57 ms·

Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition: "A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of

Instead of trying to define by example, let's use an actual definition: "A title of nobility grants special legal privileges to an individual at the expense of the rest of the people." If you have a different definition, that's fine, of course. Then we're just down to semantics, and I guess you could say I'm speaking metaphorically. But I hope you're not just excluding certain titles because they don't fit the preconceived idea of a title of nobility in most people's minds.

philwelch 17y ago
Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment, operating expenses, and salary). That's not the constitutional definition by any means. Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an especially effective or honest debating tactic.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]
- johnnybgoode 17y ago
  You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is for you. I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama: "To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142." Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.
  - philwelch 17y ago
    The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional. Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.
    - johnnybgoode 17y ago
      I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense). As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
      - philwelch 17y ago
        http://xkcd.com/169/ http://xkcd.com/169/ Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness. Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first place. If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.) There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument, you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset. But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated what you meant in the first place.
- stonemetal 17y ago
  The police officer definition rather sounds like the definition of a knight(knights were required to keep the peace in their territories), except a knight got land instead of a pay check. And yeah minor elected officials carry out the same duties that minor lords carried out in their day. The primary difference between nobility and modern authority is duration, legal status and lineage.

philwelch 17y ago

Did you just make up that definition or do you have a citation? Because that definition isn't particularly useful: for instance, any elected or appointed office would then qualify as a "title of nobility"--a police officer has the legal privilege to execute warrants, detain people, and carry arms at the expense of the rest of the people (who must subsidize his training, equipment, operating expenses, and salary). That's not the constitutional definition by any means. Inventing a deliberately weak definition and declaring victory isn't an especially effective or honest debating tactic.

deleted 17y ago
[deleted]
johnnybgoode 17y ago
You don't have to accuse me of lying or being dishonest. I admit the majority is on your side, but I'm more interested in accuracy than how useful something is for you. I'm not the first person to use such a definition. Here is one from over a century ago, from an opinion in a court case from Alabama: "To "confer a title of nobility" is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached than to the otherwise empty title or order. Horst v. Moses, 48 Ala. 129, 142." Again, if you have a different definition, fine. But don't accuse me of being dishonest when it's quite clear mine is at least as valid.
- philwelch 17y ago
  The words may be the same, but the meaning is significantly different, and I have little interest in whatever sophistry you intend to pursue in order to support your crankish opinion that university degrees are unconstitutional. Incidentally, "nominate to an order of persons" is probably the operative text there, and is something that you probably neglected to include in your earlier definition. I do not think that Alabama court of a century ago, or indeed the drafters of the Constitution, intended university degrees to count as a title of nobility. Especially since many of them founded universities themselves.
  - johnnybgoode 17y ago
    I never even mentioned the Constitution, so that's not my argument. You probably assumed I was talking about the Constitution when I said titles of nobility were supposed to have been abolished. In fact, I was referring to the idea that our society is supposed to be an egalitarian one (in a legal sense). As for the rest of your post, it no longer seems relevant.
    - philwelch 17y ago
      http://xkcd.com/169/ http://xkcd.com/169/ Communicating badly and then acting smug when you're misunderstood is not cleverness. Or, in other words (since you are no doubt preparing to quibble that you weren't acting particularly smug), the onus is on you to clearly communicate your argument, and using phrases like "titles of nobility were supposed to be abolished" and then not answering my objections about the Constitutional text that did, in fact, abolish titles of nobility impeded getting your point across, rather than helping. You give the distinct impression that you're blaming me for misunderstanding what you so poorly communicated in the first place. If your argument is simply that college degrees are anti-egalitarian, I will happily agree with you. But our society wasn't meant to be legally egalitarian in the first place. It had slavery. I'm also happy to point out that it's not possible to even have pure egalitarianism, which is one reason why meritocracy is so much better. (You will undoubtedly counter that reliance upon college degrees is not efficiently meritocratic, but see? Now we've got ourselves a truly interesting and worthwhile discussion.) There is also the alternate hypothesis that whenever I debunk your argument, you start pretending you meant something entirely different from the outset. But I am choosing to be charitable and assuming you simply miscommunicated what you meant in the first place.
stonemetal 17y ago
The police officer definition rather sounds like the definition of a knight(knights were required to keep the peace in their territories), except a knight got land instead of a pay check. And yeah minor elected officials carry out the same duties that minor lords carried out in their day. The primary difference between nobility and modern authority is duration, legal status and lineage.