There are no margins of domination. You dominate or you don't.
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of logic.
We already "dominate" the world in any way that it is feasible to "dominate" the world. How could we possibly *expand* our power and remain the benevolent superpower we are? We would have to resort to colonialism, and ambiguous nudgings to this "Wolfowitz Doctrine" notwithstanding there is no evidence at all that we're heading towards colonial empire.
So what the hell is being discussed here? Can the ninnies be specific or does their stance rely on such ambiguity because nailing things down to specifics and introducing *actual substance* is like chewing on kryptonite to them?
I'm not asking for semantic perfection, I'm looking for an argument with some substance.
Security Council Success Story: Suez Canal 1956. Unilateralistanis led by Presidente Generale Dime Bag sellout the Chiraqis, Zionist Entity and the Nation of Boiled Beef. People of the Pyramids win back they propus.
Of course we could connect the dots between this and 6 Days war and alternatively even go through to Camp David Accords and even Israel-Palestine in the whole bigger picture but then that would be too messy and might refute my point. So I'll just stick with my simplistic narrow "success" story.
There are no margins of domination. You dominate or you don't.
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of logic.
.
I don't want to interfere, but concerning the concept of domination, there is margins. There is strong dominations and light domination. Just follow Tennis Match on TV, and you will heard the Sport's journalist employed this type of wording.
If you want a word without margins choose death. The word death is an absolute, there is no margins there.
maybe it will make more sense then, maybe not. as for the Bush/kid reference, just a little dig in regards to his intellect.
OK. Let's see if I've got it straight now. Bush is the "child-emperor" and he is wearing no clothes. I am not sure who the "king" is in your original story, but it is clear that he is wearing no clothes too. I am guessing that the "king" is Tony Blair. This would make sense, as it is the corrollary of there being a "Queen" in England. There is no mention of King Blair also being a child; I am thinking he is more like an adolescent.
The relationship between the king and the emperor is not immediately clear. The adolescent king is older than the child emperor, but it is clear that the emperor is in charge. This would make sense in the context of the relationship between U.K./U.S and between Blair and Bush.
It is also not immediately apparent where the United Nations comes in on all of this. I am thinking that the United Nations is akin to the governess of the two regal brats, trying to convince them that violence is not the way to resolve their disputes with other kids and that clothing should be worn.
no no no. man, that made so much sense in my head though.
the UN is the king. they're naked (read: irrelevent) bush (child in story) points this out.
who's fault is it the UN is irrelevent. the UN for being so, or Bush for pointing it out?
fact is, if they weren't irrelevent, it wouldn't matter what Bush said, they'd still have a say in matters. if they are irrelevent, it wouldn't matter what Bush said, because everyone knows they're pointless.
sorry, that has to be the worst example i've come up with in years. my apologies.
Grover, while I appreciate your logic, it is not the steadfast rock you want it to be, if for no other reason than it appears to be built upon language, and language has to account for the actual uses to which it is subjected. It isn't coldly clinical.
"...More perfect union..."
Does that makes sense my American friend? Far from being a mistake of poor grammar, we have a long linguistic history of using supplemental logic and expressions. More and less dominant absolutely makes sematic and linguistic sense, and I think you're stretching a bit to claim you don't understand the naive conception of degress represented by such tropes. If you want to tease it a bit, you can get into a double logic that is even more interesting and difficult to refute outright despite the objections of the philosophers.
In any case, none of this means the position expressed by your adversaries is stronger or weaker, just that the form of it's expression is in fact intelligible enough.
Far from being a mistake of poor grammar, we have a long linguistic history of using supplemental logic and expressions. More and less dominant absolutely makes sematic and linguistic sense, and I think you're stretching a bit to claim you don't understand the naive conception of degress represented by such tropes. If you want to tease it a bit, you can get into a double logic that is even more interesting and difficult to refute outright despite the objections of the philosophers.
In any case, none of this means the position expressed by your adversaries is stronger or weaker, just that the form of it's expression is in fact intelligible enough.
It's not, intelligible enough. It's poor semantics meant to disguise the utter lack of an actual argument.
Seems that this is turning into another one of them groverat-bashing threads. Of course, seeing that I do not wish to perpetrate the evils of the one on trial here, I'll just shut up and enjoy the show.
There is a point where the discussion should end. There is a point where you do no longer answer the inquisitive questions of your children. (barf - an entire day with the kids today. I'm a bit fed up right now). Groverat, you're winning this discussion, if only because you're the Duracell bunny that whines. Even if you have nothing concrete to add, you'll whine untill everybody'd just give you what you want.
I have to agree that it is grover in this case who is not making an argument, but that doesn't mean that the argument he's attacking is any good to begin with,
"That's sophistry."
That's beautiful, see my comment about the objections of the philosophers. However, in this case, grover, you might be a little guilty of your own accusations. I know you believe you are being clear about the definitions, and in a long established tradition you are doing that (though I think even that is slightly misapplied here). But when you get into it, you cannot dismiss such arrangements so quickly, though many times they are sophistry, they just as easily are not, but rather an attempt for language to deal with difficult representations. What grates the philosophers is that these seem to make no sense, often they don't, but, the binary to which the philosopher holds can also be collapsed, and if neither 'makes sense' then we are left to consider what are people trying to say.
However, before this breaks into far too much, we should just accept that it is possible to dominate more or less, and that the concept is perfectly amenable to degrees of domination.
"Since 11 September, America has established bases at the gateways to all the major sources of fossil fuels, especially central Asia. The Unocal oil company is to build a pipeline across Afghanistan. Bush has scrapped the Kyoto Protocol on greenhouse gas emissions, the war crimes provisions of the International Criminal Court and the anti-ballistic missile treaty. He has said he will use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states "if necessary". Under cover of propaganda about Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction, the Bush regime is developing new weapons of mass destruction that undermine international treaties on biological and chemical warfare."
Looking for the colonialism.
Not seeing the colonialism.
--
I'm not trying to make an argument, my point in this thread is to draw out those making accusations and get them to flesh out their arguments.
You're missing the point.
kopf, still stinging because you can't answer the questions, eh? I have kleenex here if you like.
However, before this breaks into far too much, we should just accept that it is possible to dominate more or less, and that the concept is perfectly amenable to degrees of domination.
Sweet, we're making up definitions for words now!?
2+2=5!
Main Entry: co·lo·nial·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lO-nE-&-"li-z&m, -ny&-"li-
Function: noun
Date: 1853
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control
Where's the colonialism?
Ok, how about the empire that remakes the world in it's own image ( only with the best of intentions ) that I discribed in the other thread you didn't reply to?
Comments
Originally posted by groverat
You can't dominate more than dominate. There is no modifying the word.
Yeah, tell that to your wife.
There are no margins of domination. You dominate or you don't.
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of logic.
We already "dominate" the world in any way that it is feasible to "dominate" the world. How could we possibly *expand* our power and remain the benevolent superpower we are? We would have to resort to colonialism, and ambiguous nudgings to this "Wolfowitz Doctrine" notwithstanding there is no evidence at all that we're heading towards colonial empire.
So what the hell is being discussed here? Can the ninnies be specific or does their stance rely on such ambiguity because nailing things down to specifics and introducing *actual substance* is like chewing on kryptonite to them?
I'm not asking for semantic perfection, I'm looking for an argument with some substance.
Of course we could connect the dots between this and 6 Days war and alternatively even go through to Camp David Accords and even Israel-Palestine in the whole bigger picture but then that would be too messy and might refute my point. So I'll just stick with my simplistic narrow "success" story.
Originally posted by groverat
I don't know what he meant.
There are no margins of domination. You dominate or you don't.
It's not a matter of semantics, it's a matter of logic.
.
I don't want to interfere, but concerning the concept of domination, there is margins. There is strong dominations and light domination. Just follow Tennis Match on TV, and you will heard the Sport's journalist employed this type of wording.
If you want a word without margins choose death. The word death is an absolute, there is no margins there.
Originally posted by alcimedes
here's the entire story.
http://members.tripod.com/~GaryCooper/emperor.html
maybe it will make more sense then, maybe not. as for the Bush/kid reference, just a little dig in regards to his intellect.
OK. Let's see if I've got it straight now. Bush is the "child-emperor" and he is wearing no clothes. I am not sure who the "king" is in your original story, but it is clear that he is wearing no clothes too. I am guessing that the "king" is Tony Blair. This would make sense, as it is the corrollary of there being a "Queen" in England. There is no mention of King Blair also being a child; I am thinking he is more like an adolescent.
The relationship between the king and the emperor is not immediately clear. The adolescent king is older than the child emperor, but it is clear that the emperor is in charge. This would make sense in the context of the relationship between U.K./U.S and between Blair and Bush.
It is also not immediately apparent where the United Nations comes in on all of this. I am thinking that the United Nations is akin to the governess of the two regal brats, trying to convince them that violence is not the way to resolve their disputes with other kids and that clothing should be worn.
Is that it?
the UN is the king. they're naked (read: irrelevent) bush (child in story) points this out.
who's fault is it the UN is irrelevent. the UN for being so, or Bush for pointing it out?
fact is, if they weren't irrelevent, it wouldn't matter what Bush said, they'd still have a say in matters. if they are irrelevent, it wouldn't matter what Bush said, because everyone knows they're pointless.
sorry, that has to be the worst example i've come up with in years. my apologies.
Originally posted by groverat
I'm not asking for semantic perfection, I'm looking for an argument with some substance.
That's what we're looking for from you!
Grover, while I appreciate your logic, it is not the steadfast rock you want it to be, if for no other reason than it appears to be built upon language, and language has to account for the actual uses to which it is subjected. It isn't coldly clinical.
"...More perfect union..."
Does that makes sense my American friend? Far from being a mistake of poor grammar, we have a long linguistic history of using supplemental logic and expressions. More and less dominant absolutely makes sematic and linguistic sense, and I think you're stretching a bit to claim you don't understand the naive conception of degress represented by such tropes. If you want to tease it a bit, you can get into a double logic that is even more interesting and difficult to refute outright despite the objections of the philosophers.
In any case, none of this means the position expressed by your adversaries is stronger or weaker, just that the form of it's expression is in fact intelligible enough.
Originally posted by Matsu
"...More perfect union..."
Does that makes sense my American friend?
No, it doesn't. It's sophistry.
Far from being a mistake of poor grammar, we have a long linguistic history of using supplemental logic and expressions. More and less dominant absolutely makes sematic and linguistic sense, and I think you're stretching a bit to claim you don't understand the naive conception of degress represented by such tropes. If you want to tease it a bit, you can get into a double logic that is even more interesting and difficult to refute outright despite the objections of the philosophers.
In any case, none of this means the position expressed by your adversaries is stronger or weaker, just that the form of it's expression is in fact intelligible enough.
It's not, intelligible enough. It's poor semantics meant to disguise the utter lack of an actual argument.
Where is the substance?
Where is the evidence of US colonialism?
Originally posted by groverat
Where is the substance?
Where is the evidence of US colonialism?
It's hard to see the picture when you're inside the frame.
Draw with words the picture outside the frame.
Originally posted by groverat
Show me the colonialism.
Draw with words the picture outside the frame.
There is a point where the discussion should end. There is a point where you do no longer answer the inquisitive questions of your children. (barf - an entire day with the kids today. I'm a bit fed up right now). Groverat, you're winning this discussion, if only because you're the Duracell bunny that whines. Even if you have nothing concrete to add, you'll whine untill everybody'd just give you what you want.
"That's sophistry."
That's beautiful, see my comment about the objections of the philosophers. However, in this case, grover, you might be a little guilty of your own accusations. I know you believe you are being clear about the definitions, and in a long established tradition you are doing that (though I think even that is slightly misapplied here). But when you get into it, you cannot dismiss such arrangements so quickly, though many times they are sophistry, they just as easily are not, but rather an attempt for language to deal with difficult representations. What grates the philosophers is that these seem to make no sense, often they don't, but, the binary to which the philosopher holds can also be collapsed, and if neither 'makes sense' then we are left to consider what are people trying to say.
However, before this breaks into far too much, we should just accept that it is possible to dominate more or less, and that the concept is perfectly amenable to degrees of domination.
Looking for the colonialism.
Not seeing the colonialism.
--
I'm not trying to make an argument, my point in this thread is to draw out those making accusations and get them to flesh out their arguments.
You're missing the point.
kopf, still stinging because you can't answer the questions, eh? I have kleenex here if you like.
Originally posted by groverat
kopf, still stinging because you can't answer the questions, eh? I have kleenex here if you like.
1) That's another thread, if I'm correct.
2) I have done nothing but written up the impression you have made on me since I came here for the first time.
However, before this breaks into far too much, we should just accept that it is possible to dominate more or less, and that the concept is perfectly amenable to degrees of domination.
Yeesh. And all I did was make a little joke.
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by tonton
That's okay, Groverat. I didn't really understand politics until I was fourteen either. You'll get the hang of it some day.
colonialism
n : exploitation by a stronger country of weaker one; the use of
the weaker country's resources to strengthen and enrich
the stronger country
Sweet, we're making up definitions for words now!?
2+2=5!
Main Entry: co·lo·nial·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lO-nE-&-"li-z&m, -ny&-"li-
Function: noun
Date: 1853
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control
Where's the colonialism?
Originally posted by groverat
Sweet, we're making up definitions for words now!?
2+2=5!
Main Entry: co·lo·nial·ism
Pronunciation: k&-'lO-nE-&-"li-z&m, -ny&-"li-
Function: noun
Date: 1853
1 : the quality or state of being colonial
2 : something characteristic of a colony
3 a : control by one power over a dependent area or people b : a policy advocating or based on such control
Where's the colonialism?
Ok, how about the empire that remakes the world in it's own image ( only with the best of intentions ) that I discribed in the other thread you didn't reply to?