Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Only if they have a liberal arts degree.

 Polonius wrote:

I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.

Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.

 azazel the cat wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.

Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.

But couldn't you argue that the civil war stated due to those "government mechanisms" removing slavery.

 Seaward wrote:

 sebster wrote:
The only other reading I can see is, well, very unkind and surely not what you meant, so please do expand.

The societal change responsible for the stamping out of slavery in the US did not occur "within the mechanisms of government."

Point being, I remember when libertarians were pretty much just people with a really weird notion of rights, who were fun to play with by getting them to argue with each other about whether a person has the right to give up their rights and become a slave. But, well, the 21st century has done strange things to you guys.

No, it hasn't.

Well it did occur within the mechanisms of a government issued Springfield...

Even then the societal change didn't occur within government. Lincoln and his congress all had constituents and approval ratings back home and before Antietam it was 50/50 whether Lincoln would even see a second term in office, and before shortly after that election, Lincoln himself made it explicitly clear that the invasion of the South was NOT about slavery. The will of the people, the tireless efforts of anti-slavery advocates in the north, and finally some Union victories (Antietam providing a relatively minor tactical win because George B. McClellan is one of the greatest pillocks to ever command an army, but a vital strategic win, Forcing Lee to retreat South, and providing Lincoln the "positive press" to keep the people at home on his side, and to shut down whispers of foreign intervention abroad.) and finally a change in Old Abe himself to make the end of slavery the focus of the war.

There is no such thing as a societal change within the mechanisms of government. The people ARE the government, and the people change government to reflect society as best they can. Gays getting the rights to have their marriages and partnerships recognized by the state is not government changing, Blacks being more then 3/5ths of a human being to be kept as livestock is not government changing. It is people changing.

 sebster wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
As I said more succinctly earlier, it draws its rhetorical effectiveness from its lack of specificity.

It isn't just vagueness that matters, it has to be both vague and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener.

Note that I didn't use the word "vague."

 azazel the cat wrote:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

MWHistorian wrote:Two pages and I have yet to see a real answer.

1. Individual liberty. Aka civil liberties such as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, (all religions. Thomas Jefferson had a Qur'an and thought of all religions.) Freedom of press and yes, right to bear arms. (in case the gov gets a little to uppity.)
2. Free enterprise. If I have a good idea to sell some stuff and make money, I am able to do it.
3. Every person is equal under the law and no one has more or less rights than anyone else. A rich person doesn't have any more rights than I do. (yeah right)
4. Every person is accountable for their own actions. If I do something wrong, I get punished. If I mess up, I pay the consequences. Me and no one else.

The constitution and declaration of Independence spells it all out pretty well. The idea of America was that the government was supposed to stay limited and let the people go about their business how they saw fit unless they did something to break a law. It was about individual liberty and now NSA spying on citizens or corporations being called people or no due process if you're a "terrorist." etc.

Three-fifths.

As pointed out that has not been the case for a not inconsiderable amount of time. But if you're content to relish your role as the pot calling the kettle black - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Nations

In 1960, First Nations people received the right to vote in federal elections without forfeiting their Indian status. By comparison, Native Americans in the United States had been allowed to vote since the 1920s

1. Statement is made wherein equality under law is claimed to be a traditional value.
2. Poignant and undeniable refutation is made proving the statement in 1 to be false.
3. No true Scotsman and tu quoque from the peanut gallery; both fail to dispel 2.
4. I become tired of -yet again- having to point this out.

1. Statement made wherein equality under law is claimed to be a traditional value (no firm time frame for what constitutes a traditional value)
2. Laughable attempt made to discredit 1. based on outdated information that has since changed and therefore is not relevant, but makes a nice historical curiosity. Comes across as baiting for a reaction because of your pot-kettle-black comment
3. Counter point that Canada must value equality under the law less judging by it's treatment of First Nations people, which is a much more recent example that the 3/5 rule
4.Given that you have pointed out the hypocrisy of others in an attempt to discredit their position I'll let you wear that pot-kettle label with pride

 Cheesecat wrote:

 azazel the cat wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.

Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.

But couldn't you argue that the civil war stated due to those "government mechanisms" removing slavery.

No.

The Civil War started because of fear of the government mechanisms removing slavery.

The actual effort within government hadn't begun until those shots at Fort Sumter had been fired.

 azazel the cat wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.

Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.

Well, that's true, although the civil war didn't break out to advance social change, but rather to prevent it. Even assuming it was about "state's rights," it was an incredibly reactionary conflict, meant to preserve the pseudo aristocracy of the south, which felt threatened by Northern industrialists. While slavery was the most pressing issue to those interests, this is when stating that the civil war was about slavery is just a bit too simplistic.

The war itself, as a violent conflict, really only settled the question of if state's could secede (apparently not), while also dramatically increasing the scope of the Federal government.

The social change that followed the war (freed slaves, lack of race discrimination in voting, and eventually the Due Process protections of the 14th amendment) all occurred within the structure of government. Amendments were passed in congress, and ratified by states.

What I meant by my comment was that unlike, say, France, we haven't had collapses of government, or mass civil unrest, or barricades in the streets, or the beheadings or government officials in our strive for social justice.

 azazel the cat wrote:

 Polonius wrote:

I think it's important to remember our history of slavery, not out of guilt, but to see how our society has worked more or less continously to expand both the rights enjoyed by people, and the number of people that enjoy them. As a social progressive myself, I feel that we should take that as motivation to keep working at that, but I think even an old school conservative could take comfort in the fact that all of this societal change happened within the mechanisms for government.

Well, except for that time when a civil war broke out over it.

So you do in fact know that the 3/5 rule that you brought up is not relevant and you were just trolling, thank you for the clarification

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

1. Statement made wherein equality under law is claimed to be a traditional value (no firm time frame for what constitutes a traditional value)
2. Laughable attempt made to discredit 1. based on outdated information that has since changed and therefore is not relevant, but makes a nice historical curiosity. Comes across as baiting for a reaction because of your pot-kettle-black comment
3. Counter point that Canada must value equality under the law less judging by it's treatment of First Nations people, which is a much more recent example that the 3/5 rule
4.Given that you have pointed out the hypocrisy of others in an attempt to discredit their position I'll let you wear that pot-kettle label with pride

Well, we're talking about the United States, not Canada. If this were a thread about Traditional Canadian Values, and someone Canadian brought up equality under law in Canada, or if in this thread someone argued moral superiority of Canadians, then yes, you could say it was the pot calling the kettle black, but that's not happening here. He made a valid point, and your response was to attack his nation, despite him never stating moral superiority of Canada. I looked over the thread, and the only person who said anything about Canadian values prior to Azazel's three-fifths post was someone from the US.

The fact that there is no defined time frame for "traditional value" provided makes it tough to argue something is a traditional value. Calling something a "value" (provided it actually meets the definition of value) can work since there is no specific time frame attached, and thus it's meant to be a current value, but when you add the qualifier "traditional," you need a time frame attached, and ideally a uniform definition of "traditional." Different people viewing different timeframes as they relate to "traditional" makes it seem less and less like anything is actually objectively a traditional value, and more that it's a bunch of "values" people have that came into being at different times masquerading as "traditional" for the narrative value that that word adds.

Simply put, equality under law doesn't really meet ANY criteria of "traditional," as it relates to a value of the US.

If traditional means appealing to the Founding Fathers, the counter-point is the 3/5ths Compromise.

If traditional means post Civil War, you could argue the inequality of women and minorities.

If traditional means post Women's suffrage (1930s or so), you could argue minority treatment still resulted in unequal treatment under the law.

If you go to the 50's (as many conservatives love to talk about the 50's), you've still got minority treatment. Also homosexual treatment.

If you go to 1996, when DOMA was put in place, you've got homosexual treatment.

Equality under law is, at best, an "ideal" that we strive towards when it's convenient and feels right.

That isn't to say that our actions weren't wholly lacking in virtue and positive goals. The Constitution, for all it's flaws that we've slowly been fixing, was revolutionary in 1789, and the value of representative government has endured (though campaign funding reform might be needed for that one, we seem to have strayed a bit).

There is no value for me to continue here. Anyone who does not intentionally misunderstand can see that my point stands on its own.

 azazel the cat wrote:
You can point out exactly where, when and why he's wrong all day and it still won't change. He is consistently one of the most obstinate posters on the forum when it comes to argumentative fallacies; and quite frankly once [he] chimes in like that, you can basically either ignore his post or else spend all of your time just trying to keep him focused while explaining why he is incorrect. Then the circular nuh-uh and tu quoques will begin.

And I just don't have the patience anymore to explain what is already clear to anyone not actively trying to misunderstand. My post stands on its own without further explanation.

Wow, you've just managed to almost perfectly sum up my feelings about you too

If you don't like it you know where the big 'Ignore' button is Enjoy the rest of your day

 azazel the cat wrote:
There is no value for me to continue here. Anyone who does not intentionally misunderstand can see that my point stands on its own.

Would you agree that something can sincerely be a value even if it is not achieved or even undermined by actual practice?

I omitted your first part of the quote because I shouldn't have taken azzy's obvious baiting given the fact that he knows the 3/5 is ancient (by your US standards) history

 DogofWar1 wrote:
The fact that there is no defined time frame for "traditional value" provided makes it tough to argue something is a traditional value. Calling something a "value" (provided it actually meets the definition of value) can work since there is no specific time frame attached, and thus it's meant to be a current value, but when you add the qualifier "traditional," you need a time frame attached, and ideally a uniform definition of "traditional." Different people viewing different timeframes as they relate to "traditional" makes it seem less and less like anything is actually objectively a traditional value, and more that it's a bunch of "values" people have that came into being at different times masquerading as "traditional" for the narrative value that that word adds.

Simply put, equality under law doesn't really meet ANY criteria of "traditional," as it relates to a value of the US.

If traditional means appealing to the Founding Fathers, the counter-point is the 3/5ths Compromise.

If traditional means post Civil War, you could argue the inequality of women and minorities.

If traditional means post Women's suffrage (1930s or so), you could argue minority treatment still resulted in unequal treatment under the law.

If you go to the 50's (as many conservatives love to talk about the 50's), you've still got minority treatment. Also homosexual treatment.

If you go to 1996, when DOMA was put in place, you've got homosexual treatment.

Equality under law is, at best, an "ideal" that we strive towards when it's convenient and feels right.

That isn't to say that our actions weren't wholly lacking in virtue and positive goals. The Constitution, for all it's flaws that we've slowly been fixing, was revolutionary in 1789, and the value of representative government has endured (though campaign funding reform might be needed for that one, we seem to have strayed a bit).

Welcome to the point out the thread as outlined by the opening post

 Manchu wrote:
Would you agree that something can sincerely be a value even if it is not achieved or even undermined by actual practice?

Failing to achieve a value when an earnest attempt to reach said value is made does not result in something not being a value. In addition, there are times when values being limited makes sense. If "Freedom" is a value, there are still boundaries to that freedom. We don't really achieve true freedom, since that would mean no restrictions of any kind. Of course that would also lead to mass lawlessness. We may value privacy, but there are times (reasonable suspicion, probably cause, etc.) where that value is not achieved, but it serves the greater purpose of well being of the people.

However, undermining the value, in the absence of some benefit in excess of the undermining (yelling fire in a theater as a limitation on freedom of speech being a situation where benefits of limits/undermining exceed the costs) through actual practice does detract from it, and I think makes it not a universal value. Some people may hold it as a value, but if we, as a representative democracy, enact and enforce actual practices counter to our "values," without at least some explicit benefit in mind, then I don't think it can be viewed as a national value.

So the short answer to your question is yes, something can be a value despite failure to achieve it and even with some undermining, but we need to examine the manner in which we fail to achieve that value.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I omitted your first part of the quote because I shouldn't have taken azzy's obvious baiting given the fact that he knows the 3/5 is ancient (by your US standards) history
....
Welcome to the point out the thread as outlined by the opening post

I was pointing out that calling the 3/5ths Compromise ancient and therefore immaterial to a debate on traditional values makes no sense when the term "traditional" hasn't been defined. The timeframe where the 3/5ths compromise existed is considered by some to be the timeframe that is referred to when you say "traditional." With that being the case, the 3/5ths compromise becomes very material to the question of whether equality under law is a traditional value, and your saying that mentioning the 3/5ths compromise is trolling is wrong.

Something that is no longer a part of the culture of the land is difficult to consider as traditional, especially when the post that brought up the mention of 3/5 was not framed within the time period that 3/5 was in effect.

Clearly if someone is talking about equality before the law he obviously means a time after 3/5 was no longer in effect.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Something that is no longer a part of the culture of the land is difficult to consider as traditional, especially when the post that brought up the mention of 3/5 was not framed within the time period that 3/5 was in effect.
Clearly if someone is talking about equality before the law he obviously means a time after 3/5 was no longer in effect.

Well I think there are a couple problems there.
1. You seem to be defining "traditional" based on when the values we view as being "traditional values" came into being as "values." That's not how that's supposed to work though, it's sort of backwards. Something being traditional means it adheres to some sort of standard objective definition of traditional. We haven't defined traditional yet. And defining the standard for traditional must be done without regard to specific events in the real world. The poster can talk about how equality under law was a "value" in the post Civil War environment, but that does not necessarily make it "traditional." We have to create an objective definition of "traditional" and "value" and then apply them to values and see if they fit the "traditional value" definition. Right now we're working backwards, saying that equality under law is a traditional value, and that therefore traditional values must be able to come into existence at or near the point where equality under law does.

2. If you're positing that we define "traditional" as occurring after the Civil War, I think that is a viewpoint, but not a uniform or obvious one. I think this is the main issue, you're working from one definition of traditional that results in the value of equality under law as coming into existence after the Civil War, but not everyone takes that view. A lot of people would disagree. I've heard plenty of people appeal to the values of the Founding Fathers as being traditional US values. If that's the case then either A) equality under law was an attempted and failed traditional value, or B) equality under law is not a traditional value since it came into existence as a value after the Founding Fathers were gone. It can still be a value, but not a traditional one under that definition. Hence, why we need to define "traditional."

3. Even if we do accept traditional as being able to occur after the Civil War, then for the issue of equality under law, we still run into serious problems, since we then have to deal with segregation, woman's rights, homosexual rights, etc. Unless June 2013 can be considered "traditional" we run into a problem there since that's when DOMA was still on the books, having been enacted in 1996.


TLDR, defining equality under law as a traditional value doesn't work without an objective definition of "traditional" to work from first, which isn't agreed upon, and even if we did, equality under law still is highly suspicious.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:
Something that is no longer a part of the culture of the land is difficult to consider as traditional, especially when the post that brought up the mention of 3/5 was not framed within the time period that 3/5 was in effect.
Clearly if someone is talking about equality before the law he obviously means a time after 3/5 was no longer in effect.

Well I think there are a couple problems there.
1. You seem to be defining "traditional" based on when the values we view as being "traditional values" came into being as "values." That's not how that's supposed to work though, it's sort of backwards. Something being traditional means it adheres to some sort of standard objective definition of traditional. We haven't defined traditional yet. And defining the standard for traditional must be done without regard to specific events in the real world. The poster can talk about how equality under law was a "value" in the post Civil War environment, but that does not necessarily make it "traditional." We have to create an objective definition of "traditional" and "value" and then apply them to values and see if they fit the "traditional value" definition. Right now we're working backwards, saying that equality under law is a traditional value, and that therefore traditional values must be able to come into existence at or near the point where equality under law does.

2. If you're positing that we define "traditional" as occurring after the Civil War, I think that is a viewpoint, but not a uniform or obvious one. I think this is the main issue, you're working from one definition of traditional that results in the value of equality under law as coming into existence after the Civil War, but not everyone takes that view. A lot of people would disagree. I've heard plenty of people appeal to the values of the Founding Fathers as being traditional US values. If that's the case then either A) equality under law was an attempted and failed traditional value, or B) equality under law is not a traditional value since it came into existence as a value after the Founding Fathers were gone. It can still be a value, but not a traditional one under that definition. Hence, why we need to define "traditional."

3. Even if we do accept traditional as being able to occur after the Civil War, then for the issue of equality under law, we still run into serious problems, since we then have to deal with segregation, woman's rights, homosexual rights, etc. Unless June 2013 can be considered "traditional" we run into a problem there since that's when DOMA was still on the books, having been enacted in 1996.


TLDR, defining equality under law as a traditional value doesn't work without an objective definition of "traditional" to work from first, which isn't agreed upon, and even if we did, equality under law still is highly suspicious.

I eagerly await your definition of traditional, and what time frame you believe it encompasses. I'll settle for a custom, belief, or value that has been passed down from generation to generation, or something that is long established.

"Failing to achieve a value when an earnest attempt to reach said value is made does not result in something not being a value".
The US, and many other Western democracies, have long placed value on equality before the law. Just because it is a value that is still being worked towards, and it's implementation shaped by the prevailing legal, political, and social attitudes of the time, does not reduce it's importance as a value.

Aw Hell, I just have to know:

Dreadclaw69 wrote:I eagerly await your definition of traditional, and what time frame you believe it encompasses. I'll settle for a custom, belief, or value that has been passed down from generation to generation, or something that is long established.

Is your operating definition of "traditional values", then, restricted to only those values which fit your description, and are still predominant amongst the majority to this day?

Because the civil rights movement took 188 years, and even then it took longer to see it in practice after that, and the majority of states still do not recognize gay marriage.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

I eagerly await your definition of traditional, and what time frame you believe it encompasses. I'll settle for a custom, belief, or value that has been passed down from generation to generation, or something that is long established.

The standard definition of traditional is (pulled from google):
- existing in or as part of a tradition; long-established.

How long traditional is depends upon the specific circumstances. For example, a family might have an Easter Egg hunt at an Aunt's house five years in a row, and call it "traditional," while the Catholic Church has rules and laws that don't really become "traditional" until hundreds of years have passed.

In the current situation, we are looking at tradition through the lens of the United States. From a national perspective, it must be widely accepted by the population, at least, say 60% or so (a super-majority/a large enough portion of the country that the minority can not, on its own, end the tradition).

So what I would say is traditional, is something that is practiced by at least 60% of the population. In addition, for nations, chronologically, and for "values" I am inclined to argue for something that has existed across generations of political parties, that is, something that has remained constant despite major political overhauls. And by that I don't mean when the parties switch in terms of who's in control, but rather, I mean when parties that did not exist came into existence and overtook standing parties, etc. This is useful because the US is a representative democracy, and thus the values of the elected, which are codified by the legislature, and enforced by the President, should be fairly close to that of the people.

Looking at the history of political parties in the United States our political parties have been pretty much the same since the mid-1800s, but we can include the overhaul and shake up of the parties that occurred in the 60's (dixiecrats leaving the Democratic party, shakeup of the map over a very short period of time) as a major shift in the parties I suppose.

Based on that, going back 2-3 generations of parties, the minimum I would say is necessary for "traditional" to be in effect, we end up, at the latest, in the early 1850s, specifically 1852 or 1856, that being the last election the Whig party had a major presence in the US Congress. If we wanted to go back a further generation, we'd have to go back to 1832, when the National Republican party was a major party.

So in terms of "traditional US values" I would argue that it is a value that has existed since, at the very least, 1856, as a value that was held by a supermajority of the nation when the Whig and Democratic (of the 1800s) parties were the major parties in existence. That would be my personal stance on the issue at this time.

 Dreadclaw69 wrote:

"Failing to achieve a value when an earnest attempt to reach said value is made does not result in something not being a value".
The US, and many other Western democracies, have long placed value on equality before the law. Just because it is a value that is still being worked towards, and it's implementation shaped by the prevailing legal, political, and social attitudes of the time, does not reduce it's importance as a value.

You seem to have "selective paragraph post reading syndrome." I went on to explain that the manner in which a value is failed to be achieved is important, specifically that acting in a manner that is obviously counter to the "value" clearly shows that the "value" is not valued enough by the nation to actually consider it a "value." The wording you cited even involves that, when I said "earnest attempt."

The US has failed at many points in its history to make an earnest attempt at making equality under law a value. I listed the examples on a post further up the page.
- Slavery/African Americans (failure to achieve true equality under law until the civil rights movement in the 60's)
- Women (suffrage in the 1920's)
- Homosexuals (if we assume they've achieved equality under law with the declaring of certain facets of DOMA unconstitutional, then June 2013)
- Asians (Japanese internment camps during WWII)
Heck, we might be able to throw the detainment policies of citizens under the Patriot act in there.

We place "value" on equality under law in a rhetorical manner, that is, it makes for a nice narrative that people like. In terms of actual practice, we placed very little importance on actually achieving equality under law, and have taken active actions in opposition to that value many times throughout our history. My point in my response to Manchu was that It's less about omission by accident, and more about purposeful omission, as well as action in opposition.

If I say I am a vegan, but I always eat a 12 oz. steak once or twice a week, in a planned manner, I don't think many people would agree that I am a vegan. Similarly, if the US says equality under law is a value, but we find segregation legal and sustain it through the 50's, put Japanese in internment camps, deny women the vote, and then deny homosexuals equal protection under the law with DOMA, I'd say it's tough to call equality under law a value, or at least one we've valued as a nation over time.

I think there needs to be a Webster's law (much like godwin's), in that when people start citing dictionary definitions, the debate is now about the nature of the debate, and not the topic.

Polonius wrote:I think there needs to be a Webster's law (much like godwin's), in that when people start citing dictionary definitions, the debate is now about the nature of the debate, and not the topic.

Unfotunately, it is a necessary requisite for many debates, as people often make up their own definitions for key terms of the debate; akin to saying you've hit a grand slam in baseball because you hit the ball so damned hard, irrespective or whether or not the bases were loaded.

The case in point here is that Dreadclaw's own definition of what constitutes being "traditional" seems to change in accordance with whatever he wants it to mean, and then changes again when his own definition undercuts his argument.

 azazel the cat wrote:

Polonius wrote:I think there needs to be a Webster's law (much like godwin's), in that when people start citing dictionary definitions, the debate is now about the nature of the debate, and not the topic.

Unfotunately, it is a necessary requisite for many debates, as people often make up their own definitions for key terms of the debate; akin to saying you've hit a grand slam in baseball because you hit the ball so damned hard, irrespective or whether or not the bases were loaded.

The case in point here is that Dreadclaw's own definition of what constitutes being "traditional" seems to change in accordance with whatever he wants it to mean, and then changes again when his own definition undercuts his argument.

LIke I said, you're arguing, not about the merits of his point, but on the way in which he is arguing it. It is a snack consuming itself.

Webster's Law!

 Polonius wrote:


LIke I said, you're arguing, not about the merits of his point, but on the way in which he is arguing it. It is a snack consuming itself.

Webster's Law!

When I was on debate team, the first thing you did at the start of every debate was define the terms that were being used. If the resolution was "Giving everyone a puppy promotes justice," you would have needed to define what is "justice," and also potentially what "give," "everyone," "puppy," and "promotes," mean. But definitely justice. If you don't define the terms and parameters of the debate, you end up in a situation where you can easily be arguing past each other, or where a person can move the goalposts because they've failed to anchor themselves to one specific definition.

Webster's Law or not, it's simply good debate policy to have defined terms and parameters. It is very difficult to debate the merits of someone's points in relation to a topic when the topic itself is not defined.

 DogofWar1 wrote:

 Polonius wrote:


LIke I said, you're arguing, not about the merits of his point, but on the way in which he is arguing it. It is a snack consuming itself.

Webster's Law!

When I was on debate team, the first thing you did at the start of every debate was define the terms that were being used. If the resolution was "Giving everyone a puppy promotes justice," you would have needed to define what is "justice," and also potentially what "give," "everyone," "puppy," and "promotes," mean. But definitely justice. If you don't define the terms and parameters of the debate, you end up in a situation where you can easily be arguing past each other, or where a person can move the goalposts because they've failed to anchor themselves to one specific definition.

Webster's Law or not, it's simply good debate policy to have defined terms and parameters.

I agree, but that's not what I'm talking about. Saying what you mean and defining your terms is the core of good communication. That's not what Webster's law touches: it touches using definitions to argue, not for your point, but that what somebody else said was wrong.

cadbren wrote:

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

I doubt you'll find many canadians born after 1950 who do not entirely agree that our ancestors have been monstrous dicks to the aboriginal people.

If they hadn't done what they did Canada wouldn't exist. If you're that upset over it, give half your possessions/wealth to the local tribe and start over. More than half if you feel the need.

Lol no. Colonies could have easily been founded without wiping out the aboriginal populations. And even if there would likely always have been frictions and probably violence, we didn't need to be dicks in such a horribly dickish way. We've had State sponsored kidnapping and sequestration of natives up until 50 years ago. And our government still can't grow the balls to say they are sorry about it.

I can find that horrible and yet see that I, myself, had no part in it. My parents had no part in it. I know my family history well enough to know where we stood, and that was beside the Aboriginal and the Metis people. Co-habitation was more than possible, it was happening for quite a while, until the Brits decided 'lol, dirty indians, get off our lawns' and started burning houses.

If you are referring to the state sponsored catholic boarding schools (I can not remember what they are called), the Canadian Government (Stephen Harper) has apologized for them and is paying restitution to the victims surviving family members.

If not than well I am mistaken

 gorgon wrote:

 sebster wrote:

 gorgon wrote:
As I said more succinctly earlier, it draws its rhetorical effectiveness from its lack of specificity.

It isn't just vagueness that matters, it has to be both vague and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener.

Note that I didn't use the word "vague."

Distinction without difference.

"It isn't just a lack of specificity that matters, it has to both lack specifics and at the same time sound like there is a clear, positive message to the listener."