I was busy with a limited schedule. In different circumstances I would've read the full article, and in these circumstances, I chose to read it at a more convenient time.
I apologize if it seems like I'm getting defensive, but I haven't posted here much and would rather people not get a bad first impression of me.
Dave, this is a bit of a poor showing. Before Q99 gave you some really good practical considerations about the technical phrasing of the law, you dismissed the move as "idiotic." Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suspect you were considering this a move in some sort of "progressive" editing of the language to forcibly normalize nontraditional relationships. However, even if that were your underlying concern you have yet to give even a single argument about why or how a change in federal writing style could achieve that sort of result. Immediately denouncing the (perceived) goal as idiotic does not actually constitute an argument for why it is such.
Attacking the grammar, style, or speed of another member's posts is basically a conscious derail. (I've never understood your fascination with response time.) I figure that once you make a post consisting entirely of tone-sniping, you've conceded the point.
(As a former law student, shouldn't you know which tactics show the audience/jury that you don't have any content to build a substantive case?)
Dave, this is a bit of a poor showing. Before Q99 gave you some really good practical considerations about the technical phrasing of the law, you dismissed the move as "idiotic." Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I suspect you were considering this a move in some sort of "progressive" editing of the language to forcibly normalize nontraditional relationships. However, even if that were your underlying concern you have yet to give even a single argument about why or how a change in federal writing style could achieve that sort of result. Immediately denouncing the (perceived) goal as idiotic does not actually constitute an argument for why it is such.
No I mean, like, trying to put myself into your shoes at the very beginning of the thread, the only reason for you to be upset is some sort of social engineering like in 1984.
BUT, this change doesn't accomplish anything close to that kind of social manipulation. So, I'm saying that even before Q99 gave you a good reason to make the change, there was no reason to oppose the change.
I wrote that last message v late at night, didn't mean it to be an insult about your behavior AFTER you read Q99's post. Sorry if that was unclear.
No I mean, like, trying to put myself into your shoes at the very beginning of the thread, the only reason for you to be upset is some sort of social engineering like in 1984.
1. That's a nice picture. Separate from anything else in this thread, I like that picture.
2. Language has the power to change how people think.
I'm still wondering how people can call a thrice-married father of at least four children "Caitlin".
I'm also wondering how people think propaganda actually WORKS in the real world, assuming they think about it at all.
Do they believe the successful campaigns are some major ultra-serious exercise put into people's heads at gunpoint? Or is successful propaganda a series of little things that can be easily laughed off, things that are all but subliminal, below people's full conscious awareness?
it's not subliminal.
successful propaganda is as simple as feeding a group-serving bias by telling their echo-chamber exactly what they want to hear. the facts are irrelevant since most will tend to ignore any valid contradictory points and group-howl dissenting opinions into silence.
thats why threads like this, based on articles written purely to be dishonest and deliberate deceitful, are taken as scripture and are so vehemently defended by the group which the lie serves.