'The day the Constitution died'

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: HermitGuy
The Constitution died when the American people started buying into the left wing propaganda that the Constitution is a living breathing document, the rest is just dirt being tossed on the grave by both sides.

Died long before that, unless you consider Lincoln a left-winger.

Vote Libertarian

I could agree with that.

 

[SgtBuddy]

Quit yer bitchin and get out and vote next time you bastages!

 

[Infos]

Judging from the last election voting is not the answer...isgust
all you have to do is seed the supreme idiots
Hell with a majority, after all the US is a republic;

 

[HermitGuy]

Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: HermitGuy
The Constitution died when the American people started buying into the left wing propaganda that the Constitution is a living breathing document, the rest is just dirt being tossed on the grave by both sides.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by:hagbard
Died long before that, unless you consider Lincoln a left-winger.

I was talking about the modern era but you may have a point.

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer
Your reading skills and ability to think for yourself need some work. I suggest you take the two links you gave earlier, take what eff says is a "concern" (their word not mine) and form you own conclusions. Any rational person will see that they are overstating the case in every instance.

I will not get into another discussion about this law with a bunch of fscktards who obviously have not even bothered to read the fscking thing. Continue to let eff and the aclu do your thinking for you, sheep.

And how exactly you are any better? You call people who disagree with you "sheep", while you yourself seem to blindly think that "The Government is my friend. Anyone who disagrees with The Government is a terrorist"

How am I better? (your word , not mine) Because it's obvious that no one who is attempting to argue about the PA in this thread has even bothered to read it. As far as the sheep comment goes that is the first time I have ever used that word on this board and I wasn't using it because they disagreed with me but because people are content to let other's do their thinking for them. Furthermore, I have never called anyone on this board a terrorist and lastly I have said more than once on this board that there were things in the PA that concerned me. I will not, however, enter into a debate with someone who's sole base of knowledge is what someone else tells them to think and say.

 

[Zebo]

As far as the sheep comment goes that is the first time I have ever used that word on this board

You lie a lot?

Do a search with your username and "sheep" keyword and see how many hit you get

 

[UltraQuiet]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

As far as the sheep comment goes that is the first time I have ever used that word on this board

You lie a lot?

Do a search with your username and "sheep" keyword and see how many hit you get

Searched 10/01/01 to 03/05/03 and came up with nothing. Please do your own search before you apologize.

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: DaveSohmer

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

As far as the sheep comment goes that is the first time I have ever used that word on this board

You lie a lot?

Do a search with your username and "sheep" keyword and see how many hit you get

Searched 10/01/01 to 03/05/03 and came up with nothing. Please do your own search before you apologize.

You did a full text search? I remember at least twice before you've used this term regauding this very act. I'm not a subscriber so i can't do the search. But if I'm mistaken you have my appologies Dave.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

Language is not objective; it is subject to the whims of perspectives, of cultural context, and any number of other things. I don't know where you got the idea that language is objective.

I didn't say 'language', I said the English language. And of course there is objectivity in language analysis, structure, mechanics, and use. If I say to you:

"Running I was the bank towards with hand my waving."

What would you make of it? I can tell you what any 100 randomly selected English Majors would unanimously make of it - rubbish!

Or better yet, since you apparently say I can 'invent' my own words, and since you apparently say I can ascribe to words any meaning I want, 'subject to my whims':

"Ragging fager bank the my with towards huttenshuck verbatoss running."

What would you make of that?

Words have formal (objective) meaning, language has a formal (objective) structure and usage. You might want to consult a few authorities like:

'American Usage and Style: The Consensus', by Roy H. Copperud

'The Elements of Style', by William Strunk, Charles Osgood, Roger Angell

'The New Oxford American Dictionary' by Frank R. Abate (Editor), Elizabeth Jewell

'Webster's Dictionary of Usage and Style: The Reference Guide for Professional Writers, Reporters, Editors, Teachers and Students' by Roy H. Copperud

They would be rather shocked to learn the English language is subject to individual whim and fancy.

Tirade has a meaning, again, that meaning is:

"A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe."

My post was neither long, angry, violent, censorious, denunciatory, bitter, scathing, excoriating, etc. etc. All requisites for a tirade.

If you want to hear a tirade, you can go to a local union rally or antiwar rally, or just wait around for Hagbard, he'll link you to a few anti-US diatribes and tirades. The best examples are those found daily foreign countries, where ideologues play upon poverty and ignorance, 'whipping' up indignation and hatred for their own purposes.

But, sorry, no tirades here, at least none by me.

Nice post.

You subscribe to the school of formalists, I would guess, by your references to Strunk, et. al; however, there are more schools of thought than that in the "English Language" camp, as I'm sure you are aware. Formalists often subscribe to the notion that there are set standards to English, and that the English language is objective; however, such formalists have come under fire in the 20th century from many critical camps, such as the expressivists, social constructionists, and cognitivists. Peter Elbow, for example, would argue that there is some degree of subjectivity in language:

Peter Elbow contends that "[t]o improve your writing you don't need advice about what changes to make; you don't need theories of what is good and bad writing. You need movies of people's minds while they read your words." [Writing Without Teachers, at 77]. A movie of the mind is a subjective but factual statement of what happens when you read. It is an effort to give reactions and not just conclusions.

That is not to say, of course, that there is an entirely subjective nature to language: the English language is subject to certain grammatical rules, structural rules, phonological rules, and the like. This is the only particular claim you make that I sincerely disagree with:

Words have formal (objective) meaning,

Words do not have entirely formal/objective meanings. Many schools of thought wish they did - and can argue that they do effectively, but regardless, from my particular philosophy, they do not; for example, consider the definition of the word Jap (argued ad nauseum on this board). There is, as is evidenced by the debates, no formal consensus on whether the word should be considered to be offensive -- personally, I think it is, but others do not, and I begrudge them that right. Language is determined by cultural context, even within the particulars of a specific language.

On the matter of your word choice, I genuinely believe that the cynicism within your post was meant to denunciate the "other" camp you have more eloquently argued against; it was perhaps shorter than the conventional definition, but it was, from my perspective, certainly denunciatory, perhaps censorious, to some degree bitter; perhaps, were I to know you better, I would be able to gain a different perspective on your use of sarcasm. However, knowing you as I do (very poorly), I judge the use of sarcasm how it is used "round these parts" regularly; as a method of disparaging something one is against. In the passive-aggressive city of Seattle, most of my friends use sarcasm as a genuine replacement for anger: we're rather tepid folk.

Regardless, the matters in this debate can't be settled here. You will continue to think the English language is objective, and I will continue to argue that it has a subjective element; this is something that far greater minds than mine or yours have taken up in the CCCC, the NCTE, and a number of other public forums. They still haven't come to a consensus, so I don't see why we should. IIRC, this is the second - or perhaps third - time that you and I have debated on the subjectivity of language, and the results have been the same each time. It's been fun, but it's going nowhere.

Rob

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: SgtBuddy
Quit yer bitchin and get out and vote next time you bastages!

Well, I'm not in the US, but I not only vote, I've been known to run.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: SgtBuddy
Quit yer bitchin and get out and vote next time you bastages!

Well, I'm not in the US, but I not only vote, I've been known to run.

Most cowards do!..just kidding.. Hey I said I was kidding damn it!

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: HermitGuy
Quote

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by: HermitGuy
The Constitution died when the American people started buying into the left wing propaganda that the Constitution is a living breathing document, the rest is just dirt being tossed on the grave by both sides.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by:hagbard
Died long before that, unless you consider Lincoln a left-winger.

I was talking about the modern era but you may have a point.

Oh, okay. But then, I don't think any modern president has really cared too much about the Constitution. Have they?

 

[hagbard]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: hagbard

Originally posted by: SgtBuddy
Quit yer bitchin and get out and vote next time you bastages!

Well, I'm not in the US, but I not only vote, I've been known to run.

Most cowards do!..just kidding.. Hey I said I was kidding damn it!

Wow...fast response! haha...yeah....mostly duck and cover

 

[Phokus]

Is it me, or has e-tech become the new 'texmaster' on this board?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Phokus
Is it me, or has e-tech become the new 'texmaster' on this board?

It's you.

 

[tcsenter]

You subscribe to the school of formalists, I would guess, by your references to Strunk, et. al; however, there are more schools of thought than that in the "English Language" camp, as I'm sure you are aware. Formalists often subscribe to the notion that there are set standards to English, and that the English language is objective; however, such formalists have come under fire in the 20th century from many critical camps, such as the expressivists, social constructionists, and cognitivists. Peter Elbow, for example, would argue that there is some degree of subjectivity in language:

Come under fire? lol! Well everything comes under fire, so that's no standard at all. There are people who try to discredit carbon dating, heck if you looked hard enough, I'm sure there are still people who believe the earth is flat.

Strunk and Copperud come under fire? lmao! From whom? Nobodies. Kooks and quacks.

If language were to not have formalities, and words can have any meaning you wish, there would be no communication, as nobody would have 'the key' to interpret 6 billion different styles and meanings of language. I have no interest in the academic exercise, only an interest in the meaning of the word tirade.

My post lacks all of the characteristics of a tirade, excepting a luke-warm 'denunciation', which alone does NOT entitle something to the distinction of a tirade. Its something else, but not a tirade. The meaning of a tirade is not 'criticism' or 'denunciation', it is "A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe."

You're very stubborn. I am, too, but usually not so stubborn that I don't know when to quit because I'm wrong. Maybe you should work on that.

 

[flavio]

Originally posted by: Hayabusarider

Originally posted by: 308nato
yawwwn

Enemies foreign and domestic.

That should wake you up a bit. Ashcroft has done more to take away freedoms than Saddam ever could.

Ashcroft is evil!

Didn't we know he was going to be a problem?

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

You subscribe to the school of formalists, I would guess, by your references to Strunk, et. al; however, there are more schools of thought than that in the "English Language" camp, as I'm sure you are aware. Formalists often subscribe to the notion that there are set standards to English, and that the English language is objective; however, such formalists have come under fire in the 20th century from many critical camps, such as the expressivists, social constructionists, and cognitivists. Peter Elbow, for example, would argue that there is some degree of subjectivity in language:

Come under fire? lol! Well everything comes under fire, so that's no standard at all. There are people who try to discredit carbon dating, heck if you looked hard enough, I'm sure there are still people who believe the earth is flat.

Strunk and Copperud come under fire? lmao! From whom? Nobodies. Kooks and quacks.

If language were to not have formalities, and words can have any meaning you wish, there would be no communication, as nobody would have 'the key' to interpret 6 billion different styles and meanings of language. I have no interest in the academic exercise, only an interest in the meaning of the word tirade.

My post lacks all of the characteristics of a tirade, excepting a luke-warm 'denunciation', which alone does NOT entitle something to the distinction of a tirade. Its something else, but not a tirade. The meaning of a tirade is not 'criticism' or 'denunciation', it is "A long angry or violent speech, usually of a censorious or denunciatory nature; a diatribe."

You're very stubborn. I am, too, but usually not so stubborn that I don't know when to quit because I'm wrong. Maybe you should work on that.

First of all, despite your misplaced condescension, I'm willing to offer a concession: I could have chosen a word more apt for the situation than 'tirade.' I am being genuine, not merely argumentative, when I say that I thought your post was angry; though your post lacked length, everything else was there. That being said, I concede: tirade doesn't perfectly fit the definition you provided. Despite that concession, I'm more interested in the idea that you think words are an "objective art."

I've only read the barest details of some of the formalists, so I'm really not sure what they would have to say about this: if language is objective, as you claim, how do you account for language change? To use my earlier example, the word "Jap" didn't originally mean something offensive: it was originally merely used as a colloquial abbreviation for "Japanese," but now is defined as "a disparaging term for a person of Japanese birth or descent." Were this word not subject to the whims of emotion -- were it, as you and others claim, a word which gains its meaning objectively -- how would you account for the change in the definition? This is a geniune question, not a rhetorical one.

Additionally: to dismiss the other major schools of thought -- or their contributing members -- as "kooks and quacks" is to do a rather large injustice to them; were you to read some of their works, perhaps you would be less dismissive. I would highly recommend works by Kenneth Bruffee and David Bartholomae. Many of the works written in both the fields of expressivism (Peter Elbow) and social constructionism (Bruffee, Bartholomae, Victor Villanueva, and many others) may help clarify what I'm getting at here, if it isn't clear.

Finally, I am not treating this as an either/or, which you appear to be. While English has a certain degree of subjectivity to it, that does not mean that it is entirely subjective; it merely means, counter to your original claim, that it is not entirely an "objective art." Meanings in language can come to a consensus, but that does not mean it is objective; the language is still subject to change through the application of personal values.

Rob

 

[tcsenter]

I would highly recommend works by Kenneth Bruffee and David Bartholomae. Many of the works written in both the fields of expressivism (Peter Elbow) and social constructionism (Bruffee, Bartholomae, Victor Villanueva, and many others) may help clarify what I'm getting at here, if it isn't clear.

Stop that, already! You're giving me the creeps, with your incessant use of words like 'expressivism' and 'social constructionism', gobbledeegookeeism, I feel like I'm in a 12-step outreach program or something. Is this some kind of intervention thing? Are you going to want a hug or something next? I don't need help, thank you.

 

[Entity]

Originally posted by: tcsenter

I would highly recommend works by Kenneth Bruffee and David Bartholomae. Many of the works written in both the fields of expressivism (Peter Elbow) and social constructionism (Bruffee, Bartholomae, Victor Villanueva, and many others) may help clarify what I'm getting at here, if it isn't clear.

Stop that, already! You're giving me the creeps, with your incessant use of words like 'expressivism' and 'social constructionism', gobbledeegookeeism, I feel like I'm in a 12-step outreach program or something. Is this some kind of intervention thing? Are you going to want a hug or something next? I don't need help, thank you.

Oh, that's what you think...

Ev'rybody's talkin' 'bout
Bagism, Shagism, Dragism, Madism, Ragism, Tagism
This-ism, that-ism, ism ism ism

You never did answer my question -- are you studying law?

Rob

 

[tcsenter]

You never did answer my question -- are you studying law?

No.