Anyway, I really don't think this will have a noticeable effect on the election.
quote:
And I was all like 'Oh yeah?' and Bacon369 was all like:
You should take this show on the road. What I got from the post originally was someone was asking what Osama meant in his statement. Drysart said to that person that Osama obviously means the entire country beacause ONE individual state does not make up the entire foreign policy for a country, hence the montana comment. I made one outright statement "U.S.A is a Nation-State" PERIOD. The ballgame insult is pretty weak. If I insulted you with a direct statement towards you somewhere please point it out and I will appologize. Otherwise learn how to have a conversation without attacking the person you are talking to.
We are both right in our assesment of what we have read.
What exactly has your point been, if you agree with what I've said all along? It's not technically accurate to refer to America as a nation-state, because we're far from a homegenous culture. Hence your blanket statement was incorrect, and you've ignored the example of the various American Indian nations within our state that prove my point. I did, however, point out that America comes closer than some.
Perhaps before you jump in correcting what I say, you should make an effort to understand it, first? Your assertion that America is a nation-state, "PERIOD," is not only arguably incorrect, but irrelevant to my point that "state," as used in the video, is the correct generic term. "Nation-state," although useful in Drysart's answer to the question, is not the correct generic term.
It was simply a factoid thrown out to educate those who may not know the difference, and you've chosen pointlessly to argue it, though you've yet to disagree with my definitions.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about pies:
[QB]What exactly has your point been, if you agree with what I've said all along?QB]
If you are so convinced that he agrees with you then why do you keep insulting him?
quote:
Delidgamond thought about the meaning of life:
If you are so convinced that he agrees with you then why do you keep insulting him?
Because he arguing as if I've said something incorrect, yet keeps repeating what I've already said. It's both annoying and silly.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
A sleep deprived Bloodsage stammered:
Because he arguing as if I've said something incorrect, yet keeps repeating what I've already said. It's both annoying and silly.
It may be in your best interest since you have one strike against you with Bacon already
quote:
Delidgamond spewed forth this undeniable truth:It may be in your best interest since you have one strike against you with Bacon already
Perhaps you should begin minding your own business? Honestly: even if I were in the market for that kind of advice, what makes you think I'd seek it from you?
Bacon said something incredibly stupid and baseless in the other thread; it was my mistake that I commented upon him rather than confining what I said to shredding his silly comment. Drysart's point is taken.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage was listening to Cher while typing:
Perhaps you should begin minding your own business? Honestly: even if I were in the market for that kind of advice, what makes you think I'd seek it from you?
Just trying to give some advice. It shouldn't matter whom it comes from.
quote:
Suddar had this to say about Robocop:
Now you're just being mean.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
Encyclopedia says.....When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand are excellent examples of nation-states. There are some States which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Even with its multicultural society, the United States is also referred to as a nation-state because of the shared American "culture."
Which to me is also a "loose" definition. I started arguing with you because you blatently said "NOPE" to my statement.
Originally I NEVER corrected you nor did I try to .... you just took it that way. I was just trying to clarify Drysarts statement to the other poster.
<U.S.A is a "nation state". I think thats what Drysart meant.> Is what was posted. Only Drysart knows what Drysart was trying to say.
Your reply to that statement was NOPE.
Weeeeeeeeeee round and round we go on the Rehtoric wheel.
quote:
Delidgamond impressed everyone with:
Just trying to give some advice. It shouldn't matter whom it comes from.
I still love you Delidgamond.
quote:
Delidgamond had this to say about Pirotess:
Just trying to give some advice. It shouldn't matter whom it comes from.
Giving someone unsolicited advice is chancy at best. A PM would've been much more appropriate, if you were sincerely trying to help.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Liam had this to say about Duck Tales:
I still love you Delidgamond.
I love you too my Canadian Husband.
quote:
Delidgamond stumbled drunkenly to the keyboard and typed:
Just trying to give some advice. It shouldn't matter whom it comes from.
And since I suddenly can't edit. . .
The source certainly does matter when choosing which advice to take. Would you take investment advice from a beggar? Fitness advice from someone morbidly obese? Maybe. . .but an intelligent person would verify from more reputable sources, first.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
It's strange...I have the latest edition of the Oxford dictionary, and at least half of the definitions of scientific principles within are really very poor. If they can't get those right, how can the other definitions be trusted? Pvednes fucked around with this message on 10-31-2004 at 12:29 PM.
quote:
Bacon369 enlisted the help of an infinite number of monkeys to write:
Actually your definition of "Nation-State" reads opinion based. As in this statement. "The United States is a state, but it's rather a stretch to call it a nation-state, although it comes closer than some."
Thus I did not denounce your opinion of the Term as though I wrote the dictionary.
When all else fails, point to the rule book.Encyclopedia says.....When a nation of people have a State or country of their own, it is called a nation-state. Places like France, Egypt, Germany, Japan, and New Zealand are excellent examples of nation-states. There are some States which have two nations, such as Canada and Belgium. Even with its multicultural society, the United States is also referred to as a nation-state because of the shared American "culture."
Which to me is also a "loose" definition. I started arguing with you because you blatently said "NOPE" to my statement.
Originally I NEVER corrected you nor did I try to .... you just took it that way. I was just trying to clarify Drysarts statement to the other poster.<U.S.A is a "nation state". I think thats what Drysart meant.> Is what was posted. Only Drysart knows what Drysart was trying to say.
Your reply to that statement was NOPE.
Weeeeeeeeeee round and round we go on the Rehtoric wheel.
You're splitting hairs finer than you're qualified, if your best definition comes from an encyclopedia.
What on earth made you think I needed anything about Drysart's post clarified?
Perhaps you think America is sufficiently homogeneous to merit the term "nation-state," but you should at least bring more in the way of proof than an encyclopedia article, especially in the face of specific examples of other nations subsumed within the American state. One could, as I mentioned, make the point, but you'll specifically have to deal not only with the various American Indian nations, but also the growing Hispanic bloc, among others.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Pvednes stopped beating up furries long enough to write:
While we're on semantics,It's strange...I have the latest edition of the Oxford dictionary, and at least half of the definitions of scientific principles within are really very poor. If they can't get those right, how can the other definitions be trusted?
OED is a dictionary of usage, mostly. If you want the best technical definition of a particular field's jargon, it's better to go to a lexicon devoted specifically to the field. If you want to know the common definition and the origin of a word, OED is your place.
I don't have the latest OED, but does that explain what you're seeing?
{edit: wrong word Bloodsage fucked around with this message on 10-31-2004 at 12:35 PM.
}
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage had this to say about dark elf butts:
OED is a dictionary of usage, mostly. If you want the best technical definition of a particular field's jargon, it's better to go to a lexicon devoted specifically to the field. If you want to know the common definition and the origin of a word, OED is your place.I don't have the latest OED, but does that explain what you're seeing?
{edit: wrong word
}
Yes, it does, thank you...though in the case of the terms in question I think they should define them as per the common usage of the circles who know what they're talking about in using those terms. If I want the best technical definition I would indeed go to the devoted lexicons in question, but unintentional or not, the I think the generalized dictionary should at least be on the right track...
Oh well.
How would you know my qualifications? And what qualifies you to be the owner of the "right" definition?
You sound like you hold yourself Higher than most.....and i'm not sure what makes you think you are because I do not know you yet. Once again...get your nose out of the air and try to have a conversation without insults if you are capable. Show me that and I will try and "speak" they way you like.
Lost in translation was the BEST comment earlier and should have been the end of this.
Off to a football game...will be back to kick you in the shin later.
quote:
Bacon369 painfully thought these words up:
""You're splitting hairs finer than you're qualified,""How would you know my qualifications? And what qualifies you to be the owner of the "right" definition?
You sound like you hold yourself Higher than most.....and i'm not sure what makes you think you are because I do not know you yet. Once again...get your nose out of the air and try to have a conversation without insults if you are capable. Show me that and I will try and "speak" they way you like.
Lost in translation was the BEST comment earlier and should have been the end of this.
Off to a football game...will be back to kick you in the shin later.
Amazing how you've not bothered to show why the other nations within America don't really count, despite repeated mentioning. The very fact that an encyclopedia article is the best defense of your point you can muster proves you aren't qualified to split hairs on the subject, doesn't it?
Whining that you don't like my tone, while completely ignoring the substance hardly emphasizes whatever expertise you claim to have on the subject at hand, does it? Either defend your point, or concede it.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
quote:
Bloodsage attempted to be funny by writing:
Amazing how you've not bothered to show why the other nations within America don't really count, despite repeated mentioning. The very fact that an encyclopedia article is the best defense of your point you can muster proves you aren't qualified to split hairs on the subject, doesn't it?Whining that you don't like my tone, while completely ignoring the substance hardly emphasizes whatever expertise you claim to have on the subject at hand, does it? Either defend your point, or concede it.
Not sure why you insist that I split hairs with you over the definition of a word.
I feel that the U.S.A IS a "Nation-State" and you feel that it IS NOT, correct?
We seem to be in a game of Semantics, Rhetoric and Opinion. Dictionaries were developed to assist people with communication. The definition of "Nation-State" is vague in the dictionary and very susceptible to personal interpetation.
So, I guess we need to first agree on what words make up the definition of "Nation State"
I will go on this comment you made: "because we're far from a homegenous culture"
Homogeneous -
1. Of the same or similar nature or kind.
2. Uniform in structure or composition throughout.
Culture -
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.
If you do not mind I would like to shorten this to "Hamburgers, Hotdogs, Baseball, Capitalism and Taxes" to me these are some big chunks of "American Culture"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To use Native Americans as an example, you are saying that there are 562 Nations from this group of people alone within our borders. Now to be fair, lets breakdown everybody elses background and sprinkle them on. I really do not feel like looking up this stat, so I will go with the number 191 equating it to the number of U.N. chairs.(eventhough there are thousands of nations throughout the world). That comes to 753 Nations.
Where is the Homogeneous Culture amongst this number??
-- Hamburgers, hotdogs, baseball, capitalism, taxes, mcdonalds, walmart, mtv, cable, cell phones, hollywood, CASINOS, ect.
The motley collage of many diff cultures constantly mingling together IS "American Culture"
And when it really comes down to it, everyone within our borders answers to the Federal Government whether they like to admit it or not. Take the B.I.A for example.
So yes, I thought Drysart was correct in telling Noxhil "Nation-State". I took it as though Drysart was telling Noxhil that Osama would not be singling out individual states in our country but attacking us as a Whole.
Yes, I feel that the U.S.A is a Nation-State. <shrug>
quote:
Bacon369 had this to say about Optimus Prime:
Not sure why you insist that I split hairs with you over the definition of a word. Actually, you're the one trying to make overly fine points. Notice how I've clearly laid out the definitions I am using, and you have accepted them. Your application of the terms is in question, however, and you've not adequately explained your reasoning.
I feel that the U.S.A IS a "Nation-State" and you feel that it IS NOT, correct? Incorrect. Feeling has nothing to do with it. I have an opinion based upon years of study and several advanced degrees founded heavily in poli sci and international relations; you take issue with my considered assessment based upon an article you saw in an encyclopedia, but which you seem unable to explain despite repeated requests to do so. Logic has nothing at all to do with feelings.We seem to be in a game of Semantics, Rhetoric and Opinion. First, those are not proper nouns, so I'm curious as to the random capitalization. Second, there is no game, but rather a discussion of a very specific use of a technical term, which I very clearly defined at the outset of my posts, and which you have not challenged. Semantics are, therefore, not a player, because the definition or proper use of the term is not in doubt, but rather the underlying justification for using one term versus another. Rhetoric, for your edification, is simply a method for logical discussion, in that it lays out the most effective methods to convey a point. If you'd like to learn more about it, feel free to start a thread and I'll answer your questions. Opinions, on the other hand, are actually at issue, but you've not deigned to explain yours beyond pointing to an encyclopedia. Contrary to popular myth, all opinions are not equal; a good opinion is clearly expressed and backed up by logical interpretation of the facts at hand. I've offered you several chances to rebut the points I've made, but you repeatedly return to a single encyclopedia entry as your only support. If you feel you need to refer to lexicographical authority, you should choose one specific to the field in question. Dictionaries were developed to assist people with communication. To a certain extent, but they are designed more to capture current popular usage. See my post above. Dictionaries are not meant to be the arbiters of precise usage in technical discussions. In discussions of this nature, it is customary either to agree upon precise usage or adopt the conventions of the field in question. I've done the latter, but spelled out the precise usage as well, since my first post was simply to educate on the technical usage of an often over- and misused term. The definition of "Nation-State" is vague in the dictionary and very susceptible to personal interpetation. That doesn't mean you're free to use it however you choose in a discussion of this nature. That's why, as I've said, I laid out the precise correct usage. Remember: it seems to be the logic underlying a particular use of the term in question.
So, I guess we need to first agree on what words make up the definition of "Nation State"
I will go on this comment you made: "because we're far from a homegenous culture"
Homogeneous -
1. Of the same or similar nature or kind.
2. Uniform in structure or composition throughout.
Culture -
The totality of socially transmitted behavior patterns, arts, beliefs, institutions, and all other products of human work and thought.
These patterns, traits, and products considered as the expression of a particular period, class, community, or population. These patterns, traits, and products considered with respect to a particular category, such as a field, subject, or mode of expression. The predominating attitudes and behavior that characterize the functioning of a group or organization.If you do not mind I would like to shorten this to "Hamburgers, Hotdogs, Baseball, Capitalism and Taxes" to me these are some big chunks of "American Culture" This represents a classic straw man fallacy, in that you've created an argument for me that has nothing at all to do with what I've argued. Further, you've oversimplified American culture to the point of meaninglessness. Your logic fails right here, I'm afraid, because one cannot intelligently discuss the various cultures in America if one is confined to such simplistic representations which, not coincidentally, make it impossible to reach a conclusion other than yours by the easy expedient of defining out any possibility of opposing views. Karnaj is our resident expert on logical fallacies, and I'm sure he'd be delighted to name the others present in this rather obvious gambit.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To use Native Americans as an example, you are saying that there are 562 Nations from this group of people alone within our borders. Where, pray tell, did I say any such thing? More evidence of straw man creation, in that you've attributed to me statistics I've not quoted. A better way of handling this would be to show how that particular sub-culture, despite formally being labeled as nations, does not rise to the level of importance necessary to consider America multicultural rather than homogeneous. Now to be fair, lets breakdown everybody elses background and sprinkle them on. I really do not feel like looking up this stat, so I will go with the number 191 equating it to the number of U.N. chairs.(eventhough there are thousands of nations throughout the world). You are mixing terms, here, and that undermines your argument. Nations, in the sense we are discussing, do not have U.N. seats; states do. No American Indian nation, for example, has a U.N. seat. You've created a non sequitur here that muddies your argument fatally. The issue at hand is whether America is such a homegeneous culture--like Japan, for example--that it merits the label "nation-state." That comes to 753 Nations.Where is the Homogeneous Culture amongst this number?? As a note, you can't simply define your way into proving your opinion.
-- Hamburgers, hotdogs, baseball, capitalism, taxes, mcdonalds, walmart, mtv, cable, cell phones, hollywood, CASINOS, ect.
The motley collage of many diff cultures constantly mingling together IS "American Culture" So your argument is that America's uniform non-homogeneity meets the "homogeneous culture" requirement of a single nation, thus combining the nation and the state in a single entity deserving the label "nation-state." As I hope you can see, there are several inherent flaws in this approach. First, you've already admitted that there are many nations within America, which proves my point, yet you haven't shown how none of them merit consideration or separate identity. Second, you proved my point again when you tried to say that extreme variety is a kind of homogeneity; that's simply not logically supportable.And when it really comes down to it, everyone within our borders answers to the Federal Government whether they like to admit it or not. Take the B.I.A for example. Here, you're mixing terms again. The federal government is the state, and has no bearing on the discussion. The state represents the political boundary; the nations represent the cultural boundaries. The only issue is whether America represents a single national--cultural--entity, or whether there are sufficient internal differences of culture to say that several or many nations exist within the political state that is America. To prove your point, you need to show that, in meaningful ways, the Indian nations, the Hispanics, even the Amish, all share significant cultural ties with each other and the rest of America, so that one may categorize American culture as homegeneous. Baseball, for example, is huge in Japan--does that mean we share a culture? McDonald's is huge around the world--does that mean we're all a single culture? Taxes are an instrument of the state, and irrelevant to a discussion of culture. Hot dogs, in their various forms, are much bigger here in Germany than in America--does that make us the same culture? Cell phones are huge in Korea and China--does that mean we share the same culture? See what I mean?
So yes, I thought Drysart was correct in telling Noxhil "Nation-State". I took it as though Drysart was telling Noxhil that Osama would not be singling out individual states in our country but attacking us as a Whole. He was, but my point is that Osama's use of the word was correct, and I simply laid out the definitions of the words. Drysart's usage made clear the distinction for Noxhill, but it was obvious Noxhill was unfamiliar with the difference between states and nation-states, so I explained.
Yes, I feel that the U.S.A is a Nation-State. <shrug> Still not sure what feelings have to do with it. When defending your opinion, you should lay out the point you intend to make, and then your supporting evidence. Only in rare cases where the facts are at issue will a lexicon of any sort be valuable. Reasonable people may disagree whether America is a nation-state, but arguing one or the other requires one to marshall supporting evidence, not creatively define American culture to support a foregone conclusion. Your best bet, frankly, would have been to argue from a policy rather than a cultural standpoint; one could argue that, though other nations exist within the political structure of the United States, they haven't the political voice to influence policy, making the US a nation-state in practice if not demographics. I find the argument less than compelling, but it's really the only way to make your point logically.
In keeping with the new smurfy nature of the forum, I shall now endeavor to teach rather than scoff, as some of this deserves. If you doubt my credentials to instruct in this manner or on this topic, feel free either to use the excellent search function or to PM me.
--Satan, quoted by John Milton
sigpic courtesy of This Guy, original modified by me
"Nations and states are different things, and rarely coincide these days. Although the term "nation-state" is often incorrectly used to mean any modern state. Think of nations as people of the same culture, and states as political boundaries. The Roma (gypsies), for example, are a nation without a state, or a trans-state nation depending upon how one looks at it."
So from your original post, I guess I missed that this was being addressed to Noxhil and I missed how you were addressing the issue of Osama being correct in his usage of the term.(cause I do not see Osamas name in it)
Also, I used capital letters for Rhetoric, Semantics and Opoinion because I still do not know how to change font colors and I wanted to emphasize the words.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think that the best post in the entire thread was lost in translation
Bloodsage, I can see how someone with your credentials could easily get annoyed with someone else lacking the same level of skill. However, I am glad you said it first that you should teach and not scold, for you are human and not perfect.
I should have taken the advice of a vet when I first joined the boards and made a thread saying hello and thank you for letting me run around in your sandbox. In that same thread I should have told you about myself so you would have an idea of my perspective on things.
Language is complex.
quote:
So quoth Drysart:
Nation-States, of course. It's not like Montana has any say in Bush's foreign policy.
Free Montana from the oppression!
Civil War 2.0!
Ferrel!
quote:
Drysart Model 2000 was programmed to say:
HAY GUYS MY DICTIONARY SAYS THIS
FUCK YOU MY DICTIONARY SAYS IT'S TIME WE BEAT YOU WITH STICKS
Edit AND EAT PIE, LOTS OF PIE. Sean fucked around with this message on 11-01-2004 at 06:43 PM.
It's not something people hear about.
