Terms Which Have Disappeared

[Bigger Don]

Lemme guess, you would identify as a libertarian. And an absolutist at that.

I've already expressed my rejection of anarchy, libertarian absolutism.

That said, what I am or not is not germane to the discussion. I would rather discuss principles than defend partisan positions.

Does the Court not determine what the Constitution means?

I've not said it hasn't, but if the court were to declare A = not(A) how would one defend the court's authority to define the Constitution? IOW, it may have been granted the Constitutional authority but it must maintain its authority by consistently applying legal (and I will add "moral") principles.

The Founders were people of privilege.

So what? Look at the number of people in government who are "people of privilege", i.e. attend Ivy League colleges or military colleges. Looking back over the presidential races during my memory, most of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates were "people of privilege". No? Should we reject whatever these modern "people of privilege" offer to us?

Hmmm...after your speculation as to my political leanings I now wonder about your points of privilege, i.e. race, gender, affiliations. I won't ask because it's not germane. However, if my political leanings were assumed to be pertinent, then shouldn't we also be ready to discount your position for any point of privilege, especially those akin to the founders' privileges? In short, let's stick with discussion of principles rather than characterizations of principals.

Property owners.

Yes.
How is this a negative? Should those who now own property should be disenfranchised?

Slave holders.

Yes. Some were. Perhaps we should reject what they accomplished ut corpus to move society forward and return to subservience to the British crown to resolve that problem. Or, since some were slaveholders, should we dissolve the union and negate the US Constitution? After all, those who were not slaveholders would be tainted because they consorted with the slaveholders. You brought it up, now what do we do about it?

White.

Oh no! Not that! White! Caucasian! Satan personified in the physical world! Underpinnings of all that is evil! At least one had red hair!
Mother Theresas, Josef Stalins, Albert Schweitzers, Jeffrey Dahmers, Mother Setons, Sons of Sam, Princess Dianas, and Adolf Hitlers! Each and every one!

Some might think their efforts were divinely inspired.

Some might, but not a position I've ever taken. IOW, a strawman in this discussion.

 

[tonyb]

I've already expressed my rejection of anarchy, libertarian absolutism.

That said, what I am or not is not germane to the discussion. I would rather discuss principles than defend partisan positions.

I've not said it hasn't, but if the court were to declare A = not(A) how would one defend the court's authority to define the Constitution? IOW, it may have been granted the Constitutional authority but it must maintain its authority by consistently applying legal (and I will add "moral") principles.


So what? Look at the number of people in government who are "people of privilege", i.e. attend Ivy League colleges or military colleges. Looking back over the presidential races during my memory, most of the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates were "people of privilege". No? Should we reject whatever these modern "people of privilege" offer to us?

Hmmm...after your speculation as to my political leanings I now wonder about your points of privilege, i.e. race, gender, affiliations. I won't ask because it's not germane. However, if my political leanings were assumed to be pertinent, then shouldn't we also be ready to discount your position for any point of privilege, especially those akin to the founders' privileges? In short, let's stick with discussion of principles rather than characterizations of principals.


Yes.
How is this a negative? Should those who now own property should be disenfranchised?


Yes. Some were. Perhaps we should reject what they accomplished ut corpus to move society forward and return to subservience to the British crown to resolve that problem. Or, since some were slaveholders, should we dissolve the union and negate the US Constitution? After all, those who were not slaveholders would be tainted because they consorted with the slaveholders. You brought it up, now what do we do about it?

Oh no! Not that! White! Caucasian! Satan personified in the physical world! Underpinnings of all that is evil! At least one had red hair!
Mother Theresas, Josef Stalins, Albert Schweitzers, Jeffrey Dahmers, Mother Setons, Sons of Sam, Princess Dianas, and Adolf Hitlers! Each and every one!

Some might, but not a position I've ever taken. IOW, a strawman in this discussion.

Spare me your juvenile mocking, Little Don.

The Founders were hardly representative of the overall population at their time, let alone ours. So what do we do about it? you ask. We could start with acknowledging that all the "lesser" souls were left out, and that we are still living with the legacy of that, as witnessed by the disproportionate power and privilege still held by those in that category.

I never suggested that white male property owners ought be "disenfranchised," but plenty of white male property owners had no compunction about disenfranchising everyone else. I hardly lead a charmed life, but I have rarely been denied a fair shake on account of my color and/or gender.

As to the level of religiosity in your devotion to the Constitution and what you think it means: if the shoe doesn't fit, don't wear it. I said "some." I've had the misfortune of encountering some of 'em.

 

[skydog757]

Excuse me, where can I find a thread that deals with Terms Which Have Disappeared? It used to be around here somewhere . . .

 

[Bigger Don]

Spare me your juvenile mocking, Little Don.

How droll!

Have a Merry Christmas!

 

[2jakes]

Excuse me, where can I find a thread that deals with Terms Which Have Disappeared? It used to be around here somewhere . . .

Go to The Golden Era section.
Create a new one.
Be specific :
Threads which have Disappeared.

Sorry...couldn't resist.
I am being "ludibrious"
Cheers!

 

[Bigger Don]

ludibrious

May your day be anti-lugubrious!

 

[BlueTrain]

I believe the object of those who wrote the constitution was to form a government for a new country and get it up and running. They did accomplish that task (on the second attempt). They were not out to free the slaves or any other lofty ideal you might think of. Furthermore, all the issues that cloud our thinking today, such as gigantic industries, pollution, communism or socialism, Islam and even voting rights were way in the future. I sometimes wonder if an assembly of the great thinkers of today could do as well. Moreover, if they managed to write a new constitution, it would be ten times longer and most of them would not have read most of it.

Although at the moment I can't think of any more words that have gone out of common use, gosh darn it, there are a few that are overused, like liberty, freedom, rights and so on. We don't say things like justice, equality, brotherhood, or civic obligation nearly so much now. And another thing; we take words and twist their meaning. Social radicals call themselves conservatives. Anarchists call themselves libertarians, which in a way, I suppose is accurate. But I doubt any of them would ever be called good neighbors.

And while we're talking about words, I keep wondering how it is that flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing. Maybe there should be an academy of the English language, where old men with goatees sit around a big table covered with papers smoking cigars deciding these things. I believe English is the only language that has no such academic guidance and for such an important language, too.

 

[Bigger Don]

From the looks of this map, trying to create a single country (deemed by many at the time to be necessary for mutual defense) while outlawing slavery would have been quite the feat, if even possible. Why would New York, et al, harm parts of their economies to the common good without Pennsylvania, et al, providing something in return or making an equal sacrifice?

While they didn't need to worry about some factors we have today, there were concerns about moving back to royalism (a condition I equate with the current problem of government ruling instead of serving), preventing inter-State wars in the tradition of European forebears while growing to the west (the nature of organizations is to grow), and keeping the colonial powers from coming in to squeeze or pick off independent States.

 

[LizzieMaine]

And while we're talking about words, I keep wondering how it is that flammable and inflammable mean exactly the same thing. Maybe there should be an academy of the English language, where old men with goatees sit around a big table covered with papers smoking cigars deciding these things. I believe English is the only language that has no such academic guidance and for such an important language, too.

We use "Flammable" more than "Inflammable" because in the 1920s the Boys From Marketing realized that "Inflammable" carried the image of danger -- it made people think of something violently explosive, like a can of gasoline or a reel of nitrate film, and products labeled "Inflammable," such as various cleaning fluids, were suffering weak sales as a result. They believed that "Flammable" was a friendler, less hazardous sounding word, so they pushed its use and caused the trade organization then in charge of approving such labels to change to that word.

Academic guidance? Who needs it when you've got Big Business!

 

[HoosierDaddy]

...then some need to sorely get over themselves enough to realize that self indulging off topic ramblings can indeed be run into the ground....

 

[skydog757]

Ludibrious

Definition: apt to be a subject of jest or mockery

Pronunciation: lu-DI-bri-us

Origin:

"Dating back to the 1570’s, this word originates in the Latin stem ludere, meaning to play. The Latin ludibrium referred to playful behavior or joking, but also mockery and derision,"

I know it's a matter of perception, but I hope on this Christmas Day it is the former rather than the latter.

Merry Christmas.

 

[Bigger Don]

"On hearing the reply, she aspirated another remark,
the evidently joyful nature of which sent her frolicsome auditors into spasms of mirth.

One observed these anti-lugubrious attacks to be of
a cheerful frequency in the household.

The kettle of fun seemed to be perpetually simmering over a fire of good-natured raillery, ready to boil over if stirred up by the flimsiest splinter of a joke."

"Out West"
C.F. Lunmis & C.A.Moody
Jan, 1906

Wooo-heee! Thought I was framing a new word, and accidentally got back on track.

 

[2jakes]

Ludibrious

"Dating back to the 1570’s, this word originates in the Latin stem ludere, meaning to play. The Latin ludibrium referred to playful behavior or joking, but also mockery and derision,"

I know it's a matter of perception, but I hope on this Christmas Day it is the former rather than the latter. Merry Christmas.

LizzieMaine has a way of expressing things so that there is no mistake.
You know what she means from the get-go.

I'm not as good.

That you chose to take the road which I was on and was made in jest,
speaks well of you.

My sincere respects and a Merry Christmas.

 

[tonyb]

.., Maybe there should be an academy of the English language, where old men with goatees sit around a big table covered with papers smoking cigars deciding these things. I believe English is the only language that has no such academic guidance and for such an important language, too.

I fear that an "academy" would create more problems than it would solve. Much as I cringe at what I deem improper usages, and definitions seemingly pulled out of thin air, I accept that such is the way with a living language, especially one as widely spoken as English. A case might be made that English is all the more vital because there ISN'T any single prescriptive grammar and lexicon.

And whose English would be the academy's standard? To closely paraphrase Mark Twain, there is no such thing as the King's English. The property has gone into the hands of a joint holding company, and we own the bulk of the shares.

Granted, without agreed-upon norms there would be no mutually intelligible tongue. But the language has prospered and grown by taking a more "organic" route. Popular usage trumps, no matter what I or any academy might think of it.

 

[LizzieMaine]

By the standards of the 18th Century we all speak a profoundly bastardized language. Suits me just fine, and I careth not sixpence what niffnaffy squeeze-crab flaybottomists might think.

And as for those who might be looking for a forum where solemn-faced middle-aged men resolutely count stitches, polish leather and compare the length of their zippers while never, ever drifting from the stated topic, well, like Shangri-La, that place never actually existed.

 

[tonyb]

By the standards of the 18th Century we all speak a profoundly bastardized language. Suits me just fine, and I careth not sixpence what niffnaffy squeeze-crab flaybottomists might think.

And as for those who might be looking for a forum where solemn-faced middle-aged men resolutely count stitches, polish leather and compare the length of their zippers while never, ever drifting from the stated topic, well, like Shangri-La, that place never actually existed.

When I am dictator, satisfactory completion of a linguistics survey course will be a high school graduation requirement.

Such a course during my college career hipped me to just how ignorant I was of the ways language actually works, as were most people I ever heard express views on the topic. As were most of my classmates.

The "Ebonics" dustup of a few years back put the spotlight on just how little certain would-be opinion leaders know of what they speak.

Had the educators of Oakland offered the same course and titled it "Spoken African-American English Dialect," much misunderstanding might have been averted, and we all might have come away knowing more than we did. The takeaway might have been that all grammars are equally rule governed, that they are all internally consistent, whether that be the grammar used by a black kid in one of Oakland's lower-income neighborhoods or that of the Queen on her throne.

 

[2jakes]

"Happy-tire-swing"

by Mike Martin

It also served as my pony.
Other times I would take to the streets spinning the tire as
I ran to the store for a cold bottle of Dr. Pepper or Nehi.

The tire tube was reserved for when I went down to the
river.

 

[LizzieMaine]

When I am dictator, satisfactory completion of a linguistics survey course will be a high school graduation requirement.

Such a course during my college career hipped me to just how ignorant I was of the ways language actually works, as were most people I ever heard express views on the topic. As were most of my classmates.

The "Ebonics" dustup of a few years back put the spotlight on just how little certain would-be opinion leaders know of what they speak.

Had the educators of Oakland offered the same course and titled it "Spoken African-American English Dialect," much misunderstanding might have been averted, and we all might have come away knowing more than we did. The takeaway might have been that all grammars are equally rule governed, that they are all internally consistent, whether that be the grammar used by a black kid in one of Oakland's lower-income neighborhoods or that of the Queen on her throne.

J. L. Dillard's "Black English" is one of the most fascinating books I ever read, and pointed me to William Labov's work, which is even more fascinating. The many dialects of the English language, as the saying goes, are cool.

 

[skydog757]

And as for those who might be looking for a forum where solemn-faced middle-aged men resolutely count stitches, polish leather and compare the length of their zippers while never, ever drifting from the stated topic, well, like Shangri-La, that place never actually existed.

I visit this site because I enjoy the company and I like to interact with people of similar interests. I realize that similar interests do not equate to similar opinions and so disagreement may ensue and that may lead to discussions beyond the topic at hand, and that one subject or thought may flow fluidly to another which is unrelated. I enjoy some back and forth because that's how I learn things, but as with anything, that's fine in moderation. When it continues beyond a certain point (say, four pages or more) and it begins to move into the realm of personal attacks between members then I do not feel it inappropriate to try to steer things back to where all members can participate in the stated topic. I am not a Bartender, but I thought that we all had some say in this as long as we were respectful. I can deal with trolls and pick fights about perceived slights on any site if I choose to, just as anyone can; I come here to relax and freely, politely interact with intelligent individuals about things that interest me. Those things do not include stitches, leather and zipper lengths.

 

[Stearmen]

Aerodrome! Doesn't it sound so much nicer to say, I had to wait in the security line for two hours at the Aerodrome?