Originally posted by KazetNagorrathis, too, seems nonsensical. much of the world is in the terrible shape it now is due to too many people in positions of power, influence and authority not being more concerned about the public interest than their own, self-interest, It just doesn't make any sense to me to have concerns or act on concerns that are unrelated to that which is, in fact, the case. We've had 8 years of people who used ideology and nitwit belief systems unrelated to reality as a smokescreen to hide the raping and looting of the USA and a large part of the rest of the world. Surely that is obvious by now.
Seems retarded to be concerned about your nation.
Originally posted by ScriabinI think caring about the public cause is important. However, caring about the nation's cause is retarded.
this, too, seems nonsensical. much of the world is in the terrible shape it now is due to too many people in positions of power, influence and authority not being more concerned about the public interest than their own, self-interest, It just doesn't make any sense to me to have concerns or act on concerns that are unrelated to that which is, in fact, the ...[text shortened]... looting of the USA and a large part of the rest of the world. Surely that is obvious by now.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraI don't understand your use of the word "retarded."
I think caring about the public cause is important. However, caring about the nation's cause is retarded.
It sounds like something a prepubescent schoolchild would say on a playground during recess in order to bully someone.
Perhaps you might explain what you mean.
Originally posted by ScriabinI mean to say that nationalism is utterly evil. The morally correct viewpoint is to care about all humans, not just the ones who happen to live within the borders of your country.
I don't understand your use of the word "retarded."
It sounds like something a prepubescent schoolchild would say on a playground during recess in order to bully someone.
Perhaps you might explain what you mean.
Originally posted by Dace Acedespite what all these apologists are spouting ...
President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."
we should expect obama to stick to his promises, especially this one.
in a population of over 300 million people, they can't find any qualified candidates that aren't lobbyists?
and did anyone really think the promise meant "current lobbyists"? are current lobbyists ALLOWED to serve in govt positions?
why not get some fairly well qualified, verifiably untainted people in there? too difficult a job?
Originally posted by ScriabinTo cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. To be delayed. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay. Relatively slow in emotional development; Occurring or developing later than desired or expected... etc.
I don't understand your use of the word "retarded.".
An intriguing choice of word that brandishes the nuance of English deftly. Which is more than can be said for your It sounds like something a prepubescent schoolchild would say on a playground during recess in order to bully someone.
What was it you said about a fellow member of this community a few days back? "The best part of him is still running down his father's leg".
You trip over overself in order to be snide. You sell yourself short.
Originally posted by Dace AceObama's raising awareness on the issue of corporate lobbyists, and he's restricted them further than any previous president.
President Obama promised during his campaign that lobbyists "won't find a job in my White House."
Here are former lobbyists Obama has tapped for top jobs:
Eric Holder, attorney general nominee, was registered to lobby until 2004 on behalf of clients including Global Crossing, a bankrupt telecommunications firm.
Tom Vilsack, secretary of agricu ...[text shortened]... governmental relations, lobbied for the American Association of Justice from 2001 until 2005.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraSo you are saying being concerned about your nation is the same thing as nationalism?
I mean to say that nationalism is utterly evil. The morally correct viewpoint is to care about all humans, not just the ones who happen to live within the borders of your country.
You got any support for that idea?
Got to tell you, I don't understand these two distinct things to be equivalents at all.
1 edit
Originally posted by ScriabinIt depends on what you mean by "being concerned about your nation". Being concerned about the existence of your nation is nationalism. Being concerned about the people living in your nation is not.
So you are saying being concerned about your nation is the same thing as nationalism?
You got any support for that idea?
Got to tell you, I don't understand these two distinct things to be equivalents at all.
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy do you fly the Netherlander's flag? Do you like being a Netherlander? Why? Why not the peoples of the world flag?
It depends on what you mean by "being concerned about your nation". Being concerned about the existence of your nation is nationalism. Being concerned about the people living in your nation is not.
GRANNY.
1 edit
Originally posted by FMFI don't sell myself - how about you? It is tiresome to have to do this, but one had hoped to find at least one or two others who had gone to university and become relatively educated.
To cause to move or proceed slowly; delay or impede. To be delayed. A slowing down or hindering of progress; a delay. Relatively slow in emotional development; Occurring or developing later than desired or expected... etc.
An intriguing choice of word that brandishes the nuance of English deftly. Which is more than can be said for your It sounds like somet s father's leg".
You trip over overself in order to be snide. You sell yourself short.
Thanks so much for your elementary quotation of a set of dictionary definitions. Thanks not so much for ignoring the philosophical basis for my asking the question.
My question arises within the philosophical context raised by Wittgenstein's aphorism in his Tractatus, # 3.3, which states: "Only the proposition has sense; only in the sense of a proposition does a name have meaning."
It was over 4 decades ago I was instructed on Wittgenstein by a logician, thankfully not a theologian. I still can recall that most commentary on this early work of Wittgenstein recognized the aphorism showed the imprint of Frege's context principle from that author's The Foundations of Arithmetic.
The context principle was part of Frege's methodology, which admonished us "never to ask for the meaning of a word in isolation, but only in the context of a proposition."
And the whole thing may be just another of Wittgenstein's jabs at Russell, as I recall.
But it therefore isn't a question of definition -- it is a question about usage.
As it appeared in the message I questioned, it looks as though the word is being used as an epithet and I described it in those terms.
Sorry if your emotional problems blind you to everything that is written here except the simplest, most uneducated interpretation -- so let me help you understand the conventions: insults are jokes, the more earthy, the funnier they are. Anger is an expression of ennui. Sarcasm is double-edged and aimed as much at myself as at you.
Nothing in my world is what it seems to be, what it appears to be. Everything is uncertain, open to interpretation, needing translation, or a special knowledge of one sort or another to reveal the hidden cues. Everything is subtle, nothing is straight forward. Can't quite see why you can't quite see that.
Sorry your feelings actually do seem to have been dented -- perhaps you can file an insurance claim?