AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I think you are applying an apparent antonym in the wrong context, in the wrong way.

By the way, I looked up the meaning of transitive and intransitive, and it seems to me the word is used with an object, in other words, you contended something, the object being a concept, that the sun contributed to the temperature of the earth, so I think the meanings, maintain, assert, or struggle FOR, are the more applicable meanings for the way you used the verb, as defined in the dictionary.

In regard to your antonym, anytime you contend, there may be an opposing force or view, which does not agree. For example if you are a sports team, you contend for a championship, you want to agree with the championship, but the opposing team will disagree, so you are contending with or against the opposing force, or disagreeing with them, the opposing team. But you are not contending for the other team, you are contending against them, and you are contending FOR the championship, seeking to agree with it. Do you see the difference or distinction?

Again, this is I suppose trivial, but I think it is interesting as a demonstration of how you cling to how you can't be wrong, when it seems obvious you are.

In any case, I am giving it up for today. Its been fun.

P. S. If we can get others to vote on this, I will concede if they all agree with you, but they must be honest, therein lies the rub.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I think you are applying an apparent antonym in the wrong context, in the wrong way.

Of course you do. I expect nothing less.

okie wrote:

In any case, I am giving it up for today. Its been fun.

Likewise. Goodnight sir.

T
K
O

0 Replies

"Contend" as TKO is attempting to use it would mean discount or contradict but there is no such definition for 'contend' in the context in which TKO used it. Contend can mean to challenge or oppose as in a contest or election. In that context the 'contender' is an opponent which would make no sense in the context in which TKO used it.

In the context in which TKO used it, 'contend' means to argue or maintain. He therefore said in effect that he 'does not argue for the sun to contribute. . .' or he 'does not maintain that the sun contributes. . .'. He inadvertently was saying that the sun does not contribute to the temperature of the Earth.

Okie, applying the correct definition of the word, recognized TKO's error as inadvertent and, rather than jumping on him as some members would do, graciously gave him the opportunity to retract and rephrase. TKO didn't accept the opportunity.

No matter how much an error is passionately defended, it nevertheless remains an error.

Now gentlemen, the topic of this thread is Conservatism in 2008 and beyond. And unless you can somehow extrapolate this vocabulary discussion into that topic, perhaps we can move on?

0 Replies

The last few pages are certainly "American Conservatism" at its finest. Nothing like fighting for big ideas. Way to go conservatives.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The last few pages are certainly "American Conservatism" at its finest. Nothing like fighting for big ideas. Way to go conservatives.

"Stay the course."

T
K
O

0 Replies

I wonder what Parados WOULD consider a big idea? Does Sowell's thesis comparing components of early 20th Century French liberalism to components of modern American liberalism and the ramifications inherent in that not qualify?

How about Ican's list? There's some pretty heavy stuff in there in my estimation. What do you see as 'small' about any of that? And how could it have been phrased to be 'big'?

0 Replies

parados wrote:

The last few pages are certainly "American Conservatism" at its finest. Nothing like fighting for big ideas. Way to go conservatives.

As I said already, Parados, this trivial matter provides a beautiful illustration to all here of how difficult it is for some people here to either grasp or acknowledge even the most obvious mistake, so how could any of us expect many people to ever grasp or if they do, then acknowledge a mistaken view in regard to politics, economics, science, whatever, on these threads. I found it interesting far beyond the issue of correcting the word usage and definition.

I am still in the dark whether Diest grasps the definition, or whether he does and still refuses to acknowledge it? One last opportunity if it still a matter of understanding the definition, I thought of the following approach. Diest, if instead of saying:
I don't CONTEND that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.
You instead could have said:
I have not CONTENDED that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.
or
It has not been my CONTENTION that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

I think the last one using "contention," which is a noun describing the act of contending, should make it clear that you used the word wrongly.

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

To elaborate on what Foxfyre said about context, I think it has to do with the transitive or intransitive use of the word, as I mentioned already. In the way you used it, Diest, the word had an object I think, so it was used as a transitive verb I think, here I am getting into more detailed English rules that I have not made a career of studying but should nonetheless be common sense, all of which explains why the words maintain or assert are more accurate similar meanings, and why your antonym argument does not apply.

If it helps any, it does not make you a serial killer to admit guilt of being wrong about a word. It is actually much worse to misunderstand conservatism and be totally confused about politics, but I thought at least convincing you about a word would be much easier than it turned out to be.

0 Replies

Okie said

Quote:

As I said already, Parados, this trivial matter provides a beautiful illustration to all here of how difficult it is for some people here to either grasp or acknowledge even the most obvious mistake, so how could any of us expect many people to ever grasp or if they do, then acknowledge a mistaken view in regard to politics, economics, science, whatever, on these threads. I found it interesting far beyond the issue of correcting the word usage and definition.

It might be seen as just a teeeeeeeny bit of a stretch here, but I'll have to admit that you did rather competently extrapolate a vocabulary discussion into the context of Conservatism in 2008 and beyond. Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

It might be seen as just a teeeeeeeny bit of a stretch here, but I'll have to admit that you did rather competently extrapolate a vocabulary discussion into the context of Conservatism in 2008 and beyond.

Well, maybe a little bit of a stretch. I have been known to be tenacious, but based on my experience here, no more tenacious than Parados or Diest. I would rate Parados pretty close to the top of the list in terms of not giving up on any point whatsoever.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

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

You instead could have said:
I have not CONTENDED that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

or
It has not been my CONTENTION that the sun contributes to the temperature of the earth.

If this is not textbook strawman, I don't know what is.

1) don't != have not != has not been;
2) contention != contended;i

You have changed the structure of the sentence. Like I said before, you can this argument up with the dictionaries. To contend can certainly mean to argue against.

Contend - synonyms: argue, dispute, bicker, debate... ; antonym: agree.

Like I said, you can muddy the waters, but you will never be able to prove me wrong. My burden was to show that the word could be used the way I used it, your burden was to show that I could not. I met my burden, I have nothing left to prove.

If anything, all you have proved thus far is the ambiguity of the word, which is still a point for me, since you were the one insisting on a rigid definition. All that's left is for you to admit that the word can be used exactly as I used it.

T
K
O

0 Replies

I gave you a chance to save yourself, Diest. You fumbled the chance big time. You may in fact be a no hoper?

You are beyond belief!

0 Replies

Don't pretend you are in some position of power or authority okie. Or for that matter that you "gave me a chance." You don't have the high ground, so stop the act.

Perhaps the funniest thing about your posts on this topic is that you have chosen to extrapolate my (supported) argument to mean that I never admit I'm wrong. That's a slippery slope okie. I've admitted I was wrong or misinformed on a number of topics. Can you show me how you are so far superior in admitting when you are wrong?

Rolling Eyes

You're putting a noose around my neck which was tied for you and your ilk.

T
K
O

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

It might be seen as just a teeeeeeeny bit of a stretch here, but I'll have to admit that you did rather competently extrapolate a vocabulary discussion into the context of Conservatism in 2008 and beyond.

Well, maybe a little bit of a stretch. I have been known to be tenacious, but based on my experience here, no more tenacious than Parados or Diest. I would rate Parados pretty close to the top of the list in terms of not giving up on any point whatsoever.

You are no more tenacious than I am when I have confidence in the strength of my convictions. You may have been characterized almost as unkindly as I have as a result of that. Smile

I believe there has been a time or two when somebody childishly sought to especially cut/hurt me by pointing out how much more honest or intelligent or rational or (pick an adjective) you or whomever are than me. I don't attempt to argue those points either because 1) I don't necessarily disagree and 2) they are usually spewed by somebody who can't support their own point of view and/or can't stand to admit that I could be right. Smile

Both you and I and probably most of the conservatives in the forum can articulate a reasoned rationale for our point of view, and most can admit when we are wrong when presented with evidence clearly demonstrating that our premise is in error. I like to think these are more conservative traits than liberal ones, but I admit to considerable prejudice in that point of view.

IMO, there are a few intelligent liberals out there capable of intellectual honesty--even a few here on A2K and I have high regard for them. Those who, like Sowell, have access to media outlets are religiously read by me. I enjoy Michael Kinsley and David Broder, among others, and, until his death not that long ago, my very favorite was William Raspberry. Do I agree with these people? Sometimes but probably not that often. But I trust them to at least use honest criteria to support their point of view; at times I have had to admit they are convincing in their arguments; and at times I have to admit they have exposed error in mine.

Tenacity is commendable when there is strength of conviction. It looks really silly in the face of an unsupported and/or unsupportable thesis however.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

Don't pretend you are in some position of power or authority okie. Or for that matter that you "gave me a chance." You don't have the high ground, so stop the act.

Perhaps the funniest thing about your posts on this topic is that you have chosen to extrapolate my (supported) argument to mean that I never admit I'm wrong. That's a slippery slope okie. I've admitted I was wrong or misinformed on a number of topics. Can you show me how you are so far superior in admitting when you are wrong?

You're putting a noose around my neck which was tied for you and your ilk.

T
K
O

OK, Diest TKO, do you now allege that the sun does influence the earth's weather, or do you now allege the sun does not influence the earth's weather?

0 Replies

ican - it's cute that you act confused. As I pointed out in the past, there is no reason for confusion. Independent of the argument about the definition of the word "contend" and it's use, I specifically clarified what I was saying in the GW thread. Read below...

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.

red added.

I NEVER refuted the fact that the sun contributes to the earth's climate.

T
K
O

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
Don't pretend you are in some position of power or authority okie. Or for that matter that you "gave me a chance." You don't have the high ground, so stop the act.

Perhaps the funniest thing about your posts on this topic is that you have chosen to extrapolate my (supported) argument to mean that I never admit I'm wrong. That's a slippery slope okie. I've admitted I was wrong or misinformed on a number of topics. Can you show me how you are so far superior in admitting when you are wrong?

You're putting a noose around my neck which was tied for you and your ilk.

T
K
O

OK, Diest TKO, do you now allege that the sun does influence the earth's weather, or do you now allege the sun does not influence the earth's weather?

Ummm he HAS contended that the sun does influence the Earth's temperature. He just won't admit that saying that he doesn't contend that the sun warms the Earth is not reversing that statement. Smile

0 Replies

Now Diest is claiming on the Obama thread that because he is a tri-lingual student, he better understands his first language!

This is incredible.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Now Diest is claiming on the Obama thread that because he is a tri-lingual student, he better understands his first language!

This is incredible.

Okie, from what I've seen, your only redeeming quality is that you make Foxfyre seem rational.

0 Replies

dyslexia wrote:

okie wrote:
Now Diest is claiming on the Obama thread that because he is a tri-lingual student, he better understands his first language!

This is incredible.
Okie, from what I've seen, your only redeeming quality is that you make Foxfyre seem rational.

The subject here today is just how far will a liberal go down a dead end road in an effort to prove the road is a 4 lane highway to paradise. Do you now wish to join Diest in his journey?

0 Replies

okie wrote:

dyslexia wrote:
okie wrote:
Now Diest is claiming on the Obama thread that because he is a tri-lingual student, he better understands his first language!

This is incredible.
Okie, from what I've seen, your only redeeming quality is that you make Foxfyre seem rational.

The subject here today is just how far will a liberal go down a dead end road in an effort to prove the road is a 4 lane highway to paradise. Do you now wish to join Diest in his journey?

St. Matthew wrote:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow is the road that leads to life, and only a few find it."

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know