Either my mind moves much faster than ya'lls, or ya'll are deliberately missing the point. - Edit 1
Before modification by Joel at 16/11/2010 12:11:36 AM
No non sequiturs, I gave you examples of why language matters (ESPECIALLY when dealing with law and/or government).
1) If you don't make sure people say what they mean and mean what they say you could end up putting your worst nightmare in power because you THINK you agree with him.
2) In a nation where half the Bill of Rights is effectively a dead letter, you should probably be careful to avoid even the appearance of treason.
Of course, if you're more interested in shaking your fist at The Man than actually accomplishing anything it probably doesn't matter anyway.
Then I am sorry as well.
Subversion has the connotation of treason because so many people associate them that dictionaries make note of it; intelligence agencies et alia have routinely used the term that way for decades whether you and I like it or not. Who's stating opinion as fact here again...?
I actually oppose substituting connotation for definition, and strongly, but I'm not willing to trade constructive political reform and enfranchisement for a trip to Gitmo just to carry the prescriptivist banner. It's odd how often people from left, right and center tell me they love our country in the same breath as telling me how much they hate anything to do with running it.
Meh. Wasting time I don't have to spare here. At least the anarchists and Tea Party agree on something....
1) If you don't make sure people say what they mean and mean what they say you could end up putting your worst nightmare in power because you THINK you agree with him.
2) In a nation where half the Bill of Rights is effectively a dead letter, you should probably be careful to avoid even the appearance of treason.
Of course, if you're more interested in shaking your fist at The Man than actually accomplishing anything it probably doesn't matter anyway.
Sorry, that's all I saw.
Then I am sorry as well.
Subversion has the connotation of treason because you're only applying it against an established government, though it can have any number of other connotations, too, depending on what structure you wish to be subverted. As I noted, I do not want to "over throw" a government or kill a sovereign leader. I want to subvert structures and systems. For instance, the US once had a structure in place that made it possible for only men to vote, until suffrage leaders subverted the system through the political process. Do you consider that treason?
There is a difference, and yet you seem to not see that. WHICH IS OKAY.
Penguin ghosts eat green apples, and then try to blow up parliament, so I do agree with you that subversion is bad. All hail the glorious system!
There is a difference, and yet you seem to not see that. WHICH IS OKAY.
Penguin ghosts eat green apples, and then try to blow up parliament, so I do agree with you that subversion is bad. All hail the glorious system!
Subversion has the connotation of treason because so many people associate them that dictionaries make note of it; intelligence agencies et alia have routinely used the term that way for decades whether you and I like it or not. Who's stating opinion as fact here again...?
I actually oppose substituting connotation for definition, and strongly, but I'm not willing to trade constructive political reform and enfranchisement for a trip to Gitmo just to carry the prescriptivist banner. It's odd how often people from left, right and center tell me they love our country in the same breath as telling me how much they hate anything to do with running it.
Meh. Wasting time I don't have to spare here. At least the anarchists and Tea Party agree on something....