Rod Speed
in [Computers]
|
Prev: Go wii
Next: Email response management software
From: annily on 4 Jan 2010 04:32 Ned Latham wrote: > annily wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> annily wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> "Democracy" has a very clear and precise definition: it means >>>>> "the people rule"; it does *not* mean "the people get to choose >>>>> which gang of crooks and liars *rule them* for the next term of >>>>> office". >>>>> >>>>> This country is not a democracy: "the people rule" means, essentially, >>>>> that every citizen is a partner in the governance of the nation, but >>>>> we the people have virtually no say on any issue whatever. For example, we >>>>> had no say in it when the government gave themselves the power to use >>>>> the Army against us, and we had no say in it when the government gave >>>>> themselves the power to make us disappear. >>>>> >>>>> This country is not a democracy: we the people have virtually no say >>>>> in what the law is, what treaties bind us, or even in the running of >>>>> our daily lives. This country is an elective oligarchy and a tyranny. >>>> Your definition of "democracy" is too narrow. Here is the full entry >>>> from the Macquarie Dictionary, Third Edition: >>> Two things: >>> >>> 1. Dictionaries describe popular use of words. They do not prescribe >>> them definitively. >>> >>> And this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses >>> of words. This is about what democracy really is. >>> >>> (In case you're interested, democracy was invented, and "democracy" >>> was coined, 2,620 years ago, in Athens.) >> What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant. > > Wrong. They who invented it are the ones who get to define it. > Apparently you don't accept that words change their meaning over time, unlike realists. >> If you want to >> win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is understood by the >> word now, > > You can eat your weaselling words. I am using the accepted meaning in > terms of politcial science I am not a political scientst, so I will use the widely accepted meaning of the term. > I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting misuses > of words. It is not misuse, it's a widely-accepted current use. > >>>> democracy >>>> /duh'mokruhsee/ >>> Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee. >> Not in Australia. > > Wrong. *I* am Australian. And you're probably one of a small number of Australians who rhyme the first vowel with that in "bet". > > > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? > With your definition of "democracy", nothing. So to sum up, with your definition of democracy, Australia is not one. With mine, and that of many others, it is. Hence, no further point in arguing. Goodbye. -- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
From: Ned Latham on 4 Jan 2010 15:26 annily wrote: > Ned Latham wrote: > > annily wrote: > > > Ned Latham wrote: ----snip---- > > > > Two things: > > > > > > > > 1. Dictionaries describe popular use of words. They do not > > > > prescribe them definitively. > > > > > > > > And this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting > > > > misuses of words. This is about what democracy really is. > > > > > > > > (In case you're interested, democracy was invented, and > > > > "democracy" was coined, 2,620 years ago, in Athens.) > > > > > > What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant. > > > > Wrong. They who invented it are the ones who get to define it. > > Apparently you don't accept that words change their meaning over time, > unlike realists. With some intelligence and research, you might possibly have come to a *correct* conclusion. The system that is alleged to be operating in Australia is called "representative democracy". In common parlance, and in propaganda, that is shortened to "democracy", but that doesn't make "democracy" an accurate description of it, especially in debate. > > > If you > > > want to win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is > > > understood by the word now, > > > > You can eat your weaselling words. I am using the accepted meaning in > > terms of politcial science, > * which is appropriate given that the subject > * is political; there is no good reason to replace that firm definition > * with a local misunderstanding of the term. Your surreptitious snip is restored, weasel. > I am not a political scientst, so I will use the widely accepted meaning > of the term. Answer the point made, you weasel: yhe subject and the forum both make the *precise* definition appropriate, and the "widely accepted" misuse inappropriate. > > I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting > > misuses of words. > > It is not misuse, it's a widely-accepted current use. Wide accepteance does not undo the fact that it is a misuse. And FYI, it's no accidental misuse: it was deliberately engendered for the purpose of masking the reality, which is oligarchic tyranny. > > > > > democracy > > > > > > > > > > /duh'mokruhsee/ > > > > > > > > Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee. > > > > > > Not in Australia. > > > > Wrong. *I* am Australian. > > And you're probably one of a small number Small number? When did you conduct your survey? > of Australians who rhyme the > first vowel with that in "bet". So you admit that it *is* current in Australia. More surreptitious snippage, I see. Not too good at honesty or facing a challenge, are you? > > What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General > > to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? > > With your definition of "democracy", nothing. Correct. Also with your definition. In fact, it's pure tyranny. But you won't face that. > So to sum up, with your definition of democracy, Australia is not one. Correct. Also with yours, had you the wherewithal to see it. > With mine, and that of many others, it is. Wrong. Perhaps you're unaware that the practise does not follow the theory. It is the practise that justifies the terms "tyranny" and "elective oligarchy". > Hence, no further point in arguing. Goodbye. Larf. You have no argument, just your gullible acceptance of propaganda. I told you: the establishment and their media whores lies to us about everything. Ned Latham
From: annily on 4 Jan 2010 20:16 Ned Latham wrote: > annily wrote: >> Ned Latham wrote: >>> annily wrote: >>>> Ned Latham wrote: > > ----snip---- > >>>>> Two things: >>>>> >>>>> 1. Dictionaries describe popular use of words. They do not >>>>> prescribe them definitively. >>>>> >>>>> And this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting >>>>> misuses of words. This is about what democracy really is. >>>>> >>>>> (In case you're interested, democracy was invented, and >>>>> "democracy" was coined, 2,620 years ago, in Athens.) >>>> What the Ancient Greeks called democracy is irrelevant. >>> Wrong. They who invented it are the ones who get to define it. >> Apparently you don't accept that words change their meaning over time, >> unlike realists. > > With some intelligence and research, you might possibly have come to a > *correct* conclusion. The system that is alleged to be operating in > Australia is called "representative democracy". In common parlance, > and in propaganda, that is shortened to "democracy", but that doesn't > make "democracy" an accurate description of it, especially in debate. > >>>> If you >>>> want to win an argument legitimately, you have to use what is >>>> understood by the word now, >>> You can eat your weaselling words. I am using the accepted meaning in >>> terms of politcial science, >> * which is appropriate given that the subject >> * is political; there is no good reason to replace that firm definition >> * with a local misunderstanding of the term. > > Your surreptitious snip is restored, weasel. > >> I am not a political scientst, so I will use the widely accepted meaning >> of the term. > > Answer the point made, you weasel: yhe subject and the forum both make > the *precise* definition appropriate, and the "widely accepted" misuse > inappropriate. > >>> I repeat: this is not about "definitions" arrived at by accepting >>> misuses of words. >> It is not misuse, it's a widely-accepted current use. > > Wide accepteance does not undo the fact that it is a misuse. And > FYI, it's no accidental misuse: it was deliberately engendered for > the purpose of masking the reality, which is oligarchic tyranny. > >>>>>> democracy >>>>>> >>>>>> /duh'mokruhsee/ >>>>> Wrong. It is de'mokruhsee. >>>> Not in Australia. >>> Wrong. *I* am Australian. >> And you're probably one of a small number > > Small number? When did you conduct your survey? > >> of Australians who rhyme the >> first vowel with that in "bet". > > So you admit that it *is* current in Australia. > > More surreptitious snippage, I see. Not too good at honesty or facing > a challenge, are you? > >>> What is democratic about the power of the Attorney-General >>> to order the spooks to make anyone he chooses disappear? >> With your definition of "democracy", nothing. > > Correct. Also with your definition. In fact, it's pure tyranny. > > But you won't face that. > >> So to sum up, with your definition of democracy, Australia is not one. > > Correct. Also with yours, had you the wherewithal to see it. > >> With mine, and that of many others, it is. > > Wrong. Perhaps you're unaware that the practise does not follow the > theory. It is the practise that justifies the terms "tyranny" and > "elective oligarchy". > >> Hence, no further point in arguing. Goodbye. > > Larf. You have no argument, just your gullible acceptance of propaganda. > > I told you: the establishment and their media whores lies to us about > everything. > > Ned Latham OK, I said there was no point in further discussion, but I'll make two further observations: 1. If you are arguing with someone in a forum like this (not a political science forum), you should not expect that person to understand how a person in a particular speciality (such as political science) defines a particular term when that term may have a different meaning in the general community. 2. You are an arrogant arsehole. -- Long-time resident of Adelaide, South Australia, which may or may not influence my opinions.
From: Ned Latham on 5 Jan 2010 10:13 annily wrote: Since you can't or won't address the points made: ----snip---- > OK, I said there was no point in further discussion, but I'll make > two further observations: Where are they? All I see is preaching and abuse. > 1. If you are arguing with someone in a forum like this (not a > political science forum), Agreed, This stuff is off charter for this group. Mea culpa. > you should not expect that person to > understand how a person in a particular speciality (such as > political science) The basics of Political Science are no mystery: it's not Rocket Science, you know. > defines a particular term when that term may > have a different meaning in the general community. You and one other poster responded to my comment. He understood my meaning perfectly. Don't pretend that your ignorance somehow makes my use of the term esoteric. > 2. You are an arrogant arsehole. Tch. Sore loser. Ned Latham
From: Anonymous on 5 Jan 2010 15:00
"Ned Latham" <ned(a)woden.valhalla.oz> wrote in message news:slrnhk6lpn.flh.champ(a)woden.valhalla.oz... > annily wrote: > > Since you can't or won't address the points made: > > ----snip---- > >> OK, I said there was no point in further discussion, but I'll make >> two further observations: > > Where are they? All I see is preaching and abuse. > >> 1. If you are arguing with someone in a forum like this (not a >> political science forum), > > Agreed, This stuff is off charter for this group. Mea culpa. > >> you should not expect that person to >> understand how a person in a particular speciality (such as >> political science) > > The basics of Political Science are no mystery: it's not Rocket Science, > you know. > >> defines a particular term when that term may >> have a different meaning in the general community. > > You and one other poster responded to my comment. He understood my > meaning perfectly. Don't pretend that your ignorance somehow makes > my use of the term esoteric. > >> 2. You are an arrogant arsehole. > > Tch. Sore loser. > > Ned Latham He`s a great man that couldnt be bothered to reply to you at this moment.! May be sleeping/snoring...zzzzzzzzzzzzz |