Yes. I do
So why did you say this?
Dude, I would be very happy if idiots on the right stopped accusing Obama of being a socialist.
In your view those who accuse Obama are right.
Yes. I do
Dude, I would be very happy if idiots on the right stopped accusing Obama of being a socialist.
So you agree that Obama is a Socialist?
Refer post #40 of this thread
It's a 'yes' or 'no' question.
Nice of you to tell folks their opinions. So much easier than letting them tell you.In your view those who accuse Obama are right.![]()
Do you see why it is foolish to label somebody because of their position on a single issue? Yet many on the right do exactly this, oblivious to the fact that they're labeling themselves as socialists as well.
Because I said:So why did you say this?
Dude, I would be very happy if idiots on the right stopped accusing Obama of being a socialist.
Yes. I do, based on one usage of the word. I don't mind people using the word if ... [t]hey are consistent in their usage.
Intellectually honest and consistent....I don't give a damn if they narrowly define the word. I really don't. I only ask that they be intellectually honest and consistent..
If they are consistent and honest, Yes!In your view those who accuse Obama are right.
I applaud you for that if to you the word has a singular meaning.I'm not the one labeling Obama as a socialist.
If they are consistent and honest, Yes!
If someone says that Obama is a socialist and then claims that the word must be used only in its classical sense that strikes me as inconsistent, right?How can you determine if people are being honest and consistent...
I don't think it works that way. However, if I'm in a discussion and someone wants to redefine a word I don't mind so long as they are consistent with the word....if words can be redefined at will?
If someone says that Obama is a socialist and then claims that the word must be used only in its classical sense that strikes me as inconsistent, right?
We're not just talking about a discussion. You've been arguing that if a word is misused by enough people, then the word's definition has to be changed and broadened to encompass the wrong meaning.I don't think it works that way. However, if I'm in a discussion and someone wants to redefine a word I don't mind so long as they are consistent with the word.
I never said that you said Obama was a socialist. You asked me how I could tell if someone was being consistent. I answered you.I've never said Obama was a socialist.
We are having a discussion.We're not just talking about a discussion.
I'm arguing that words evolve. The evolution starts as misuse and, like a speciation at some point it's no longer correct to say a word is misused.You've been arguing that if a word is misused by enough people, then the word's definition has to be changed and broadened to encompass the wrong meaning.
Are you having a gay time in this thread?You've been arguing that if a word is misused by enough people, then the word's definition has to be changed and broadened to encompass the wrong meaning.
+1Are you having a gay time in this thread?
Are you having a gay time in this thread?
If you type a word on the Google search engine, you will find lots of misuses of the word. I don't have to respond to every each of them.
Then what IS your position? Most other folks in this thread have made their meaning clear one way or the other. Do you have an opinion, or are you here just to quote dictionaries and act all offended if people try to interpret what you've said? Show a little spine, man.I'm not the one labeling Obama as a socialist.
how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Most other folks in this thread have made their meaning clear one way or the other.