person would conclude by your statement "I don't contend that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth," that you don't think the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth. The only other alternative is you take no position at all, you have no opinion, but I don't think that was the intended meaning that you had in mind when you made the statement. I think you intended to say you did not disagree with the statement that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth, but the meaning of what you said implied just the opposite. You should have said, I do not contend against the belief that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

I believe you did not use the word correctly, and I think it should be obvious, but oh well, forget it, it doesn't look like you will ever admit it. It isn't a big deal, but I find it interesting in regard to how dedicated you are to any opinion that you may have, no matter how much it is demonstrated to be wrong.

0 Replies

So you think my statement means that...

I don't AGREE that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

You still fail to address that to "agree" is an antonym to "contend." This makes it pretty difficult for my statement to ever mean what you've implied from the start.

I never needed to prove anything to you or anyone else. You simply wanted to pick a fight. The evidence is in the dialog from the original thread. I even clarified my point without using the phrase, it was you're crusade to try and make some point. You act as if I'm obsessed with being right, but it seems the thorn was in your side as it was YOU again, who made issue with it here in a completely different thread. Sounds to me like you just want a fight, and you know I'll give it too you.

I've provided all I'd ever need to to justify my word usage. Contend can most certainly be used to argue against. I'll let you argue with the dictionaries from now on, since you think you know better than they do.

T
K
O

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know