This is TOO much!

[JayB]

a good example of your "moral power".

 

He was making vague references to his favorite johnson, and I returned the favor by incorporating a vague reference to my own favorite Johnson.

[Dechristo]

I believe your favorite Johnson stood erect.

[JayB]

The only posture befitting the father of the dictionary.

[tvashtarkatena]

Hey - it's the electronic version of "the radio game," - being played by an adult.

 

Actually, it's being played by a machine. I simply took your post, turned the verbosity setting down by an order of magnitude, and fed it into my post-modern language generator.

[JayB]

You must have the model that doesn't come with the "effective counterargument" upgrade. Way to make the most of what you've got, though. Good job.

[tvashtarkatena]

Way to make the most of what you've got, though. Good job.

 

I'll admit, I didn't have much to work with. They were, after all, your words.

[JayB]

I yield to the mighty Quipatron.

[Dechristo]

I yield to the mighty Quipatron.

 

Isn't that the ingredient in turkey that makes one sleepy after ingestion?

[Weekend_Climberz]

You're thinking of Tryptophan...

[tvashtarkatena]

You must have the model that doesn't come with the "effective counterargument" upgrade.

Thanks for the recommendation. Try downloading the "pomposity filter" and "Plain english language interpreter". They're real time savers.

[Dechristo]

You're not pro pro's at prose?

[tvashtarkatena]

I am pro Prost!

[JayB]

You must have the model that doesn't come with the "effective counterargument" upgrade.

Thanks for the recommendation. Try downloading the "pomposity filter" and "Plain english language interpreter". They're real time savers.

 

Seems to be stuck in a recursive loop.

 

This is a too bad, because I was actually looking forward to reading its "Secret History of the Petticoat Jihad." Tashwhatever as lead author, Prole as editorial assistant and towel-boy.

[Dechristo]

Try downloading the... ..."Plain english language interpreter".

 

without language, how would we think?

[tvashtarkatena]

Try downloading the... ..."Plain english language interpreter".

 

without language, how would we think?

 

I would argue that, for certain proseaholics, a bit more effort expended interpreting and a lot less effort wasted on constructing weighty monuments of self aggrandizement that too often fall wide of the mark would result in clearer thinking and a readership greater than one.

[archenemy]

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And although ideally we already have rights, the sad truth is that people usually only have the rights they have fought for and taken.

They sure found it easy to deny self-evident rights to women for a very, very long time. It is unfortunate that in practise, the gov't mostly ensures that those already in power retain that control.

 

And slaves, and native Americans, and Japanese Americans, and drinkers, for that matter. No doubt there is an ugly historical disconnect between our behavior and the full potential of the constitution. The supreme court has typically gone along with the 'tyranny of the majority' rather than enforcing the rights supposedly guaranteed by that document.

 

And that is the salient point. The policies of slavery, male only voting, and Jim Crow laws survived because a majority of voters at the time supported them. When voters changed their attitudes, those policies went by the wayside. It's not 'those in power' that maintain unjust policies...it's us. We get the government we deserve.

 

Guantanamo Bay, torture, and gay marriage bans are just the latest versions of this tyranny of the majority. These policies survive only because we continue to support them.

 

But...we've made enormous progress towards realizing the full potential of that document.

This was not tyranny of the majority as white men were not in the majority at these times, nor are they now. This is about power, not numbers.

 

This same bunch of white men defined the legal and moral framework through which all subsequent groups recognized and asserted their rights. Is it just a coincidenc that the drive to end slavery and grant women the right to vote happened to originate within the societies in which the same dreaded white men established and enforced the rules? The said changes were brought about by appealling to the moral sensibilities of those in power, rather than any kind of recognition amongst the powerful that they no longer had the capacity to enforce the status quo.

Generally I agree with your viewpoints. But not here. Blacks and women fought and still fight for their rights. When appealing to sensibilities failed, both of these groups (as well as labor unions for that matter) had to resort to fighting on many fronts. Each of these groups faced physical assaults, active resistance, and frightening campaigns against them. The resulting change in laws were a direct outcome of the ruling class no longer able to enforce their laws (or their exclusion of) these groups.

 

I guess that we'll just have to disagree on this one. Yes, the suffragettes were courageous and faced resistance and intimidation and no small amount of derision - but they were inspired by and appealing to a moral framework encoded within the nation's founding documents that explicitly recognized and gave formal legal standing to a grand abstraction known as "inalienable rights." Since you are so familiar with history you'll no doubt recall that Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, Mary Wollenscraft all couched their arguments within a framework established by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The existence of this framework, and the power of the ideas contained within it, rather than their posession any kind of menacing physical power that left the men of their time cowering in fear, is what ultimately lead to the recognition of their rights. Exhibit A is the "Declaration of Sentiments" from the 1848 Women's Right's Convention in Sececca Falls:

 

"When, in the course of human events, it becomes necessary for one portion of the family of man to assume among the people of the earth a position different from that which they have hitherto occupied, but one to which the laws of nature and of nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes that impel them to such a course.We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men and women are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. "

 

 

I'm sorry - but had Wollenscraft et. al been transported to Mecca or Jeddah and made the same arguments "You know....inalienable rights....granted by the Creator.... the, uh, self evident ones...." They would have been met with mute incomprehension at best, and its fair to say that the outcome would have been rather different. I'm sorry, but it was ultimately the moral power that their arguments has in the western context of individual rights, and nothing else, that lead to women's liberation. If it were otherwise, then women never would have been subject to male domination in the first place, and women's status in the rest of the world would differ quite substantially from what we observe today.

Actually, Anthony et al worked on states rights. Paul, Burns etc later worked on federalizing these rights. It was here that this movement faced its biggest challenge--which includes an ugly incident of wrongful imprisonment of these women (very timely discussion when folks are talking about the new law changes around habeas corpus).

Read a little more about the 1900's and you'll see things in a different light. It was far more than a simple "come to Jesus" meeting of morals. It was a fight--one that degraded into physical altercation just the same as it did for blacks and for labor unions.

[tvashtarkatena]

Too true, unfortunately. In past civil rights struggles and anti-war struggles, it was violence that finally captured the public's attention. In a classic example of action/reaction, J Edgar got his big career break throwing union organizers in prison. The ACLU was founded to spring them.

 

It's interesting that last disinfranchised group, of Americans, at least, may not have to suffer violence to attain equal status, in this case regarding marriage. Who knows, maybe we actually have learned a thing or two along the way.

 

Of course, as I write this disinfranchised non-Americans are rotting in Guantanamo.

[Dechristo]

Mexico City legislature approves law recognizing gay civil rights

[tvashtarkatena]

Pinches maricones! Ahora estamos rodeado!

[underworld]

Of course, as I write this disinfranchised non-Americans are rotting in Guantanamo.

 

[Dechristo]

Try downloading the... ..."Plain english language interpreter".

 

without language, how would we think?

 

I would argue that, for certain proseaholics, a bit more effort expended interpreting and a lot less effort wasted on constructing weighty monuments of self aggrandizement that too often fall wide of the mark would result in clearer thinking and a readership greater than one.

 

Reading the posts of late, I believe you're more deserving of this criticism than anyone. In that, I find not a few of your posts open to manifold interpretations which, when this occurs (and almost without exception), you ascribe to shortcomings in everyone but yourself. By comparison, I find the writing of the one you disparage to be cogent and clear leaving little room for misinterpretation.

 

But, I'm not wanting to dissuade you from polysyllabic nuance-notioned writing; I enjoy it. It's another facet of the art of communication necessary to convey ideas and a wonderful aspect of humanity.

[JayB]

A minority encountering violence while conducting a campaign to achieve political ends is one thing, a minority conducting a violent campaign to achieve a political goal is quite another.

 

If all that women or blacks or whoever had going for them was the power to coerce or intimidate, they would have gained nothing. The only reason that they ultimately succeeded in gaining recognition of their political rights is that their leaders recognized that appealing to the moral framework outlined in the nation's founding documents would be the most effective strategy. This made sense, sense they themselves were inspired by the ideals outlined in these documents. Take the same women, armed with the same documents, and transport them to 19th century Arabia and they'd have endured considerably more violence to considerably less political effect. Go one step further and ask yourself whether or not they'd have even been literate, much realize that such ideas existed, if they had born anywhere other than the West.

[cj001f]

The only posture befitting the father of the dictionary.

 

A prig he was. Boswell was better

[tvashtarkatena]

A minority encountering violence while conducting a campaign to achieve political ends is one thing, a minority conducting a violent campaign to achieve a political goal is quite another.

 

The history I referred to, with certain exceptions during the Vietnam era, involved only the former. The latter can achieve political ends, too, but that is a whole different kettle of fish.

Edited November 10, 2006 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

Reading the posts of late, I believe you're more deserving of this criticism than anyone. In that, I find not a few of your posts open to manifold interpretations which, when this occurs (and almost without exception), you ascribe to shortcomings in everyone but yourself. By comparison, I find the writing of the one you disparage to be cogent and clear leaving little room for misinterpretation.

 

But, I'm not wanting to dissuade you from polysyllabic nuance-notioned writing; I enjoy it. It's another facet of the art of communication necessary to convey ideas and a wonderful aspect of humanity.

 

Good natured ribbing is also another facet of communication, one that is encouraged, not a little by yourself and certain others, on this forum. It shouldn't be taken too seriously.

 

We can agree to disagree about JayB's tendency to latch on to tangents and produce tomes about them (albeit clear ones), but in the end, everyone draws their own conclusions. In any case, he's a big boy who seems perfectly willing and capable of defending himself.

 

Criticism aside, I enjoy his writing, as I enjoy yours.

 

As for the clarity or lack thereof in my posts, not to worry. Spray provides thorough and rapid notification. If I considered myself untouchable (don't confuse thick- skinned with holier-than-thou), I certainly wouldn't expose myself by offering up actual opinions on real issues for the slaughter.

Edited November 10, 2006 by tvashtarkatena