I want to think about the history of the USA.
People who left from England arrived at the new world
at 1620, and they have built a new nation.
There was no system of kingship and aristocracy
in this new nation, that is, the people of this nation
were all equal.
“All men are created equal.” was written in
the Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776).
The USA was the first nation of democracy in the world.
The French Revolution happened 13 years later.
The history of the USA is about 230 years, but
it is also the history of democracy in the world.
We can say that the Second World War was the war
between democracy and autocratic nations.
The USA won in the Europe and the East Asia.
It was the victory of democracy.
After the Second World War, democracy has been
the mainstream of the world.
Now the Soviet Union collapsed.
Finally China has remained as the autocratic nation.
Where will China go to in the future?
Will China become the nation of democracy?
I think that the mainstream of the world history shows
China as the nation of democracy in the future.
People who left from England arrived at the new world
at 1620, and they have built a new nation.
There was no system of kingship and aristocracy
in this new nation, that is, the people of this nation
were all equal.
“All men are created equal.” was written in
the Declaration of Independence (July 4th, 1776).
The USA was the first nation of democracy in the world.
The French Revolution happened 13 years later.
The history of the USA is about 230 years, but
it is also the history of democracy in the world.
We can say that the Second World War was the war
between democracy and autocratic nations.
The USA won in the Europe and the East Asia.
It was the victory of democracy.
After the Second World War, democracy has been
the mainstream of the world.
Now the Soviet Union collapsed.
Finally China has remained as the autocratic nation.
Where will China go to in the future?
Will China become the nation of democracy?
I think that the mainstream of the world history shows
China as the nation of democracy in the future.
|
|
|
|
コメント(79)
>39 ユギ
>Britain literally ruled with might, juggernaut ships, and manpower.
>hey also had *total* control over India.
USA is more influential over the world. USA sent man to the moon. Brits nowhere near.
USA is the only country to use atomic bombs on cities.
USA came up with lot more modern day technologies and entertainment, cars, airplanes,
microwave, Internet, disneyland, Hollywood and…American Idols.
Anyway I see that no one can win this debate. So I would say draw at this point.
>But we are given this opportunity to challenge the government.
>You've gotta be kidding me.
Definitely not. I was a member of Amnesty International and I was also helping
Sri Lankan government. When Sri Lankan officials found out that I was a member
Of AI, the diplomats accused it in my face and I almost lost the relationship.
AI had a big impact on Sri Lankan government which prompted Tamil tiger massacre.
Only one example of NGO challenging a government, I can come up with dozens easily.
>Britain literally ruled with might, juggernaut ships, and manpower.
>hey also had *total* control over India.
USA is more influential over the world. USA sent man to the moon. Brits nowhere near.
USA is the only country to use atomic bombs on cities.
USA came up with lot more modern day technologies and entertainment, cars, airplanes,
microwave, Internet, disneyland, Hollywood and…American Idols.
Anyway I see that no one can win this debate. So I would say draw at this point.
>But we are given this opportunity to challenge the government.
>You've gotta be kidding me.
Definitely not. I was a member of Amnesty International and I was also helping
Sri Lankan government. When Sri Lankan officials found out that I was a member
Of AI, the diplomats accused it in my face and I almost lost the relationship.
AI had a big impact on Sri Lankan government which prompted Tamil tiger massacre.
Only one example of NGO challenging a government, I can come up with dozens easily.
#40
All points you listed are very debatable, but
> Anyway I see that no one can win this debate. So I would say draw at this point.
Agreed.
> Only one example of NGO challenging a government, I can come up with dozens easily.
It seems that in your vocabulary, "challenging the government" means something completely different from what it is in mine. What I was talking about, could be loosely reworded as "influencing the government" - your own government. Having one's participation in a group affect relations with other groups/governments is a given, so it doesn't seem to me like challenging them. I guess that's why I misunderstood you.
All points you listed are very debatable, but
> Anyway I see that no one can win this debate. So I would say draw at this point.
Agreed.
> Only one example of NGO challenging a government, I can come up with dozens easily.
It seems that in your vocabulary, "challenging the government" means something completely different from what it is in mine. What I was talking about, could be loosely reworded as "influencing the government" - your own government. Having one's participation in a group affect relations with other groups/governments is a given, so it doesn't seem to me like challenging them. I guess that's why I misunderstood you.
> Ian
> That's not true freedom. There is no freedom from fear in anarchy.
Anarchy is true freedom in that there are no laws or government to stop you from doing what you want. "Freedom from fear" isn't the same thing. I am talking about the freedom to do things, not the freedom FROM things happening to you.
Also, laws don't necessarily alleviate fear by their very existence. Murder is illegal, yet most people would probably be too afraid to walk down a dark alley in South-Central LA at night.
> ユギ
> I do hope you can understand the difference between commonly used words, slang/jargon, and scientific terms. "Democracy" belongs in the third group, where the meanings don't change over time.
You are so right on this one and I am kicking myself for not bringing up that point.
The way I see it, the problem with evolving a language too much (and forgive the extreme example) is that important words (such as 'democracy') can potentially be shaped to mean whatever the powers-that-be want them to mean. In an Orwellian scenario, 'democracy' could theoretically evolve to mean any sort of freedom, no matter how minor, so that the government could claim to have a "democracy" when none actually exists. For that matter, China calls itself a "People's Republic" when no actual republican (and I don't mean the political party) style of government exists there.
> That's not true freedom. There is no freedom from fear in anarchy.
Anarchy is true freedom in that there are no laws or government to stop you from doing what you want. "Freedom from fear" isn't the same thing. I am talking about the freedom to do things, not the freedom FROM things happening to you.
Also, laws don't necessarily alleviate fear by their very existence. Murder is illegal, yet most people would probably be too afraid to walk down a dark alley in South-Central LA at night.
> ユギ
> I do hope you can understand the difference between commonly used words, slang/jargon, and scientific terms. "Democracy" belongs in the third group, where the meanings don't change over time.
You are so right on this one and I am kicking myself for not bringing up that point.
The way I see it, the problem with evolving a language too much (and forgive the extreme example) is that important words (such as 'democracy') can potentially be shaped to mean whatever the powers-that-be want them to mean. In an Orwellian scenario, 'democracy' could theoretically evolve to mean any sort of freedom, no matter how minor, so that the government could claim to have a "democracy" when none actually exists. For that matter, China calls itself a "People's Republic" when no actual republican (and I don't mean the political party) style of government exists there.
35 ♪メガロン♪
> #21 fenomas
> Go look at the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, and the
> Declaration of Independence. You will not find the word
> "Democracy" or "Democratic" in any single one of them.
That's because the word was used differently 200 years ago than it's used now. To the founding fathers "democracy" meant only direct democracy; in modern speech it nearly always refers to democracies which are representative, parliamentary, constitutional or so on. The government of the US is not as simple as any of these, but it certainly incorporates aspects of direct and representative democracy at varying levels. To flat-out say the US is "not a democracy" is absurd.
> Again, I am talking about "majority rules" democracy.
I know that - the question is why? Why not use the "original" meaning where voting is restricted to male citizens who have completed military service? Why not use it to mean Jeffersonian Democracy, or Jacksonian? Or why not use the term as it's currently defined in dictionaries, which clearly includes representative governments? (Presumed answer: because that would preclude one from sniping at people for being ignorant if they call the US a democracy.)
> #21 fenomas
> Go look at the US Constitution, the US Bill of Rights, and the
> Declaration of Independence. You will not find the word
> "Democracy" or "Democratic" in any single one of them.
That's because the word was used differently 200 years ago than it's used now. To the founding fathers "democracy" meant only direct democracy; in modern speech it nearly always refers to democracies which are representative, parliamentary, constitutional or so on. The government of the US is not as simple as any of these, but it certainly incorporates aspects of direct and representative democracy at varying levels. To flat-out say the US is "not a democracy" is absurd.
> Again, I am talking about "majority rules" democracy.
I know that - the question is why? Why not use the "original" meaning where voting is restricted to male citizens who have completed military service? Why not use it to mean Jeffersonian Democracy, or Jacksonian? Or why not use the term as it's currently defined in dictionaries, which clearly includes representative governments? (Presumed answer: because that would preclude one from sniping at people for being ignorant if they call the US a democracy.)
39 ユギ
> Sarcasm aside, I do hope you can understand the difference
> between commonly used words, slang/jargon, and scientific
> terms. "Democracy" belongs in the third group, where the
> meanings don't change over time.
You're talking crazy talk. Scientific terms evolve in meaning all the time. I could probably think of scientific language that has evolved since I left college, much less since the ancient Greeks. ALL language evolves, constantly. Even language used for formally representing things like symbolic logic! And if the language of science evolves, the language of *political* science sure as hell does too!
You could argue that abstract concepts don't evolve over time - that there exists some kind of Platonic Ideal of a democracy, or a chair, or the color blue. But that doesn't mean any given word will refer to the same Platonic Ideal tomorrow that it referred to yesterday, and history shows that in general they don't. Words only point at concepts, they never hold a true one-to-one correspondence with them.
> Sarcasm aside, I do hope you can understand the difference
> between commonly used words, slang/jargon, and scientific
> terms. "Democracy" belongs in the third group, where the
> meanings don't change over time.
You're talking crazy talk. Scientific terms evolve in meaning all the time. I could probably think of scientific language that has evolved since I left college, much less since the ancient Greeks. ALL language evolves, constantly. Even language used for formally representing things like symbolic logic! And if the language of science evolves, the language of *political* science sure as hell does too!
You could argue that abstract concepts don't evolve over time - that there exists some kind of Platonic Ideal of a democracy, or a chair, or the color blue. But that doesn't mean any given word will refer to the same Platonic Ideal tomorrow that it referred to yesterday, and history shows that in general they don't. Words only point at concepts, they never hold a true one-to-one correspondence with them.
Regardless of how you define it, we are not a democracy. That's not an opinion, it's a fact. It's ridiculous to try to say "we're a 'democracy' NOW because the meaning has changed". Whatever.
Certainly, there are elements of democracy at the state and local levels, such as voting on bonds or local issues. But that doesn't make AMERICA a 'democracy'. Last I checked, I didn't get a vote on ObamaCare, the war in Iraq, or corporate bailouts. Those were all voted on by representatives that we sent to congress.
If you watered down definitions enough, you could pin any label on America. You could call America 'socialist', 'fascist', 'autocratic', or 'imperialistic' if you wanted to, depending on how loosely you defined those terms. In fact, people do all the time! I prefer to maintain original/correct meanings (and 'democracy' NEVER meant 'only male citizens can vote', even though that's how voting was set up at the time).
p.s. It's good to know that you consider my disagreement with you and others to be 'sniping' (defined as 'to attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. anonymously or from a safe distance.')
Certainly, there are elements of democracy at the state and local levels, such as voting on bonds or local issues. But that doesn't make AMERICA a 'democracy'. Last I checked, I didn't get a vote on ObamaCare, the war in Iraq, or corporate bailouts. Those were all voted on by representatives that we sent to congress.
If you watered down definitions enough, you could pin any label on America. You could call America 'socialist', 'fascist', 'autocratic', or 'imperialistic' if you wanted to, depending on how loosely you defined those terms. In fact, people do all the time! I prefer to maintain original/correct meanings (and 'democracy' NEVER meant 'only male citizens can vote', even though that's how voting was set up at the time).
p.s. It's good to know that you consider my disagreement with you and others to be 'sniping' (defined as 'to attack a person or a person's work with petulant or snide criticism, esp. anonymously or from a safe distance.')
47 ♪メガロン♪
> Regardless of how you define it, we are not a democracy.
That's silly. Whether or not we are a democracy is determined solely and completely by "how you define it".
> That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Don't tell me, tell those deluded fools writing the dictionaries.
> (and 'democracy' NEVER meant 'only male citizens can vote', even though that's how voting was set up at the time)
You're saying that because it fits what you think "democracy" means, not because it's grounded in fact. In Athens at the time we're talking about there were several different governing bodies that shared power at various times. The largest of these was the "demos", or Assembly of Citizens, which was open to all male citizens over 18. What democracy originally referred to was the idea of placing power in that particular body (the Assembly), as opposed to the others.
So "demos" referred to particular assembly, and by extension to the citizens who were eligible to join that assembly. But make no mistake, to the Athenians "citizens" did not mean "people". Citizenship was chiefly hereditary, and could also be granted and taken away, and often was. So when people talk about democracy being Greek for "rule by the people", that's just a casual simplification. What it meant was rule by a specific governing body, and that body was indeed restricted to male citizens.
> I prefer to maintain original/correct meanings...
Once again: Words do not have "correct" meanings. They are used differently in different places, times, and contexts. That's just how language is. The only ultimate measure of correctness for a word's meaning is how useful it is for communication.
> Regardless of how you define it, we are not a democracy.
That's silly. Whether or not we are a democracy is determined solely and completely by "how you define it".
> That's not an opinion, it's a fact.
Don't tell me, tell those deluded fools writing the dictionaries.
> (and 'democracy' NEVER meant 'only male citizens can vote', even though that's how voting was set up at the time)
You're saying that because it fits what you think "democracy" means, not because it's grounded in fact. In Athens at the time we're talking about there were several different governing bodies that shared power at various times. The largest of these was the "demos", or Assembly of Citizens, which was open to all male citizens over 18. What democracy originally referred to was the idea of placing power in that particular body (the Assembly), as opposed to the others.
So "demos" referred to particular assembly, and by extension to the citizens who were eligible to join that assembly. But make no mistake, to the Athenians "citizens" did not mean "people". Citizenship was chiefly hereditary, and could also be granted and taken away, and often was. So when people talk about democracy being Greek for "rule by the people", that's just a casual simplification. What it meant was rule by a specific governing body, and that body was indeed restricted to male citizens.
> I prefer to maintain original/correct meanings...
Once again: Words do not have "correct" meanings. They are used differently in different places, times, and contexts. That's just how language is. The only ultimate measure of correctness for a word's meaning is how useful it is for communication.
I would say that the U.S. political system isn't perfect....it isn't even very good.
In a previous post I said it didn't look much like democracy. That was a political
view which reflects my personal left wing bias. It was based on my personal view
that a large percentage of Americans are disenfranchised. I think that's where
you are coming from, and I'm more than happy to sit in kissaten and speak too
loudly about what ails the world but at the end of the day, the U.S. is defined as
a representative democracy. I looked up a few dictionaries and a couple even gave
the U.S. as an example of a democratic country.
It may not reflect a narrow definition of the word but I did the wikipedia thing,
and found out that in Ancient Greek democracy only land holding men could vote
and original representative democracy was decided via a lottery.
In a previous post I said it didn't look much like democracy. That was a political
view which reflects my personal left wing bias. It was based on my personal view
that a large percentage of Americans are disenfranchised. I think that's where
you are coming from, and I'm more than happy to sit in kissaten and speak too
loudly about what ails the world but at the end of the day, the U.S. is defined as
a representative democracy. I looked up a few dictionaries and a couple even gave
the U.S. as an example of a democratic country.
It may not reflect a narrow definition of the word but I did the wikipedia thing,
and found out that in Ancient Greek democracy only land holding men could vote
and original representative democracy was decided via a lottery.
#44 fenomas
> The government of the US is not as simple as any of these, but it certainly incorporates aspects of direct and representative democracy at varying levels.
You see, there is a big difference between "being a" democracy and "incorporating aspects of" it. First means that 90-100% of the conditions associated with the term "democracy" are implemented, while to match your statement, incorporating even a single aspect is enough.
Besides, in US, neither citizens' votes are counted properly (if at all), nor their interests are upheld by the representatives who the aforementioned citizens have reportedly voted for. Which, in turn, makes it rather clear that democracy, whichever way you want to define it, exists in USA only on paper. And in your mind.
#46
> Scientific terms evolve in meaning all the time. I could probably think of scientific language that has evolved since I left college, much less since the ancient Greeks.
Yes, scientific languages evolve over time. And no, scientific *terms* do not. The term "gravity" will always describe how objects with mass are attracted towards each other; "molecule" and "triangle" always meant the same thing. Of course, you can establish a night club and call it "Molecule", and then you can argue that for its customers, the term has a different meaning - but you cannot take another particle of a totally different kind and state it is also a molecule.
> Words only point at concepts, they never hold a true one-to-one correspondence with them.
Then would you mind explaining why, instead of simply redefining the meaning of the term "democracy" to suit a particular group's tastes, several dozen variants had to be defined? Certainly, that was completely unnecessary, because the original term doesn't hold a true one-to-one correspondence with the concept. That is, unless your statement is wrong.
> Once again: Words do not have "correct" meanings. They are used differently in different places, times, and contexts. That's just how language is. The only ultimate measure of correctness for a word's meaning is how useful it is for communication.
That's exactly the problem. Taking democracy as an example, since your personal definition differs from the original (Athenian, if you wish), and mine doesn't (AFAIK), any communication between you and me, where the term is used, is guaranteed to lead to confusion at the very least.
So, to express your statement in more exact way: words have *original* meanings, defined by those who were using them first. Which might or might not be the same as assumed by the people using these words in conversations.
> The government of the US is not as simple as any of these, but it certainly incorporates aspects of direct and representative democracy at varying levels.
You see, there is a big difference between "being a" democracy and "incorporating aspects of" it. First means that 90-100% of the conditions associated with the term "democracy" are implemented, while to match your statement, incorporating even a single aspect is enough.
Besides, in US, neither citizens' votes are counted properly (if at all), nor their interests are upheld by the representatives who the aforementioned citizens have reportedly voted for. Which, in turn, makes it rather clear that democracy, whichever way you want to define it, exists in USA only on paper. And in your mind.
#46
> Scientific terms evolve in meaning all the time. I could probably think of scientific language that has evolved since I left college, much less since the ancient Greeks.
Yes, scientific languages evolve over time. And no, scientific *terms* do not. The term "gravity" will always describe how objects with mass are attracted towards each other; "molecule" and "triangle" always meant the same thing. Of course, you can establish a night club and call it "Molecule", and then you can argue that for its customers, the term has a different meaning - but you cannot take another particle of a totally different kind and state it is also a molecule.
> Words only point at concepts, they never hold a true one-to-one correspondence with them.
Then would you mind explaining why, instead of simply redefining the meaning of the term "democracy" to suit a particular group's tastes, several dozen variants had to be defined? Certainly, that was completely unnecessary, because the original term doesn't hold a true one-to-one correspondence with the concept. That is, unless your statement is wrong.
> Once again: Words do not have "correct" meanings. They are used differently in different places, times, and contexts. That's just how language is. The only ultimate measure of correctness for a word's meaning is how useful it is for communication.
That's exactly the problem. Taking democracy as an example, since your personal definition differs from the original (Athenian, if you wish), and mine doesn't (AFAIK), any communication between you and me, where the term is used, is guaranteed to lead to confusion at the very least.
So, to express your statement in more exact way: words have *original* meanings, defined by those who were using them first. Which might or might not be the same as assumed by the people using these words in conversations.
50 ユギ
> Yes, scientific languages evolve over time. And no, scientific *terms*
> do not. The term "gravity" will always describe how objects with mass
> are attracted towards each other; "molecule" and "triangle" always
> meant the same thing.
Let me put this simply: You. Are. Talking. Bollocks.
Sure, triangles have always existed as mathematical concepts. But the word triangle only dates to the 14th century. Before that we called them something else, now we call them triangles, and eventually we may call them something else. "Triangle" may fall out of favor, or expand to include more meanings than it currently does.
That is how language works. Really.
Shall we keep driving the point home? In Latin "triangle" originally referred to anything three-sided, not to the geometric shape. "Molecule" was originally just a vague word for very small things, it didn't gain its scientific meaning until Avogadro used the existing word to describe his new concept. (It's similar to how the word "bit" was used casually before it the new meaning of a binary unit of information.)
And "gravity" is an even worse example. You're aware that "gravity" means "dignity or seriousness" in addition to the scientific meaning, but that sense of "gravity" is actually older than the scientific meaning! So by your (absurd) thinking, modern scientists are "wrong" every time they use gravity in the scientific sense, because that's not the "original" meaning. And furthermore, to many modern scientists, gravity does not even refer to an attraction between objects, it refers to an intrinsic curvature of space-time. So even the specific scientific meanings of scientific words do change. (And again, democracy is a term in *political* science - it does not refer to anything concrete and measurable the way scientific words do.)
Now if you want to come up with more eternally unchanging words, I'll be happy to research them and explain why you're wrong some more. It's quite interesting! But it would be easier if you cracked a book on linguistics and realized that language always changes. ALWAYS.
> Taking democracy as an example, since your personal definition differs
from the original (Athenian, if you wish), and mine doesn't (AFAIK),
Yours differs. As I explained earlier, to the Athenians "democracy" meant government by a demos, which was a specific kind of governing body which no longer exists in any modern setting.
> So, to express your statement in more exact way: words have *original*
> meanings, defined by those who were using them first. Which might or might
> not be the same as assumed by the people using these words in conversations.
By that logic, nearly every word you use each day is wrong. You just used "conversations" incorrectly, because originally that word referred to dealings with the world (and, interestingly, sexual intercourse!). It came to refer specifically to verbal communication a century or two later.
Well, that's enough for the etymology lecture. To recap, language evolves. You are free to *prefer* any particular meaning of any particular word, but it's nothing more than a preference - your choice is not "right" and someone else's is not "wrong".
> Yes, scientific languages evolve over time. And no, scientific *terms*
> do not. The term "gravity" will always describe how objects with mass
> are attracted towards each other; "molecule" and "triangle" always
> meant the same thing.
Let me put this simply: You. Are. Talking. Bollocks.
Sure, triangles have always existed as mathematical concepts. But the word triangle only dates to the 14th century. Before that we called them something else, now we call them triangles, and eventually we may call them something else. "Triangle" may fall out of favor, or expand to include more meanings than it currently does.
That is how language works. Really.
Shall we keep driving the point home? In Latin "triangle" originally referred to anything three-sided, not to the geometric shape. "Molecule" was originally just a vague word for very small things, it didn't gain its scientific meaning until Avogadro used the existing word to describe his new concept. (It's similar to how the word "bit" was used casually before it the new meaning of a binary unit of information.)
And "gravity" is an even worse example. You're aware that "gravity" means "dignity or seriousness" in addition to the scientific meaning, but that sense of "gravity" is actually older than the scientific meaning! So by your (absurd) thinking, modern scientists are "wrong" every time they use gravity in the scientific sense, because that's not the "original" meaning. And furthermore, to many modern scientists, gravity does not even refer to an attraction between objects, it refers to an intrinsic curvature of space-time. So even the specific scientific meanings of scientific words do change. (And again, democracy is a term in *political* science - it does not refer to anything concrete and measurable the way scientific words do.)
Now if you want to come up with more eternally unchanging words, I'll be happy to research them and explain why you're wrong some more. It's quite interesting! But it would be easier if you cracked a book on linguistics and realized that language always changes. ALWAYS.
> Taking democracy as an example, since your personal definition differs
from the original (Athenian, if you wish), and mine doesn't (AFAIK),
Yours differs. As I explained earlier, to the Athenians "democracy" meant government by a demos, which was a specific kind of governing body which no longer exists in any modern setting.
> So, to express your statement in more exact way: words have *original*
> meanings, defined by those who were using them first. Which might or might
> not be the same as assumed by the people using these words in conversations.
By that logic, nearly every word you use each day is wrong. You just used "conversations" incorrectly, because originally that word referred to dealings with the world (and, interestingly, sexual intercourse!). It came to refer specifically to verbal communication a century or two later.
Well, that's enough for the etymology lecture. To recap, language evolves. You are free to *prefer* any particular meaning of any particular word, but it's nothing more than a preference - your choice is not "right" and someone else's is not "wrong".
> And "gravity" is an even worse example. You're aware that "gravity" means "dignity or seriousness" in addition to the scientific meaning.
Yes, but since its first use in physics, the scientific meaning did not change. And I did use the word "scientific terms", didn't I? It is obvious that, once a new scientific concept is devised, an existing word with existing (and likely different) meaning is used to label it. As I said before, you can establish a night club called "Democracy" if you wish, but when talking about political system, using multiple interpretations of the same term will lead to misunderstanding.
> You are free to *prefer* any particular meaning of any particular word, but it's nothing more than a preference - your choice is not "right" and someone else's is not "wrong".
Well, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you. And yet, you keep saying that you are right, all who disagree with you are wrong, and that your particular meaning of a particular word is the ultimate truth. Perhaps you need a consistency check?
P.S. Since you haven't paid attention, I would like to encourage you to re-read my posts to realize that I never used "right" and "wrong" when talking about word meanings. What I was doing is pointing out that if YOU decide to call the US political system democracy, this personal preference of yours is just that - your very personal preference. If you show me the proof that over 50% of English-speaking people call the political system in USA a democracy, then it can be accepted as a fact, if only because of the redefinition of the term by the majority. Until then, I excuse myself from the discussion.
Yes, but since its first use in physics, the scientific meaning did not change. And I did use the word "scientific terms", didn't I? It is obvious that, once a new scientific concept is devised, an existing word with existing (and likely different) meaning is used to label it. As I said before, you can establish a night club called "Democracy" if you wish, but when talking about political system, using multiple interpretations of the same term will lead to misunderstanding.
> You are free to *prefer* any particular meaning of any particular word, but it's nothing more than a preference - your choice is not "right" and someone else's is not "wrong".
Well, that's exactly what I've been trying to tell you. And yet, you keep saying that you are right, all who disagree with you are wrong, and that your particular meaning of a particular word is the ultimate truth. Perhaps you need a consistency check?
P.S. Since you haven't paid attention, I would like to encourage you to re-read my posts to realize that I never used "right" and "wrong" when talking about word meanings. What I was doing is pointing out that if YOU decide to call the US political system democracy, this personal preference of yours is just that - your very personal preference. If you show me the proof that over 50% of English-speaking people call the political system in USA a democracy, then it can be accepted as a fact, if only because of the redefinition of the term by the majority. Until then, I excuse myself from the discussion.
fenomas & ユギ
Please. It's about time to call it.
This thread has been very interesting. Even though we have different opinions,
we can always find something in between. That is what we learn from democracy.
You guys keep uploading long posts about how words and languages evolve. I am not
interested in that and I know I am not the only one. Think that you are sharing this
thread with many others who come to read because they are interested in the topic.
Please. It's about time to call it.
This thread has been very interesting. Even though we have different opinions,
we can always find something in between. That is what we learn from democracy.
You guys keep uploading long posts about how words and languages evolve. I am not
interested in that and I know I am not the only one. Think that you are sharing this
thread with many others who come to read because they are interested in the topic.
> fenomas
>That's silly. Whether or not we are a democracy is determined solely and completely by "how you define it".
Well, damn... I should go back to school and bitch at all my teachers for giving me bad grades when I didn't do well on vocabulary tests. All those words I missed... I didn't miss them at all! Those were just MY definitions of them! Hell, why even have vocabulary tests? We can just teach kids that words mean what ever they want them to mean!
>Don't tell me, tell those deluded fools writing the dictionaries.
Those "fools" change meanings on the whims of trends, not necessarily based on correct usage. Dictionaries certainly aren't written by historians or civics teachers. Dictionary.com lists "costed" as meaning "past tense of 'cost'" but it's underlined as a misspelled word when I write it, and I have verified with English professors that "costed" is not a word. Dictionaries aren't the end-all to what is definitely correct.
>You're saying that because it fits what you think "democracy" means, not because it's grounded in fact.
No, I'm saying that because that's what the word means. "Democracy" means "rule by a majority of the voters". WHO votes is entirely up to whoever initiates the system of voting. Voting could be limited to land owners, free men, left-handed women, or people who've had their wisdom teeth removed. Once that's decided, that becomes the democracy.
> Words do not have "correct" meanings. They are used differently in different places, times, and contexts.
Yeah, sure! Screw English... let's just all do what we want with the language. Ebonics, anyone? Next time my girlfriend corrects my Japanese when I say something incorrectly, I'm just going to tell her that I'm "evolving" her language.
And concerning the meanings of scientific terms, they damn well better be non-evolving. Whether you are designing a space station, writing a treatise on open-heart surgery, building a nuclear reactor, or deciding if it's safe to wash your hands with H2SO4, there is no room for subjective definitions.
OK, Nikki, I've said my peace...
>That's silly. Whether or not we are a democracy is determined solely and completely by "how you define it".
Well, damn... I should go back to school and bitch at all my teachers for giving me bad grades when I didn't do well on vocabulary tests. All those words I missed... I didn't miss them at all! Those were just MY definitions of them! Hell, why even have vocabulary tests? We can just teach kids that words mean what ever they want them to mean!
>Don't tell me, tell those deluded fools writing the dictionaries.
Those "fools" change meanings on the whims of trends, not necessarily based on correct usage. Dictionaries certainly aren't written by historians or civics teachers. Dictionary.com lists "costed" as meaning "past tense of 'cost'" but it's underlined as a misspelled word when I write it, and I have verified with English professors that "costed" is not a word. Dictionaries aren't the end-all to what is definitely correct.
>You're saying that because it fits what you think "democracy" means, not because it's grounded in fact.
No, I'm saying that because that's what the word means. "Democracy" means "rule by a majority of the voters". WHO votes is entirely up to whoever initiates the system of voting. Voting could be limited to land owners, free men, left-handed women, or people who've had their wisdom teeth removed. Once that's decided, that becomes the democracy.
> Words do not have "correct" meanings. They are used differently in different places, times, and contexts.
Yeah, sure! Screw English... let's just all do what we want with the language. Ebonics, anyone? Next time my girlfriend corrects my Japanese when I say something incorrectly, I'm just going to tell her that I'm "evolving" her language.
And concerning the meanings of scientific terms, they damn well better be non-evolving. Whether you are designing a space station, writing a treatise on open-heart surgery, building a nuclear reactor, or deciding if it's safe to wash your hands with H2SO4, there is no room for subjective definitions.
OK, Nikki, I've said my peace...
52 ユギ
> Yes, but since its first use in physics, the scientific meaning did not change.
It certainly did, as I already told you. To Newton "gravity" was a force; to Einstein it was a property of the geometric structure of space-time. Or look at "atom" - first it was an an indivisible piece of matter, then it was a clump of particles, and now it's a divisible nucleus surrounded by a mysterious quantum cloud. As science evolves, so do scientific words, and the concepts they describe.
(And it's worth repeating, that even if "scientific" words were somehow immune from change, "democracy" is clearly not a scientific word.)
> And yet, you keep saying that you are right, all who disagree with you
> are wrong, and that your particular meaning of a particular word is the
> ultimate truth.
Nah. I said that all words change in meaning, and that the US is a democracy in the sense in which the word is currently typically used. And I explained that the "original" meanings of words are not very relevant to how they are or should be used. That's about all.
> If you show me the proof that over 50% of English-speaking people call
> the political system in USA a democracy, then it can be accepted as a
> fact, if only because of the redefinition of the term by the majority.
> Until then, I excuse myself from the discussion.
The old impossible challenge gambit eh? Fortunately for us, although I'm not in the habit of measuring how many people use words in particular ways, the people who compile dictionaries are. So answering your challenge is as simple as visiting the website of a reputable dictionary, and checking whether the US is consistent with the definition therein. I have, and it certainly seems to be.
> Yes, but since its first use in physics, the scientific meaning did not change.
It certainly did, as I already told you. To Newton "gravity" was a force; to Einstein it was a property of the geometric structure of space-time. Or look at "atom" - first it was an an indivisible piece of matter, then it was a clump of particles, and now it's a divisible nucleus surrounded by a mysterious quantum cloud. As science evolves, so do scientific words, and the concepts they describe.
(And it's worth repeating, that even if "scientific" words were somehow immune from change, "democracy" is clearly not a scientific word.)
> And yet, you keep saying that you are right, all who disagree with you
> are wrong, and that your particular meaning of a particular word is the
> ultimate truth.
Nah. I said that all words change in meaning, and that the US is a democracy in the sense in which the word is currently typically used. And I explained that the "original" meanings of words are not very relevant to how they are or should be used. That's about all.
> If you show me the proof that over 50% of English-speaking people call
> the political system in USA a democracy, then it can be accepted as a
> fact, if only because of the redefinition of the term by the majority.
> Until then, I excuse myself from the discussion.
The old impossible challenge gambit eh? Fortunately for us, although I'm not in the habit of measuring how many people use words in particular ways, the people who compile dictionaries are. So answering your challenge is as simple as visiting the website of a reputable dictionary, and checking whether the US is consistent with the definition therein. I have, and it certainly seems to be.
55 ♪メガロン♪
> Those "fools" change meanings on the whims of trends, not necessarily based on
> correct usage. Dictionaries certainly aren't written by historians or civics teachers.
> Dictionary.com lists "costed" as meaning "past tense of 'cost'" but it's underlined
> as a misspelled word when I write it, and I have verified with English professors
> that "costed" is not a word. Dictionaries aren't the end-all to what is definitely correct.
I know dictionaries aren't the end-all for what's correct. What I'm telling you is that nothing else is either! In a classroom setting though, dictionaries are indeed pretty much the authority on acceptable usage. The "costed" thing is just a bit of confusion - I'll follow up about that in a minute. But generally speaking, if teacher marks a word wrong, and you can show them that their dictionary says it's acceptable, they'll probably mark it correct. They certainly ought to, anyway.
But what you're really talking about here is the problem of description vs. prescription. When talking about what usage is correct, "description" means you base correctness on how people talk, and "prescription" means you base it on something else (authorities, logic, history, etc). And like most fundamental problems, neither answer works by itself. If we were entirely descriptive, then just like you point out, everyone could just make up any definition for any word they liked - nothing would be wrong. But if we never changed our rules of correctness, in a few centuries most of what everyone said would be incorrect, according to those rules. Hence nothing would be right! Either system would be equally useless, so realistically we use a mix of both.
At the end of the day, "correct" just isn't a very useful word in linguistics. What we're really concerned with is "suitable". For example, if you say "ain't" among your friends, it's perfectly suitable, but it will probably get underlined if you write it on a test. That doesn't mean it's "wrong", what it means is that your friends and your teacher have different ideas about what is and isn't suitable.
> No, I'm saying that because that's what the word means.
> "Democracy" means "rule by a majority of the voters".
Who says that's what the word means? That's not what the Athenians used it to mean, and it's not the only meaning in any dictionary I've checked. Why is that definition better than others?
> And concerning the meanings of scientific terms, they damn well better be
> non-evolving. Whether you are designing a space station, writing a treatise on
> open-heart surgery, building a nuclear reactor, or deciding if it's safe to wash
> your hands with H2SO4, there is no room for subjective definitions.
We're not talking about subjective definitions, we're talking about words evolving over time, which they do. I'm not saying that H2SO4 can mean several different things, I'm saying it might mean something different in a century or three than what it means now. And I agree that's confusing, but unless people stop changing the way they speak, that's just how things are.
> Those "fools" change meanings on the whims of trends, not necessarily based on
> correct usage. Dictionaries certainly aren't written by historians or civics teachers.
> Dictionary.com lists "costed" as meaning "past tense of 'cost'" but it's underlined
> as a misspelled word when I write it, and I have verified with English professors
> that "costed" is not a word. Dictionaries aren't the end-all to what is definitely correct.
I know dictionaries aren't the end-all for what's correct. What I'm telling you is that nothing else is either!
In a classroom setting though, dictionaries are indeed pretty much the authority on acceptable usage. The "costed" thing is just a bit of confusion - I'll follow up about that in a minute. But generally speaking, if teacher marks a word wrong, and you can show them that their dictionary says it's acceptable, they'll probably mark it correct. They certainly ought to, anyway.
But what you're really talking about here is the problem of description vs. prescription. When talking about what usage is correct, "description" means you base correctness on how people talk, and "prescription" means you base it on something else (authorities, logic, history, etc). And like most fundamental problems, neither answer works by itself. If we were entirely descriptive, then just like you point out, everyone could just make up any definition for any word they liked - nothing would be wrong. But if we never changed our rules of correctness, in a few centuries most of what everyone said would be incorrect, according to those rules. Hence nothing would be right! Either system would be equally useless, so realistically we use a mix of both.
At the end of the day, "correct" just isn't a very useful word in linguistics. What we're really concerned with is "suitable". For example, if you say "ain't" among your friends, it's perfectly suitable, but it will probably get underlined if you write it on a test. That doesn't mean it's "wrong", what it means is that your friends and your teacher have different ideas about what is and isn't suitable.
> No, I'm saying that because that's what the word means.
> "Democracy" means "rule by a majority of the voters".
Who says that's what the word means? That's not what the Athenians used it to mean, and it's not the only meaning in any dictionary I've checked. Why is that definition better than others?
> And concerning the meanings of scientific terms, they damn well better be
> non-evolving. Whether you are designing a space station, writing a treatise on
> open-heart surgery, building a nuclear reactor, or deciding if it's safe to wash
> your hands with H2SO4, there is no room for subjective definitions.
We're not talking about subjective definitions, we're talking about words evolving over time, which they do. I'm not saying that H2SO4 can mean several different things, I'm saying it might mean something different in a century or three than what it means now. And I agree that's confusing, but unless people stop changing the way they speak, that's just how things are.
Now as for メガロン about "costed". If you check again, you'll see that your dictionary lists several different meanings for "cost", and "costed" is only listed as the past tense for one of them.
Specifically, "cost" has an alternative meaning of "to estimate or determine the cost of something", as in "I'll cost out the project and let you know the result." (I only hear this sense in business contexts, I don't think it's very common elsewhere.) Anyway, I think you'll find that your dictionary only lists "costed" for this secondary meaning, not the more common one, and I think if you ask your teachers, they'll agree that this is accurate.
Specifically, "cost" has an alternative meaning of "to estimate or determine the cost of something", as in "I'll cost out the project and let you know the result." (I only hear this sense in business contexts, I don't think it's very common elsewhere.) Anyway, I think you'll find that your dictionary only lists "costed" for this secondary meaning, not the more common one, and I think if you ask your teachers, they'll agree that this is accurate.
Hi Izumi-san,
China is quite farway of even being in the way to get its Democracy.
Analysing by a journalist's point of view China main problem is its fanatical communist, self-focused ideology. Press freedom in absentia.
Of course, some chinese fellows hates to be controled. And it will take China's History to another destiny before get the democracy. China will live a Chaos. As Confucious said, quoting Shiva: In order to renovate something, we must to destry it first.
To prosper as a Democratic nation China shall pass throught the road of Anarchy.
China is quite farway of even being in the way to get its Democracy.
Analysing by a journalist's point of view China main problem is its fanatical communist, self-focused ideology. Press freedom in absentia.
Of course, some chinese fellows hates to be controled. And it will take China's History to another destiny before get the democracy. China will live a Chaos. As Confucious said, quoting Shiva: In order to renovate something, we must to destry it first.
To prosper as a Democratic nation China shall pass throught the road of Anarchy.
> about 'costed'
I remember that a few years ago, my friend's English teacher was trying to tell her that "It costed 5 dollars" was correct. He cited dictionary.com to her as proof, which at that time, had not differentiated between "cost" and "cost-out". My hats off to dictionary.com for finally updating their entry.
Therefore, I will amend my previous argument to: AT ONE TIME dictionary.com was trying to pass off "costed" as past-tense of "cost" (not just "cost-out"). Anyway, I was trying to point out that dictionaries are not infallible (nor am I for not seeing that they had corrected their entry before I made my argument).
>And I agree that's confusing, but unless people stop changing the way they speak, that's just how things are.
Well, I'm doing MY part by NOT trying to transform the meaning of "democracy" despite its recent popular usage. I also try to say "you have..." instead of "you've got..." although I admit it's a losing battle, and what was once considered poor grammar has now become the norm (e.g. "You've got mail", "America's Got Talent".) Oh, wait... maybe I should have said "i.e.", since it seems to have replaced "e.g." in meaning "for example".
What you call "evolving" I call "degradation". Saying "please contact John or myself...", "irregardless", and "got" meaning "have" (as opposed to "past-tense of 'get'") are just a few examples of incorrect usages that have become widely accepted as correct. But I digress...
Anyway, I'm still sticking to my assertion that the USA is a republic, not a democracy. While your arguments are certainly well thought-out, you might as well be trying to convince me that the world is flat.
You're right in that there are many facets to what "democracy" can mean. But most people aren't that complex. The average person on the street will probably tell you "America is a democracy" followed by "democracy means majority rules".
The thing is, I don't WANT that form of government.
I don't want the majority telling me what the national religion should be.
I don't want the majority telling me what we can and can't do with our bodies.
I don't want the majority telling me "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
To me, it's mob rule. I believe if people better understood the concept of a representative republic as we were established (including the various governmental checks and balances, constitutional rights, etc) they would be less likely to follow this "majority rules" mentality fueled in part by their belief that we are a democracy. The Bill of Rights was created to protect our basic human rights, but it means nothing if the majority can just vote those rights away.
I remember that a few years ago, my friend's English teacher was trying to tell her that "It costed 5 dollars" was correct. He cited dictionary.com to her as proof, which at that time, had not differentiated between "cost" and "cost-out". My hats off to dictionary.com for finally updating their entry.
Therefore, I will amend my previous argument to: AT ONE TIME dictionary.com was trying to pass off "costed" as past-tense of "cost" (not just "cost-out"). Anyway, I was trying to point out that dictionaries are not infallible (nor am I for not seeing that they had corrected their entry before I made my argument).
>And I agree that's confusing, but unless people stop changing the way they speak, that's just how things are.
Well, I'm doing MY part by NOT trying to transform the meaning of "democracy" despite its recent popular usage. I also try to say "you have..." instead of "you've got..." although I admit it's a losing battle, and what was once considered poor grammar has now become the norm (e.g. "You've got mail", "America's Got Talent".) Oh, wait... maybe I should have said "i.e.", since it seems to have replaced "e.g." in meaning "for example".
What you call "evolving" I call "degradation". Saying "please contact John or myself...", "irregardless", and "got" meaning "have" (as opposed to "past-tense of 'get'") are just a few examples of incorrect usages that have become widely accepted as correct. But I digress...
Anyway, I'm still sticking to my assertion that the USA is a republic, not a democracy. While your arguments are certainly well thought-out, you might as well be trying to convince me that the world is flat.
You're right in that there are many facets to what "democracy" can mean. But most people aren't that complex. The average person on the street will probably tell you "America is a democracy" followed by "democracy means majority rules".
The thing is, I don't WANT that form of government.
I don't want the majority telling me what the national religion should be.
I don't want the majority telling me what we can and can't do with our bodies.
I don't want the majority telling me "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
To me, it's mob rule. I believe if people better understood the concept of a representative republic as we were established (including the various governmental checks and balances, constitutional rights, etc) they would be less likely to follow this "majority rules" mentality fueled in part by their belief that we are a democracy. The Bill of Rights was created to protect our basic human rights, but it means nothing if the majority can just vote those rights away.
THAT' IS SILLY TOPIC
sorry but it's true , which democracy brought USA .
The term of Democracy is from Greek Language , means "rule of the people" .
but USA didn't did something good , to name a few Throwing an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ... and ... and ... and ... "even if i keep talking the whole day i wouldn't finish"
France Did the same , i'm from Morocco and i have pictures of what France did to Moroccans in the name of democracy ...
i don't hate Americans or French people but democracy is a myth no more .
and i have many pictures but i don't want to disgust nobody .
sorry but it's true , which democracy brought USA .
The term of Democracy is from Greek Language , means "rule of the people" .
but USA didn't did something good , to name a few Throwing an atomic bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki and ... and ... and ... and ... "even if i keep talking the whole day i wouldn't finish"
France Did the same , i'm from Morocco and i have pictures of what France did to Moroccans in the name of democracy ...
i don't hate Americans or French people but democracy is a myth no more .
and i have many pictures but i don't want to disgust nobody .
>The thing is, I don't WANT that form of government.
>I don't want the majority telling me what the national religion should be.
>I don't want the majority telling me what we can and can't do with our bodies.
>I don't want the majority telling me "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
But why do you want the minority to force a religion on the majority?
But why do you want the minority to force the propper use of bodies on the majority?
But why do you want the minority to tell the majority "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."?
>I don't want the majority telling me what the national religion should be.
>I don't want the majority telling me what we can and can't do with our bodies.
>I don't want the majority telling me "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."
But why do you want the minority to force a religion on the majority?
But why do you want the minority to force the propper use of bodies on the majority?
But why do you want the minority to tell the majority "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to hide."?
> Kimi
I never said I wanted the minority to do any of that. Do you think that's the only other option? It's not.
America is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, not by the rule of man (whether the minority or majority of men). Our Bill of Rights establishes (for instance) the freedom of religion which no one (majority or minority) should be able to take away by force of vote. However, taking away those rights is more easily justified if you can claim "that it's what the majority wants".
I never said I wanted the minority to do any of that. Do you think that's the only other option? It's not.
America is supposed to be governed by the rule of law, not by the rule of man (whether the minority or majority of men). Our Bill of Rights establishes (for instance) the freedom of religion which no one (majority or minority) should be able to take away by force of vote. However, taking away those rights is more easily justified if you can claim "that it's what the majority wants".
55: ♪メガロン♪
>> Those "fools" change meanings on the whims of trends,
>> not necessarily based on correct usage.
That is plainly ridiculous. You can't seriously believe that those
who compile dictionaries act on a whim. They follow language
and current usage of words. If the usage changes that is reflected
in the dictionary.
You should buy a copy of the Robert Cawdry's original dictionary
it was written in 1604 but I guess by your reasoning it's the one
we should all be using.
>> Those "fools" change meanings on the whims of trends,
>> not necessarily based on correct usage.
That is plainly ridiculous. You can't seriously believe that those
who compile dictionaries act on a whim. They follow language
and current usage of words. If the usage changes that is reflected
in the dictionary.
You should buy a copy of the Robert Cawdry's original dictionary
it was written in 1604 but I guess by your reasoning it's the one
we should all be using.
65: ♪メガロン♪
>> Our Bill of Rights establishes (for instance) the freedom of
>> religion which no one (majority or minority) should be able
>> to take away by force of vote. However, taking away those
>> rights is more easily justified if you can claim "that it's what
>> the majority wants".
We're not talking about a point of law, we're talking about the
way people use words. But I would say on your point that if
an absolute majority of Americans want that part of your bill
of rights changed it could be changed. I'm not sure how the
U.S. deals with such things but I imagine it would have to go
to a referendum
Of course the Supreme Court spends a lot of time arguing
about what the writer meant when he used a particular word.
What does freedom mean? Is it freedom to do anything? Is
it freedom to associate with the religion? Is it freedom to
espouse hatred? Another example would be what was
meant when they enshrined the right to bear
arms. It's in the constitution yet there are plenty of guns
they won't let citizens buy. So by not letting you buy a
.50 machine gun are they stepping on your rights? The
Supreme Court decided they weren't.
>> Our Bill of Rights establishes (for instance) the freedom of
>> religion which no one (majority or minority) should be able
>> to take away by force of vote. However, taking away those
>> rights is more easily justified if you can claim "that it's what
>> the majority wants".
We're not talking about a point of law, we're talking about the
way people use words. But I would say on your point that if
an absolute majority of Americans want that part of your bill
of rights changed it could be changed. I'm not sure how the
U.S. deals with such things but I imagine it would have to go
to a referendum
Of course the Supreme Court spends a lot of time arguing
about what the writer meant when he used a particular word.
What does freedom mean? Is it freedom to do anything? Is
it freedom to associate with the religion? Is it freedom to
espouse hatred? Another example would be what was
meant when they enshrined the right to bear
arms. It's in the constitution yet there are plenty of guns
they won't let citizens buy. So by not letting you buy a
.50 machine gun are they stepping on your rights? The
Supreme Court decided they weren't.
62 ♪メガロン♪
> My hats off to dictionary.com for finally updating their entry.
No offense, but it seems much more likely that your friend simply made a mistake and misread the entry, than that the dictionary was wrong before and has since corrected their error. It doesn't mean anything to say that dictionaries aren't infallible, the point is that they're more reliable than anything else we have.
> What you call "evolving" I call "degradation".
That's because you're obsessing over changes that happen to be taking place at this particular moment. Every day you use words that used to be "wrong", but you don't care because those "degradations" took place before you were born. Have you ever said "apron"? That's blatantly incorrect - the original word was "napron". It changed because as people said "a napron", some others misheard it as "an apron". And eventually the "mistake" became more common than the original. The only reason you're not angry about this change as well is that it happened five or six hundred years ago.
I mean, think about this for a moment. You're saying that of all the millions of changes English goes through, all the ones that happened before you were born are now "correct", but all the ones that happen after you were born are degradations. Is the timing of your birth really that important to language usage?
> you might as well be trying to convince me that the world is flat.
Now you're being obtuse. The flatness of the world is a measurable thing - nature herself is the authority. The definition of "democracy" is not a measurable thing. That's why the Athenians had one definition, Jefferson had another, my dictionary has a third, and you have a fourth. You're still not telling me why yours is supposed to be better than the others.
> My hats off to dictionary.com for finally updating their entry.
No offense, but it seems much more likely that your friend simply made a mistake and misread the entry, than that the dictionary was wrong before and has since corrected their error. It doesn't mean anything to say that dictionaries aren't infallible, the point is that they're more reliable than anything else we have.
> What you call "evolving" I call "degradation".
That's because you're obsessing over changes that happen to be taking place at this particular moment. Every day you use words that used to be "wrong", but you don't care because those "degradations" took place before you were born. Have you ever said "apron"? That's blatantly incorrect - the original word was "napron". It changed because as people said "a napron", some others misheard it as "an apron". And eventually the "mistake" became more common than the original. The only reason you're not angry about this change as well is that it happened five or six hundred years ago.
I mean, think about this for a moment. You're saying that of all the millions of changes English goes through, all the ones that happened before you were born are now "correct", but all the ones that happen after you were born are degradations. Is the timing of your birth really that important to language usage?
> you might as well be trying to convince me that the world is flat.
Now you're being obtuse. The flatness of the world is a measurable thing - nature herself is the authority. The definition of "democracy" is not a measurable thing. That's why the Athenians had one definition, Jefferson had another, my dictionary has a third, and you have a fourth. You're still not telling me why yours is supposed to be better than the others.
> We're not talking about a point of law, we're talking about the way people use words.
Duh, I know that... I was trying to explain to Kimi what I meant when I said that I don't want the majority voting away my rights. Kimi assumed that the only other option was for the MINORITY to vote away my rights, and that's just not true. Strangely, you went off on a tangent about the Supreme Court which had little to do with the current point or the point I was trying to make to Kimi.
> The flatness of the world is a measurable thing
Yes, but the flat-earthers can certainly make a compelling argument, even if we know it's bogus.
The fact that we are not a democracy is also measurable, since as I said before, the word does not exist in any of the founding documents AND there are numerous quotes by the founders demonstrating their disdain of democracy.
What happens when we evolve the definition of the word "flat"? We could change it to mean "something that just "appears" to be flat even if it's over a large, round object". In that case, hey! the world is flat AND round! Under that definition, the two aren't so mutually exclusive anymore.
> No offense, but it seems much more likely that your friend simply made a mistake and misread the entry
Well, I guess you were there, right? Actually, it was my friend's teacher, not my friend. At the time, I showed the dictionary.com entry to an English professor, whose flippant response to it was "dictionary.com must be on crack".
Both of you (Ian and fenomas) seem to be under some ridiculous impression that I don't believe meanings change or that I am necessarily against it. I do understand meanings/usages do evolve over time. In some cases, it's perfectly natural and inevitable. In other cases, it's not necessarily a good thing.
Let me just ask you, assuming you teach English to Japanese students, do you tell them "You've got mail" is correct grammar? Do you point out that "You have got mail" is incorrect, or do you tell them "oh, it's OK to say it that way because everyone else is doing it. It's just the language evolving."? I don't. When the grammar books are updated to justify that "you have got" is correct (if they haven't already) I still won't.
ONCE AGAIN, the common person believes we are a "majority rules" country, although we aren't. There are dangers in that form of government. If we continue to perpetuate the notion that we are a 'democracy', i.e. "majority rules", then the people might eventually insist upon it. If that happens, you can wave bye-bye to your free-speech rights, among other things.
Duh, I know that... I was trying to explain to Kimi what I meant when I said that I don't want the majority voting away my rights. Kimi assumed that the only other option was for the MINORITY to vote away my rights, and that's just not true. Strangely, you went off on a tangent about the Supreme Court which had little to do with the current point or the point I was trying to make to Kimi.
> The flatness of the world is a measurable thing
Yes, but the flat-earthers can certainly make a compelling argument, even if we know it's bogus.
The fact that we are not a democracy is also measurable, since as I said before, the word does not exist in any of the founding documents AND there are numerous quotes by the founders demonstrating their disdain of democracy.
What happens when we evolve the definition of the word "flat"? We could change it to mean "something that just "appears" to be flat even if it's over a large, round object". In that case, hey! the world is flat AND round! Under that definition, the two aren't so mutually exclusive anymore.
> No offense, but it seems much more likely that your friend simply made a mistake and misread the entry
Well, I guess you were there, right? Actually, it was my friend's teacher, not my friend. At the time, I showed the dictionary.com entry to an English professor, whose flippant response to it was "dictionary.com must be on crack".
Both of you (Ian and fenomas) seem to be under some ridiculous impression that I don't believe meanings change or that I am necessarily against it. I do understand meanings/usages do evolve over time. In some cases, it's perfectly natural and inevitable. In other cases, it's not necessarily a good thing.
Let me just ask you, assuming you teach English to Japanese students, do you tell them "You've got mail" is correct grammar? Do you point out that "You have got mail" is incorrect, or do you tell them "oh, it's OK to say it that way because everyone else is doing it. It's just the language evolving."? I don't. When the grammar books are updated to justify that "you have got" is correct (if they haven't already) I still won't.
ONCE AGAIN, the common person believes we are a "majority rules" country, although we aren't. There are dangers in that form of government. If we continue to perpetuate the notion that we are a 'democracy', i.e. "majority rules", then the people might eventually insist upon it. If that happens, you can wave bye-bye to your free-speech rights, among other things.
70 ♪メガロン♪
> The fact that we are not a democracy is also measurable, since as I said before,
> the word does not exist in any of the founding documents AND there are numerous
> quotes by the founders demonstrating their disdain of democracy.
This really isn't that complicated. We are not what the Athenians called a democracy, and we are not what the founding fathers called a democracy. We are, however, what most modern speakers (and their dictionaries) call a democracy.
> What happens when we evolve the definition of the word "flat"? We could
> change it to mean "something that just "appears" to be flat even if it's
> over a large, round object".
Yes, we could do that. But from your tone, it sounds like you still think such a thing would be unusual. It wouldn't - I promise, you use words every day that used to mean the opposite of what they do now. It's not that big a deal.
> I do understand meanings/usages do evolve over time. In some cases, it's
> perfectly natural and inevitable. In other cases, it's not necessarily a good thing.
That's not what you've been saying in this thread. You've been talking about words having "true" meanings - which is bunk. As for whether it's natural... I'd say it's kind of like the weather. Some days you might like it and others you might not, but whether you approve or not doesn't make very much difference.
> Let me just ask you, assuming you teach English to Japanese students,
> do you tell them "You've got mail" is correct grammar?
I explained this already - there is no universally "correct" grammar, it's a matter of what's suitable for what context. Usually when people talk about correctness they mean what's suitable in a schoolroom, and if this student was a high-schooler studying for exams, I'd tell them your sentence is incorrect (since that's what their exams will probably think). But outside of a schoolroom, that version of "correct" isn't necessarily useful anymore. If this student was an adult trying to improve their conversational skills, I'd tell them the sentence is correct (because it's widely used by native speakers in casual conversation). Language follows different rules in different situations.
> When the grammar books are updated to justify that "you have got" is
> correct (if they haven't already) I still won't.
Nobody's going to force you to. But if it comes up on a grammar test, you'll fail. And then you'll think, "Gee, if only I had listened to that smart guy in that internet forum!"
> The fact that we are not a democracy is also measurable, since as I said before,
> the word does not exist in any of the founding documents AND there are numerous
> quotes by the founders demonstrating their disdain of democracy.
This really isn't that complicated. We are not what the Athenians called a democracy, and we are not what the founding fathers called a democracy. We are, however, what most modern speakers (and their dictionaries) call a democracy.
> What happens when we evolve the definition of the word "flat"? We could
> change it to mean "something that just "appears" to be flat even if it's
> over a large, round object".
Yes, we could do that. But from your tone, it sounds like you still think such a thing would be unusual. It wouldn't - I promise, you use words every day that used to mean the opposite of what they do now. It's not that big a deal.
> I do understand meanings/usages do evolve over time. In some cases, it's
> perfectly natural and inevitable. In other cases, it's not necessarily a good thing.
That's not what you've been saying in this thread. You've been talking about words having "true" meanings - which is bunk. As for whether it's natural... I'd say it's kind of like the weather. Some days you might like it and others you might not, but whether you approve or not doesn't make very much difference.
> Let me just ask you, assuming you teach English to Japanese students,
> do you tell them "You've got mail" is correct grammar?
I explained this already - there is no universally "correct" grammar, it's a matter of what's suitable for what context. Usually when people talk about correctness they mean what's suitable in a schoolroom, and if this student was a high-schooler studying for exams, I'd tell them your sentence is incorrect (since that's what their exams will probably think). But outside of a schoolroom, that version of "correct" isn't necessarily useful anymore. If this student was an adult trying to improve their conversational skills, I'd tell them the sentence is correct (because it's widely used by native speakers in casual conversation). Language follows different rules in different situations.
> When the grammar books are updated to justify that "you have got" is
> correct (if they haven't already) I still won't.
Nobody's going to force you to. But if it comes up on a grammar test, you'll fail. And then you'll think, "Gee, if only I had listened to that smart guy in that internet forum!"
> We are, however, what most modern speakers (and their dictionaries) call a democracy.
Once again, I have mentioned the danger with this in respect to how people associate the word "democracy" with "majority rules". Do I have to repeat myself a THIRD time? You are right that as a TYPE of government, we can be called a democracy, i.e. free elections by the people. But as a FORM of government, we are NOT a democracy, that is, the majority doesn't have direct control over the law through the ballot-box.
> If this student was an adult trying to improve their conversational skills, I'd tell them the sentence is correct (because it's widely used by native speakers in casual conversation).
I fear for your students. Certainly, it's fine to tell them it's COMMON usage, but to tell them it's CORRECT usage is irresponsible. Do you tell them Ebonics is correct also? After all, it's what's commonly used in urban areas.
I don't see how it would harm your students to tell them that in conversation, it's OK (if not preferable) to say "I have to leave" as opposed to "I've got to leave". No one will think them weird for doing so. Otherwise, it's like telling them "you MUST use bad grammar to fit in".
Improper but commonly-used grammar is no different than slang. If you want to teach slang, that's fine as long as they KNOW it's slang.
>Nobody's going to force you to. But if it comes up on a grammar test, you'll fail.
And then you'll think, "Gee, if only I had listened to that smart guy in that internet forum!"
Wait wait wait... how can I fail if there is no "universally correct" grammar? I would dispute my "failing" grade on the grounds that some smart guy in an internet forum told me that no grammar is universally correct!
Once again, I have mentioned the danger with this in respect to how people associate the word "democracy" with "majority rules". Do I have to repeat myself a THIRD time? You are right that as a TYPE of government, we can be called a democracy, i.e. free elections by the people. But as a FORM of government, we are NOT a democracy, that is, the majority doesn't have direct control over the law through the ballot-box.
> If this student was an adult trying to improve their conversational skills, I'd tell them the sentence is correct (because it's widely used by native speakers in casual conversation).
I fear for your students. Certainly, it's fine to tell them it's COMMON usage, but to tell them it's CORRECT usage is irresponsible. Do you tell them Ebonics is correct also? After all, it's what's commonly used in urban areas.
I don't see how it would harm your students to tell them that in conversation, it's OK (if not preferable) to say "I have to leave" as opposed to "I've got to leave". No one will think them weird for doing so. Otherwise, it's like telling them "you MUST use bad grammar to fit in".
Improper but commonly-used grammar is no different than slang. If you want to teach slang, that's fine as long as they KNOW it's slang.
>Nobody's going to force you to. But if it comes up on a grammar test, you'll fail.
And then you'll think, "Gee, if only I had listened to that smart guy in that internet forum!"
Wait wait wait... how can I fail if there is no "universally correct" grammar? I would dispute my "failing" grade on the grounds that some smart guy in an internet forum told me that no grammar is universally correct!
> Kimi assumed that the only other option was for the MINORITY to vote away my rights, and that's just not true.
Actually Kimi did nothing of the sort. Kimi was holding a mirror up to your face, trying to get you thinking about how you assume that the "rule of the majority" is really a dictatorship of the majority whle the "rule of law" is a benevolent compromise based ruling. The rule of the majority can be benevolent too. Take for instance the laws that banned blacks from marrying whites. The laws that stopped blacks from atending the same schools etc as whites. Slavery. The rule of law can be just as bad as the rule of the majority can be. You yourself are making asumptions about words that are clearly not necessarily within the pure meaning of the word. "Rule" can mean many a thing.
Actually Kimi did nothing of the sort. Kimi was holding a mirror up to your face, trying to get you thinking about how you assume that the "rule of the majority" is really a dictatorship of the majority whle the "rule of law" is a benevolent compromise based ruling. The rule of the majority can be benevolent too. Take for instance the laws that banned blacks from marrying whites. The laws that stopped blacks from atending the same schools etc as whites. Slavery. The rule of law can be just as bad as the rule of the majority can be. You yourself are making asumptions about words that are clearly not necessarily within the pure meaning of the word. "Rule" can mean many a thing.
>> Strangely, you went off on a tangent about the
>> Supreme Court which had little to do with the
>> current point or the point I was trying to make
>> to Kimi.
I thought the way words are defined was exactly what
we were talking about.
>> The fact that we are not a democracy is also
>> measurable, since as I said before, the word does
>> not exist in any of the founding documents AND
>> there are numerous quotes by the founders
>> demonstrating their disdain of democracy.
14th, 15th, 17th and 19th amendment to the
constitution of the United States. I imagine the
writers didn't want a democracy.....but they got one.
>> Supreme Court which had little to do with the
>> current point or the point I was trying to make
>> to Kimi.
I thought the way words are defined was exactly what
we were talking about.
>> The fact that we are not a democracy is also
>> measurable, since as I said before, the word does
>> not exist in any of the founding documents AND
>> there are numerous quotes by the founders
>> demonstrating their disdain of democracy.
14th, 15th, 17th and 19th amendment to the
constitution of the United States. I imagine the
writers didn't want a democracy.....but they got one.
72 ♪メガロン♪
> You are right that as a TYPE of government, we can be called a democracy, i.e. free
> elections by the people. But as a FORM of government, we are NOT a democracy,
You've just made that distinction up. If you're really claiming that political science distinguishes between "types" of government and "forms" of government, let's have a source. Otherwise, you're simply describing your preference. You started this mess by telling others they're using a word incorrectly, which is pretty daft if they were correct according to the dictionary and incorrect only according to your personal preferences.
> Do you tell them Ebonics is correct also?
Same answer as before. If the student is preparing for a homestay in an urban area, and I taught them according to your standards, they'd probably wind up acting like you and sanctimoniously lecturing everyone they meet about their "incorrect grammar", and (hopefully) getting the shit kicked out of them.
And yes, I used "hopefully" in that sense hoping that it will annoy someone pedantic.
> Wait wait wait... how can I fail if there is no "universally correct" grammar?
Now I think you've stopped having a conversation, and started trying to have a fight. Grammar tests are made according to grammar textbooks. Therefore, if your opinion about what grammar is suitable disagrees with the textbook, you will fail grammar tests. I find it very hard to believe you couldn't figure this out by yourself.
> You are right that as a TYPE of government, we can be called a democracy, i.e. free
> elections by the people. But as a FORM of government, we are NOT a democracy,
You've just made that distinction up. If you're really claiming that political science distinguishes between "types" of government and "forms" of government, let's have a source. Otherwise, you're simply describing your preference. You started this mess by telling others they're using a word incorrectly, which is pretty daft if they were correct according to the dictionary and incorrect only according to your personal preferences.
> Do you tell them Ebonics is correct also?
Same answer as before. If the student is preparing for a homestay in an urban area, and I taught them according to your standards, they'd probably wind up acting like you and sanctimoniously lecturing everyone they meet about their "incorrect grammar", and (hopefully) getting the shit kicked out of them.
And yes, I used "hopefully" in that sense hoping that it will annoy someone pedantic.
> Wait wait wait... how can I fail if there is no "universally correct" grammar?
Now I think you've stopped having a conversation, and started trying to have a fight. Grammar tests are made according to grammar textbooks. Therefore, if your opinion about what grammar is suitable disagrees with the textbook, you will fail grammar tests. I find it very hard to believe you couldn't figure this out by yourself.
>57 fenomas
>Telling people to stop talking because you aren't interested in what they're
talking about seems a bit rude, doesn't it?
No. This topic is about Democracy. And you were repeating to make your point which
had nothing to do with that in a childish manner..
And I even used the word PLEASE to be nice to you.
I have to label you that you are pretty rude. Nobody was interested in your off-the-topic
Debate, so it went away just as I suggested. Now get back to the debate, will you?
>Telling people to stop talking because you aren't interested in what they're
talking about seems a bit rude, doesn't it?
No. This topic is about Democracy. And you were repeating to make your point which
had nothing to do with that in a childish manner..
And I even used the word PLEASE to be nice to you.
I have to label you that you are pretty rude. Nobody was interested in your off-the-topic
Debate, so it went away just as I suggested. Now get back to the debate, will you?
Our PM, Hatoyama now told the people in Okinawa that the US base wouldn't be
moved to other prefectures after all. There are, off course, accusations.
To me, this is a perfect example of the fragile democracy that we have to live with.
Okinawa, being the grey area of Japan, has always been victimized throughout
the history. All Japanese have to feel sympathy, but there is not much we can do.
One of the focal points now is that Hatoyama did say that he would be able to
move the base out of Okinawa. Now he is saying that it was not a pledge. It was just
his personal opinion, not the political promise. Now he realizes this can’t be done.
He upset many at this point.
I understand that he just used this pledge to get more votes.
Even though he has no sure plan to start with. But he made a big impact.
We could not afford another LDP leader.
And Hatoyama also made US realize that Okinawa base is a big problem.
Yes Hatoyama lied. But I have to agree that he did what he was supposed to do.
It is never a true democracy. Politicians lie. Our society is not fairly balanced.
Too bad for the people in Okinawa, but we can't get upset.
We should not trust any politician to start with.
After all, like the most of the posts show here, this system is
not a genuine democracy. It should be understood.
moved to other prefectures after all. There are, off course, accusations.
To me, this is a perfect example of the fragile democracy that we have to live with.
Okinawa, being the grey area of Japan, has always been victimized throughout
the history. All Japanese have to feel sympathy, but there is not much we can do.
One of the focal points now is that Hatoyama did say that he would be able to
move the base out of Okinawa. Now he is saying that it was not a pledge. It was just
his personal opinion, not the political promise. Now he realizes this can’t be done.
He upset many at this point.
I understand that he just used this pledge to get more votes.
Even though he has no sure plan to start with. But he made a big impact.
We could not afford another LDP leader.
And Hatoyama also made US realize that Okinawa base is a big problem.
Yes Hatoyama lied. But I have to agree that he did what he was supposed to do.
It is never a true democracy. Politicians lie. Our society is not fairly balanced.
Too bad for the people in Okinawa, but we can't get upset.
We should not trust any politician to start with.
After all, like the most of the posts show here, this system is
not a genuine democracy. It should be understood.
- mixiユーザー
- ログインしてコメントしよう！
|
|
|
|
☆ENGLISH ONLY☆ 更新情報
-
最新のアンケート
