Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Do you want a victory by my concession that it was a quickly typed out abridged summary of the prose version of an overused word that feels like like it lacks all meaning at times? Cuz I can do that if you want.
We know my victory is inevitable. I'm semantic and pedantic and I have a degree in this field.
But seriously, I'm just wanting us to be reasonable about how we use words in this political discussion. I could understand a single lapse, but you, the Nebraskan, and the African seemed to consistently endorse such a silly definition.
I want to make sure that, if you truly endorse it, you understand its full and uncomfortable implications.
Your argument citing the Patriot Act is much more convincing. I am pleased with it.
Originally posted by The_TempestI didn't ask you if there is a definition for terrorism or not. I asked you what your definition of terrorism is.
As with many political and legal terms, it's pretty hard to come to a consensus as to what does and what does not qualify for terrorism.
Essentially, what I'm trying to do is gauge whether you genuinely disagree with what I'm saying, or if you're just being a pseudo-intellectual contrarian. That you're complaining about my definition of terrorism whilst apparently lacking a definition of your own implies the latter.
Originally posted by The_Tempest
We know my victory is inevitable. I'm semantic and pedantic and I have a degree in this field.But seriously, I'm just wanting us to be reasonable about how we use words in this political discussion. I could understand a single lapse, but you, the Nebraskan, and the African seemed to consistently endorse such a silly definition.
I want to make sure that, if you truly endorse it, you understand its full and uncomfortable implications.
Your argument citing the Patriot Act is much more convincing. I am pleased with it.
But no, I stick by it. I also stick by the belief that not a single higher up in the Republican party is supporting this confrontation out of malevolence or any true awareness of how it comes off to most people. Cruz didn't filibuster all night long because he hates America, and the people who support the GOPs relevant efforts don't do so (solely) out of irrational hatred or zeal. I honestly think most players involved have (at least some) good intentions, but... your partisan politics, man... they just suck.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I didn't ask you if there is a definition for terrorism or not. I asked you what your definition of terrorism is.
I'd need to strongly consider it, tbh. I wouldn't want any loopholes my enemies could exploit.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I own that definition utterly. Providing examples that may qualify to fit into that term does as much as screaming that evil is relative in a debate on morality. I.E. It's semantically true but so pointlessly vague that it's not constructive at all.
Ah, so the African found his courage. I am pleased at your temerity. You do not cow as the others do.
excellent
And I missed the Originals, again.
I own that definition utterly. Providing examples that may qualify to fit into that term does as much as screaming that evil is relative in a debate on morality.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
I didn't ask you if there is a definition for terrorism or not. I asked you what your definition of terrorism is.Essentially, what I'm trying to do is gauge whether you genuinely disagree with what I'm saying, or if you're just being a pseudo-intellectual contrarian. That you're complaining about my definition of terrorism whilst apparently lacking a definition of your own implies the latter.
Didn’t catch your edit here.
What I “genuinely disagree with” is a double standard. I think your definition is unduly harsh, but as long as you don’t selectively apply it, I don’t have a particular problem with it.
As far as my lacking a definition of terrorism is concerned, I’ve studied this stuff enough to know how very important—and how very difficult—it is to construct an accurate definition of concepts. Per my example, Potter Stewart was a brilliant legal scholar & jurist and respected Supreme Court justice and still struggled to come up with a respectable definition of something as trivial as pornography.
As it stands, terrorism being “the use of fear to achieve a desired outcome” seems dogmatic and simplistic. But then it might very well be that I am uncomfortable with just how many of us qualify in our day-to-day lives.
Originally posted by mstanford2912Are you trying to apply to the Democrats n this same situation (the shutdown conundrum) or are do you have another instance in mind?
But.....We showed you how your definition can be used against you. It has nothing to do with moral relativity in any sense of the concept. It has to do with your black and white definition of the term as it pertains to a certain political party, and continual ignorance when WE are trying to apply it to another party using YOUR definition.
Are you trying to apply to the Democrats n this same situation (the shutdown conundrum) or are do you have another instance in mind?
Originally posted by The_TempestFor one thing, my definition of a terrorist (which I didn't make up) is not as loose as "to achieve a desired outcome", the qualifier that I stated was "to achieve a [religious or political] outcome". For another, yes, it's applied selectively, yes it's a double-standard. But so what? We live in a world that is complicated and has layers. I'm not a five year old who thinks that because two things are alike they're the same thing. On the surface, a parent threatening to whoop his child's ass if he doesn't behave and dropping a Government's budget and ****ing the global economy unless the other party makes concessions on a bill that isn't in any way related to the budget in the first place may be alike, but warning that there will be consequences for your actions and making a concious effort to instill fear into you so as to coerce you into performing a more desirable action is not the same thing.
Didn’t catch your edit here.What I “genuinely disagree with” is a double standard. I think your definition is unduly harsh, but as long as you don’t selectively apply it, I don’t have a particular problem with it.
As far as my lacking a definition of terrorism is concerned, I’ve studied this stuff enough to know how very important—and how very difficult—it is to construct an accurate definition of concepts. Per my example, Potter Stewart was a brilliant legal scholar & jurist and respected Supreme Court justice and still struggled to come up with a respectable definition of something as trivial as pornography.
As it stands, terrorism being “the use of fear to achieve a desired outcome” seems dogmatic and simplistic. But then it might very well be that I am uncomfortable with just how many of us qualify in our day-to-day lives.
Originally posted by mstanford2912lol.
If you are to apply the terrorist label to the Republicans for contributing to the shutdown crisis, then I want you to apply the terrorist label to the Democrats if there are no further negotiations up to and past the debt ceiling deadline.
For another, yes, it's applied selectively, yes it's a double-standard. But so what? We live in a world that is complicated and has layers. I'm not a five year old who thinks that because two things are alike they're the same thing.
Here you go champ
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_standard
A double standard is the application of different sets of principles for similar situations, or by two different people in the same situation.
I'm not a five year old who thinks that because two things are alike they're the same thing.
I think you'd better start sitting this one out.
Originally posted by mstanford2912Maybe...
If you are to apply the terrorist label to the Republicans for contributing to the shutdown crisis, then I want you to apply the terrorist label to the Democrats if there are no further negotiations up to and past the debt ceiling deadline.
Is the debt ceiling something that can be raised independent of the shutdown? Like, could Congress raise the debt ceiling even while the shutdown carries on?
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
For another, yes, it's applied selectively, yes it's a double-standard
Then we have a particular problem.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
For one thing, my definition of a terrorist (which I didn't make up) is not as loose as "to achieve a desired outcome", the qualifier that I stated was "to achieve a [religious or political] outcome".
There are plenty of examples, from the UN threatening Iran with sanctions to ACLU lawsuits, that would still qualify under such a definition. Examples that I sincerely doubt the average person would consider an act of terrorism.
Originally posted by Tzeentch._
On the surface, a parent threatening to whoop his child's ass if he doesn't behave and dropping a Government's budget and ****ing the global economy unless the other party makes concessions on a bill that isn't in any way related to the budget in the first place may be alike, but warning that there will be consequences for your actions and making a concious effort to instill fear into you so as to coerce you into performing a more desirable action is not the same thing.
It all depends on how you look at it. You just happen to be painting the GOP's efforts and motives in a less flattering light. One could easily say that the GOP is warning the Democrats that "there will be consequences for their actions."
Originally posted by mstanford2912From what I can tell, and I may be missing a few things here, if this conflict of interests goes in to mid-October, it will likely interfere with the congressional approval needed to raise the debt ceiling. Just as the revisions concerning the ACA prevented a budget from being passed by Oct. 1, this current fight over that lack of budget may prevent the debt ceiling from being raised by Oct. 17. If that doesn't happen, then not only will the U.S. Federal government have been shutdown for over half a month, but it will also default on its debts. A massive double whammy of OMGWTF.
I don't believe so.
What you (rightfully so, I expect) fear is that this default happens. The current situation is bad, but defaulting is much much worse. So it's paramount that the ceiling be raised. And yet...
Boehner and the House refuse to pass any bill that would raise the debt ceiling. Unless of course that bill is "packaged" with additional provisions favorable to the Republicans. So we have the Republican party refusing to let the budget pass unless they get their way with a bill that has passed successfully through all legal channels in every branch of gov't. AND we have the Republican Speaker of the House refusing to pass a clean debt-limit bill--unless, most likely, it also negatively impacts the ACA.
So... I'm trying to see how either issue--the shutdown or the looming default-- are the fault of the Democrats. Why would they deserve our coveted Terrorist moniker alongside the GOP, when it's the GOP who is at fault for the entire collective mess?
Boehner and the House refuse to pass any bill that would raise the debt ceiling. Unless of course that bill is "packaged" with additional provisions favorable to the Republicans. So we have the Republican party refusing to let the budget pass unless they get their way with a bill that has passed successfully through all legal channels in every branch of gov't. AND we have the Republican Speaker of the House refusing to pass a clean debt-limit bill--unless, most likely, it also negatively impacts the ACA.So... I'm trying to see how either issue--the shutdown or the looming default-- are the fault of the Democrats. Why would they deserve our coveted Terrorist moniker alongside the GOP, when it's the GOP who is at fault for the entire collective mess?
So Obama is willing to compromise but not negotiate? Wtf? Obama wants the Republicans to completely back down? But we're of course ignoring this?
Your story is interesting and yet a day old since Boehner said " he wants conversations about spending cuts to start "now," not "next week" or "next month."
I wasn't being cute before with that "negotiate with terrorists" line. Why would Obama negotiate with these people? Who's to blame, the hostage or the hostage taker? They're threatening a default unless they get what they want. Perhaps--perhaps!--if what they wanted was something tenable then I'd be more sympathetic toward them. But so far it's all been about Obamacare. They want to delay/defund a bill that has already come in to effect, and was legally passed through the House, the Senate, the White House, and upheld by the Supreme Court. And even after all that, the GOP wants it done their way. Or else!
And still Obama is supposed to be equally culpable becuase he won't put up with such unimaginable bullshit? This is all like one man saying to another "If we do things your way, you'll kill us all!" Then he picks up the detonator to his chest-strapped bomb and says "Now give me what I need to stop you or else I will kill us all!" And we're supposed to partition equal blame to the other guy for not trying to talk him down with concessions that the explosive nutjob has no business demanding.