8 ms·

I won't speak for Thomas, but I used to teach "Politics and the English Language" in rhetoric and argumentation courses. There are two important things worth po

I won't speak for Thomas, but I used to teach "Politics and the English Language" in rhetoric and argumentation courses. There are two important things worth pointing out here: 1. Your understanding of the problem domain of language and politics, at least in this post, is incredibly naive. For a rigorous analysis of the subject, try something like Chaïm Perelman's Treatise on Argumentation or one of Ronald Dworkin's books. 2. Your comment being right and Thomas' comment being right aren't mutually exclusive. What he said is correct. What you said is also correct. Your attempt to make your point invalidate his is what's popularly called shifting the goalposts. It's what people do when they want to, as you put it, win points. Also, as a point of order, your whole shtick of suggesting that someone has taken a position out of blind partisanship without really grasping what's at stake in it yadda yadda -- that's never a constructive way to approach a discussion. Everything you're accusing Thomas of, you're guilty of yourself. Whence Thomas' dismissal, which brings to mind Aristotle: A man should not enter into discussion with everybody or practice dialectics with the first comer as reasoning always becomes embittered where some people are concerned. Indeed, when an adversary tries by every possible means to to wriggle out of a corner, it is legitimate to strive, by every possible means, to reach the conclusion; but this procedure lacks elegance. -- Topics 8.14.164b

chernevik 14y ago
Ooh, wow, arguments from authority. As you are so learned, and Chaïm and Ronald aren't here, perhaps you'd care to offer their more proper reading of Orwell. And as you're so learned, you'll immediately know my remark as a paraphrase, and of whom. Right? Because when I read a book, I do so in such a fashion as to repeat its argument, rather than assign others reading I couldn't do properly in the first place. Nor can I understand how my reading of Orwell can be "naive". Wrong, maybe. Unless you mean that Orwell argued that these aspects of rhetoric can be deliberately manipulated to bring about otherwise unjustifiable outcomes? And that his chief purpose was to warn others of this manipulation and suggest danger signals of it? I am completely alert to that purpose, and you can be sure my neglect of that theme in my remarks here reflects a very deliberate desire to avoid suggesting anything so ugly of someone about whom I know nothing. Now as to "moving the goal posts." What I said, from the very start, was that his construction was wrong _for_a_layman_, that it could be right _for_lawyers_, and that the former was here the important context. So my argument acknowledged the sense in which he could be right and dismissed it. And so forth. I don't really care what you've taught. Bring an _argument_. Because your pompous _assertions_ don't do much more than piss me off.
- chernevik 14y ago
  Time's up. "Meno: And did you still not think [Gorgias] knew [what excellence was]? "Socrates: I'm rather forgetful, Meno . . . maybe you know what he used to say. If so, remind me . . . . let's leave him out of it; he's not here after all." From Plato's "Meno". Here's another fun quote: GLENDOWER. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. HOTSPUR. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
- sneak 14y ago
  You may be correct, but it's obscured by the fact that you're being a dick. Don't do that.
  - chernevik 14y ago
    I took a nasty tone against someone who was trying to bully me. I'm sorry you don't like it but he had it coming.
    - sneak 14y ago
      Have a q-tip, brother.
    - deleted 14y ago
      [deleted]
  - FreakLegion 14y ago
    >You may be correct Nah. Every claim he made is demonstrably incorrect, with the exception of his initial point that '"Sense of the Senate" language is often important in judicial and / or executive interpretation.' This claim is also incorrect, strictly speaking, but if we're charitable and substitute 'occasionally' for 'often', it at least adds something to the discussion. What it doesn't do is show Thomas to be wrong. "Sense of" resolutions aren't legally binding and rarely, if ever, impact public-facing policy. They do, on occasion, impact government-facing policy, for example SCOTUS recess appointments. The rest of his comments are blather and, while worthy of a good chuckle, are unworthy of response.

chernevik 14y ago

Ooh, wow, arguments from authority. As you are so learned, and Chaïm and Ronald aren't here, perhaps you'd care to offer their more proper reading of Orwell. And as you're so learned, you'll immediately know my remark as a paraphrase, and of whom. Right? Because when I read a book, I do so in such a fashion as to repeat its argument, rather than assign others reading I couldn't do properly in the first place. Nor can I understand how my reading of Orwell can be "naive". Wrong, maybe. Unless you mean that Orwell argued that these aspects of rhetoric can be deliberately manipulated to bring about otherwise unjustifiable outcomes? And that his chief purpose was to warn others of this manipulation and suggest danger signals of it? I am completely alert to that purpose, and you can be sure my neglect of that theme in my remarks here reflects a very deliberate desire to avoid suggesting anything so ugly of someone about whom I know nothing. Now as to "moving the goal posts." What I said, from the very start, was that his construction was wrong _for_a_layman_, that it could be right _for_lawyers_, and that the former was here the important context. So my argument acknowledged the sense in which he could be right and dismissed it. And so forth. I don't really care what you've taught. Bring an _argument_. Because your pompous _assertions_ don't do much more than piss me off.

chernevik 14y ago
Time's up. "Meno: And did you still not think [Gorgias] knew [what excellence was]? "Socrates: I'm rather forgetful, Meno . . . maybe you know what he used to say. If so, remind me . . . . let's leave him out of it; he's not here after all." From Plato's "Meno". Here's another fun quote: GLENDOWER. I can call spirits from the vasty deep. HOTSPUR. Why, so can I, or so can any man; But will they come when you do call for them?
sneak 14y ago
You may be correct, but it's obscured by the fact that you're being a dick. Don't do that.
- chernevik 14y ago
  I took a nasty tone against someone who was trying to bully me. I'm sorry you don't like it but he had it coming.
  - sneak 14y ago
    Have a q-tip, brother.
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
- FreakLegion 14y ago
  >You may be correct Nah. Every claim he made is demonstrably incorrect, with the exception of his initial point that '"Sense of the Senate" language is often important in judicial and / or executive interpretation.' This claim is also incorrect, strictly speaking, but if we're charitable and substitute 'occasionally' for 'often', it at least adds something to the discussion. What it doesn't do is show Thomas to be wrong. "Sense of" resolutions aren't legally binding and rarely, if ever, impact public-facing policy. They do, on occasion, impact government-facing policy, for example SCOTUS recess appointments. The rest of his comments are blather and, while worthy of a good chuckle, are unworthy of response.