Debate Now Is "Structured Debate" another Euphemism for Censorship?

[RKMBrown]

You asked, "Is a partisan inflammatory definition in an OP rule a good regulation or a bad regulation in your opinion?" No.

A partisan inflammatory definition in an OP, would be a bad definition. Not a bad rule.

You asked, "Should the OP be allowed to include partisan inflammatory definitions in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Yes. Free country and all.

Again if you don't like the definition don't use the word in your response. Use the definition in your response.

You asked, "What is the purpose behind the OP including a partisan inflammatory definition in their OP rules in your opinion?"

Everyone has their own purposes for using specific definitions of terms. I would venture to say the number of possible purposes approaches infinity. So I can't list them all.

But, I do understand what you mean, I think. IMO one reason people use partisan inflammatory definitions is to coach others into agreeing with their world view.

For example, "change you can believe in..." In this phrase the "change" is being used as a noun, the definition of which is left to partisan inflammatory definitions. The lack of a definition is an appeal to emotion. The providing of a definition is to move to discussion of facts.

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

Quote from foxfire:

2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:
Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing.

Conservative/right wing/libertarian (small "L") are defined as all the same thing.

Combining separate groups into two distinct groups is not defining, it's grouping.

I would treat her groupings as strange groupings. More particularly, if necessary to make my arguments, one effect of my arguments would be to point out that the Emperor of the thread has very odd world view of groupings for the topic of interest. I would without getting into definitions or semantics make sure everyone knows what she did in forming said groups was wrong.

You ask, "What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?" I don't know, she did not say. I venture it was probably to eliminate flaming of potential democrat candidates as being too "Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive" IOW.. she tried to kill the use of those terms by saying they all mean the same thing. If that was in fact her plan she would have been better off by just saying don't use these terms.

To be more clear. I think she made a mistake in grouping terms vs. banning their use, but I may be wrong.

I posted my definitions a few hours ago and I took those definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary when that source defined the terms. I don't really care what the technical definitions of each are or in what ways they technically differ. I don't see any of them as pejorative terms in and of themselves, and IMO and observation they are commonly used interchangeably on message boards in in many political articles and in other modern day vernacular.

Those who do see them as too pejorative to overlook can simply not participate in the discussion. It is that simple. If you have a real bone to pick with it, make your own thread and discuss it. Just don't plan to do it on a thread that is designated for a different discussion.

(P.S. If I objected to a definition or use of a term and did wish to participate on the thread, I would simply post that my personal definition was different and would probably qualify my remarks to reflect that. I wouldn't presume to dictate to the thread author that he or she had to conform to what I think.)

Yes, however the definitions you posted are in conflict with the rules of your thread where those different terms are to have no difference in meaning. I'm pretty sure the reason for this OP was not that you said "2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics." The reason for this thread, IMO, is that you said "For purposes of this discussion: Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing." That you now show proof that the terms do mean different things... just points out to the conflict. That you say these words are used interchangeably just points to the tower of babel problem, where the biggest problem is not having two people speaking different languages, but rather having different people speaking the same damn language but meaning entirely different things because they are not coming from the same context or using the same definitions of terms.

IOW you said we won't get bogged down in definitions or semantics and then in the next sentence you got bogged down in definitions and semantics.

IMO re how these terms are used in modern day vernacular, they are used interchangeably and as synonyms for each other. Which is why that despite the expanded definitions varying, they are all cut from the same cloth. If I didn' have to deal with people who come into threads for the specific purpose of hijacking it by demanding that THEIR definitions be used, the rule never would have been put in the thread. A discussion of the thread topic did not have to include those definitions at all.

But again, if you don't approve of how I structure a thread that's fine. Everybody isn't going to be interested in what I'm interested in and for damn sure everybody isn't going to love me. I want people participating in my thread who will actually argue the thread topic--pro, con, for, against, up, down, or whatever. Those with a different agenda, I will be thrilled if they just find something else to do.

But to accuse me of suppressing opposition to my point of view just because I won't allow them to derail the thread with their own agenda is pretty specious.

I was not talking about what they did, or what they might have done. I was talking about what you did.

You said we're not gonna get bogged down in definitions.. then in the very next sentence in the same dang paragraph you got bogged down in definitions by providing incorrect definitions that every one of said words is nothing more than the same damn thing as all the other words.

Yes, some people use them interchangeably to piss on the thread of conversation, for example YOU by your own admission use these words interchangeably.

I put it to you that you use them interchangeably to throw stones at others, who like you, use them interchangeably. What is the difference, then, between you using them interchangeably and those the other side of your politics using them interchangeably?

Clearly a great many people on the MANY sides of political arguments do not use them interchangeably. Using them interchangeably is the problem no? Not having clear well understood definitions of terms makes it so that the conversation is useless and everyone avoids facts. Instead they end up saying that's not what I said you are a liar.. and the circle of screaming at each other ensues.

 

[Foxfyre]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

 

[RKMBrown]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

Yes, but you did not change the part of the rules in your OP that stated that the definitions of these words are the same. Thus anyone going by these admitted definitions is in conflict with your OP.

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for your thoughtful response. Your example of a partisan definition was a good one. Political parties most definitely use for the explicit purpose of pushing their own agenda.

And yes, the questions I posed were too broad without a specific example to expect an answer so let's narrow it down and deal with this example.

The OP included definitions in the rules for this SDZ thread;

Debate Now - Democrats If Not Hillary then Who US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

From rule #2 you can see that she used a partisan inflammatory definition for a thread that was about politics.

What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?

And I will give you my own answer first. To me it was an instant turn off. It told me that the OP wasn't interested in an honest structured debate at all. Instead she was just fishing for people to agree with her biased point of view. So it completely defeated the purpose of the OP from the outset. Instead of engaging in a structured discussion she was only going to have a chorus of like minded responses. The actual responses proved that to be correct.

Your thoughts?

Quote from foxfire:

2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics. For purposes of this discussion:
Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing.

Conservative/right wing/libertarian (small "L") are defined as all the same thing.

Combining separate groups into two distinct groups is not defining, it's grouping.

I would treat her groupings as strange groupings. More particularly, if necessary to make my arguments, one effect of my arguments would be to point out that the Emperor of the thread has very odd world view of groupings for the topic of interest. I would without getting into definitions or semantics make sure everyone knows what she did in forming said groups was wrong.

You ask, "What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?" I don't know, she did not say. I venture it was probably to eliminate flaming of potential democrat candidates as being too "Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive" IOW.. she tried to kill the use of those terms by saying they all mean the same thing. If that was in fact her plan she would have been better off by just saying don't use these terms.

To be more clear. I think she made a mistake in grouping terms vs. banning their use, but I may be wrong.

I posted my definitions a few hours ago and I took those definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary when that source defined the terms. I don't really care what the technical definitions of each are or in what ways they technically differ. I don't see any of them as pejorative terms in and of themselves, and IMO and observation they are commonly used interchangeably on message boards in in many political articles and in other modern day vernacular.

Those who do see them as too pejorative to overlook can simply not participate in the discussion. It is that simple. If you have a real bone to pick with it, make your own thread and discuss it. Just don't plan to do it on a thread that is designated for a different discussion.

(P.S. If I objected to a definition or use of a term and did wish to participate on the thread, I would simply post that my personal definition was different and would probably qualify my remarks to reflect that. I wouldn't presume to dictate to the thread author that he or she had to conform to what I think.)

Yes, however the definitions you posted are in conflict with the rules of your thread where those different terms are to have no difference in meaning. I'm pretty sure the reason for this OP was not that you said "2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics." The reason for this thread, IMO, is that you said "For purposes of this discussion: Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing." That you now show proof that the terms do mean different things... just points out to the conflict. That you say these words are used interchangeably just points to the tower of babel problem, where the biggest problem is not having two people speaking different languages, but rather having different people speaking the same damn language but meaning entirely different things because they are not coming from the same context or using the same definitions of terms.

IOW you said we won't get bogged down in definitions or semantics and then in the next sentence you got bogged down in definitions and semantics.

IMO re how these terms are used in modern day vernacular, they are used interchangeably and as synonyms for each other. Which is why that despite the expanded definitions varying, they are all cut from the same cloth. If I didn' have to deal with people who come into threads for the specific purpose of hijacking it by demanding that THEIR definitions be used, the rule never would have been put in the thread. A discussion of the thread topic did not have to include those definitions at all.

But again, if you don't approve of how I structure a thread that's fine. Everybody isn't going to be interested in what I'm interested in and for damn sure everybody isn't going to love me. I want people participating in my thread who will actually argue the thread topic--pro, con, for, against, up, down, or whatever. Those with a different agenda, I will be thrilled if they just find something else to do.

But to accuse me of suppressing opposition to my point of view just because I won't allow them to derail the thread with their own agenda is pretty specious.

I was not talking about what they did, or what they might have done. I was talking about what you did.

You said we're not gonna get bogged down in definitions.. then in the very next sentence in the same dang paragraph you got bogged down in definitions by providing incorrect definitions that every one of said words is nothing more than the same damn thing as all the other words.

Yes, some people use them interchangeably to piss on the thread of conversation, for example YOU by your own admission use these words interchangeably.

I put it to you that you use them interchangeably to throw stones at others, who like you, use them interchangeably. What is the difference, then, between you using them interchangeably and those the other side of your politics using them interchangeably?

Clearly a great many people on the MANY sides of political arguments do not use them interchangeably. Using them interchangeably is the problem no? Not having clear well understood definitions of terms makes it so that the conversation is useless and everyone avoids facts. Instead they end up saying that's not what I said you are a liar.. and the circle of screaming at each other ensues.

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument. I do not require you to accept it, but you have not shown how I did not sufficiently explain it. I trust that others did find the explanation reasonable and sufficient.

Again, if you don't like my threads or my rules then please don't participate in them. That is such a very simple and reasonable request don't you think?

I'll make you and everybody else a deal. I will structure my threads the way I see fit and if you like the topic and can live with the rules, I'll be happy to have you participate. If you don't like the topic or rules, I won't be offended in any way if you do not participate.

Likewise, if I like the topic and can live with the rules specified for your thread, I will enjoy participating. If I don't, I will not participate and will leave you in peace.

I think that's fair.

 

[Derideo_Te]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

The M-W definitions prove that you are WRONG!

Liberalism does NOT equal statism.

Your OP definition was a defamatory canard and your own M-W links prove it.

So why should you be allowed to post fallacious and insulting "definitions" and not be called out for doing so?

Why are you not to be held accountable for your OP falsehoods in your thread?

Why must the SDZ give you a free pass to post whatever you like without any redress?

 

[Foxfyre]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

Yes, but you did not change the part of the rules in your OP that stated that the definitions of these words are the same. Thus anyone going by these admitted definitions is in conflict with your OP.

At this point I have no idea what you're talking about, but I'm pretty sure the issue has been addressed sufficiently. I refer you to my post #144.

 

[Foxfyre]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

The M-W definitions prove that you are WRONG!

Liberalism does NOT equal statism.

Your OP definition was a defamatory canard and your own M-W links prove it.

So why should you be allowed to post fallacious and insulting "definitions" and not be called out for doing so?

Why are you not to be held accountable for your OP falsehoods in your thread?

Why must the SDZ give you a free pass to post whatever you like without any redress?

Already asked and answered. I refer you to Post #144.

 

[JakeStarkey]

DeRideo, because the OP is the OP, that's why, silly boy.

We don't worry about the real meaning of word in the SDZ.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument.

No you didn't!

There was no case whatsoever and reason was conspicuous by it's absence in what you posted.

 

[Derideo_Te]

DeRideo, because the OP is the OP, that's why, silly boy.

We don't worry about the real meaning of word in the SDZ.

If the SDZ is going to just be the forum for ridiculous partisan redefinition of dictionary terms then it might as well be in the Taunting Area.

That would be a pity because there are most definitely benefits to having something of this nature. It just cannot be weighted to allow partisanship over pragmatic reality.

 

[Foxfyre]

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument.

No you didn't!

There was no case whatsoever and reason was conspicuous by it's absence in what you posted.

Whatever.

The rules for the forum stated that improper Opening Posts would result in the thread being moved to another forum. I have had no complaints from authorities that any of my Opening Posts have been improper in any way. But if they are improper in your eyes, please feel free to report them and complain to your heart's content.

If the SDZ is going to be a place where a few people can dictate to everybody else how they phrase their OP and the rules for it and/or dictate how terms must be defined, then I'm out of here.

I'll leave it to the moderation team to determine that however.

 

[LoneLaugher]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

That was passive aggressive, was it not? You may as well have called the guy a hardhead.

 

[Foxfyre]

And since I don't want to schluck up Coyote's thread and my definitions of liberalism and conservatism seem to be a subject of great angst and concern among some members, I took the time to look them all up today and maintain that I have not used these terms on any of my Structured Debate threads in any way that varies from these definitions:

As commonly used in modern day America:

Liberal:
: believing that government should be active in supporting social and political change : relating to or supporting political liberalism
Liberal - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Statism:
: concentration of economic controls and planning in the hands of a highly centralized government often extending to government (control or heavy regulation or) ownership of industry
Statism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Progressivism:
: the principles, beliefs, or practices of progressives
Progressivism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
(Term by which many modern day American liberals call themselves.)

Leftism
: the principles and views of the left; also: the movement embodying these principles
Synonyms left, liberalism, left wing
Antonyms conservatism, right
Leftism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Political Class
Political Class is a voter category originally created by American pollster and demographer Scott Rasmussen. These voters tend to trust political leaders more than the mainstream public at large and are far less skeptical about government
Political Class - Conservapedia

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Conservatism
b: a political philosophy based on tradition and social stability, stressing established institutions, and preferring gradual development to abrupt change; specifically: such a philosophy calling for lower taxes, limited government regulation of business and investing, a strong national defense, and individual financial responsibility for personal needs (as retirement income or health-care coverage)
Conservatism - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Classical liberalism
Classical liberalism is a political ideology that values the freedom of individuals — including the freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and markets — as well as limited government.
Definition of Classical Liberalism Chegg.com

Right Wing
the part of a political group that consists of people who support conservative or traditional ideas and policies : the part of a political group that belongs to or supports the Right
Right wing - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Thus Conservatism, Classical Liberalism, Right Wing as most commonly used in modern day America are also pretty much cut from the same cloth.

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

Thus: Liberalism, Statism, Progressivism, Leftism, Political class as those terms are most commonly used in modern day America are pretty much all cut from the same cloth.

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

That was passive aggressive, was it not? You may have well have called the guy a hardhead.

But I didn't.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Once again we see Foxfyre violating the rules of the SDZ.

​

Which OP rules did she violate in the canard above?

Dictionary definitions will prevail.

The dictionary definitions of Liberalism and Statism are not even remotely similar. Liberalims does not and never has advocated ownership and control of industry by a centralized government. The sheer absurdity of trying to pervert dictionary definitions to conform to the partisan beliefs of the poster is astounding.

Claiming that you are speaking on behalf of others is forbidden

No, Foxfyre does NOT speak for "modern day America" and no, statism is NOT a term that is "commonly used" to describe liberalism.

What you post is de facto your opinion unless substantiated with credible links

The links provided by Foxfyre proved the exact opposite of her fallacious opinion. She failed to demonstrate any linkage whatsoever between her defamatory opinion and the linked definitions.

So let's apply the rest of the OP Rules and see if Foxfyre will comply with them?

When you are asked to provide a credible link to substantiate your position you must do so or you automatically forfeit your position

Provide credible non partisan links demonstrating that (a) liberalism is the same as statism, and (b) that this is commonly used terminology in "modern day America". Please note that rule #6 will exclude all biased and partisan links.

If you are going to invoke partisan terminology then be prepared to have it called out for what it is

Foxfyre's canard above is nothing more than partisan terminology and yes, she is being called out for using it in this SDZ thread. The onus is now on her to prove that it wasn't partisan and the clock is ticking.

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

That was passive aggressive, was it not? You may have well have called the guy a hardhead.

But I didn't.

But you may as well have.

 

[Foxfyre]

So Merriam Webster Dictionary is not a valid source? Who would have thought that?

Instead of addressing the legitimate criticism the only response is a meaningless deflection.

The onus is still out there to PROVE that "liberalism equals statism".

Your credibility depends upon providing that substantiation.

The clock is running out of time.

If the definitions I provided from the Merriam Webster dictionary are not sufficient substantiation for you, then I will not be able to provide a defintion that will suit you. Not that I expected to be able to do regardless of any definition I put up.

That was passive aggressive, was it not? You may have well have called the guy a hardhead.

But I didn't.

But you may as well have.

Not in my book.

 

[RKMBrown]

Quote from foxfire:
Combining separate groups into two distinct groups is not defining, it's grouping.

I would treat her groupings as strange groupings. More particularly, if necessary to make my arguments, one effect of my arguments would be to point out that the Emperor of the thread has very odd world view of groupings for the topic of interest. I would without getting into definitions or semantics make sure everyone knows what she did in forming said groups was wrong.

You ask, "What purpose was served by that partisan inflammatory definition in this example?" I don't know, she did not say. I venture it was probably to eliminate flaming of potential democrat candidates as being too "Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive" IOW.. she tried to kill the use of those terms by saying they all mean the same thing. If that was in fact her plan she would have been better off by just saying don't use these terms.

To be more clear. I think she made a mistake in grouping terms vs. banning their use, but I may be wrong.

I posted my definitions a few hours ago and I took those definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary when that source defined the terms. I don't really care what the technical definitions of each are or in what ways they technically differ. I don't see any of them as pejorative terms in and of themselves, and IMO and observation they are commonly used interchangeably on message boards in in many political articles and in other modern day vernacular.

Those who do see them as too pejorative to overlook can simply not participate in the discussion. It is that simple. If you have a real bone to pick with it, make your own thread and discuss it. Just don't plan to do it on a thread that is designated for a different discussion.

(P.S. If I objected to a definition or use of a term and did wish to participate on the thread, I would simply post that my personal definition was different and would probably qualify my remarks to reflect that. I wouldn't presume to dictate to the thread author that he or she had to conform to what I think.)

Yes, however the definitions you posted are in conflict with the rules of your thread where those different terms are to have no difference in meaning. I'm pretty sure the reason for this OP was not that you said "2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics." The reason for this thread, IMO, is that you said "For purposes of this discussion: Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing." That you now show proof that the terms do mean different things... just points out to the conflict. That you say these words are used interchangeably just points to the tower of babel problem, where the biggest problem is not having two people speaking different languages, but rather having different people speaking the same damn language but meaning entirely different things because they are not coming from the same context or using the same definitions of terms.

IOW you said we won't get bogged down in definitions or semantics and then in the next sentence you got bogged down in definitions and semantics.

IMO re how these terms are used in modern day vernacular, they are used interchangeably and as synonyms for each other. Which is why that despite the expanded definitions varying, they are all cut from the same cloth. If I didn' have to deal with people who come into threads for the specific purpose of hijacking it by demanding that THEIR definitions be used, the rule never would have been put in the thread. A discussion of the thread topic did not have to include those definitions at all.

But again, if you don't approve of how I structure a thread that's fine. Everybody isn't going to be interested in what I'm interested in and for damn sure everybody isn't going to love me. I want people participating in my thread who will actually argue the thread topic--pro, con, for, against, up, down, or whatever. Those with a different agenda, I will be thrilled if they just find something else to do.

But to accuse me of suppressing opposition to my point of view just because I won't allow them to derail the thread with their own agenda is pretty specious.

I was not talking about what they did, or what they might have done. I was talking about what you did.

You said we're not gonna get bogged down in definitions.. then in the very next sentence in the same dang paragraph you got bogged down in definitions by providing incorrect definitions that every one of said words is nothing more than the same damn thing as all the other words.

Yes, some people use them interchangeably to piss on the thread of conversation, for example YOU by your own admission use these words interchangeably.

I put it to you that you use them interchangeably to throw stones at others, who like you, use them interchangeably. What is the difference, then, between you using them interchangeably and those the other side of your politics using them interchangeably?

Clearly a great many people on the MANY sides of political arguments do not use them interchangeably. Using them interchangeably is the problem no? Not having clear well understood definitions of terms makes it so that the conversation is useless and everyone avoids facts. Instead they end up saying that's not what I said you are a liar.. and the circle of screaming at each other ensues.

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument. I do not require you to accept it, but you have not shown how I did not sufficiently explain it. I trust that others did find the explanation reasonable and sufficient.

Again, if you don't like my threads or my rules then please don't participate in them. That is such a very simple and reasonable request don't you think?

I'll make you and everybody else a deal. I will structure my threads the way I see fit and if you like the topic and can live with the rules, I'll be happy to have you participate. If you don't like the topic or rules, I won't be offended in any way if you do not participate.

Likewise, if I like the topic and can live with the rules specified for your thread, I will enjoy participating. If I don't, I will not participate and will leave you in peace.

I think that's fair.

Why do you think I'm here in this thread and not yours

 

[Derideo_Te]

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument.

No you didn't!

There was no case whatsoever and reason was conspicuous by it's absence in what you posted.

Whatever.

The rules for the forum stated that improper Opening Posts would result in the thread being moved to another forum. I have had no complaints from authorities that any of my Opening Posts have been improper in any way. But if they are improper in your eyes, please feel free to report them and complain to your heart's content.

If the SDZ is going to be a place where a few people can dictate to everybody else how they phrase their OP and the rules for it and/or dictate how terms must be defined, then I'm out of here.

I'll leave it to the moderation team to determine that however.

The SDZ is in Beta mode and figuring out the rules is all part of the process which is what this thread is intended to be all about.

What is patently obvious is that there are some rules everyone agrees upon such as no ad homs and others that are nothing more than partisan attempts to avoid legitimate criticism.

If the SDZ is going to allow the latter then it will be nothing more than an partisan propaganda forum where no dissent is allowed. That would be counterproductive to USMB's business model and therefore unlikely to happen. If it means that you won't participate because you will be held accountable for inflammatory partisanship in your OP's then sobeit.

Oh, and your failure to substantiate your defamatory partisan allegation has seriously damaged your credibility IMO. Just thought you might like to take that legitimate criticism into account when you post in future. Just a little friendly advice that is worth everything that you just paid for it.

Time to summarize what we have learned in this thread.

 

[Foxfyre]

I posted my definitions a few hours ago and I took those definitions from the Merriam Webster dictionary when that source defined the terms. I don't really care what the technical definitions of each are or in what ways they technically differ. I don't see any of them as pejorative terms in and of themselves, and IMO and observation they are commonly used interchangeably on message boards in in many political articles and in other modern day vernacular.

Those who do see them as too pejorative to overlook can simply not participate in the discussion. It is that simple. If you have a real bone to pick with it, make your own thread and discuss it. Just don't plan to do it on a thread that is designated for a different discussion.

(P.S. If I objected to a definition or use of a term and did wish to participate on the thread, I would simply post that my personal definition was different and would probably qualify my remarks to reflect that. I wouldn't presume to dictate to the thread author that he or she had to conform to what I think.)

Yes, however the definitions you posted are in conflict with the rules of your thread where those different terms are to have no difference in meaning. I'm pretty sure the reason for this OP was not that you said "2. We will not get bogged down in definitions or semantics." The reason for this thread, IMO, is that you said "For purposes of this discussion: Liberal/statist/political class/leftist/progressive are defined as all the same thing." That you now show proof that the terms do mean different things... just points out to the conflict. That you say these words are used interchangeably just points to the tower of babel problem, where the biggest problem is not having two people speaking different languages, but rather having different people speaking the same damn language but meaning entirely different things because they are not coming from the same context or using the same definitions of terms.

IOW you said we won't get bogged down in definitions or semantics and then in the next sentence you got bogged down in definitions and semantics.

IMO re how these terms are used in modern day vernacular, they are used interchangeably and as synonyms for each other. Which is why that despite the expanded definitions varying, they are all cut from the same cloth. If I didn' have to deal with people who come into threads for the specific purpose of hijacking it by demanding that THEIR definitions be used, the rule never would have been put in the thread. A discussion of the thread topic did not have to include those definitions at all.

But again, if you don't approve of how I structure a thread that's fine. Everybody isn't going to be interested in what I'm interested in and for damn sure everybody isn't going to love me. I want people participating in my thread who will actually argue the thread topic--pro, con, for, against, up, down, or whatever. Those with a different agenda, I will be thrilled if they just find something else to do.

But to accuse me of suppressing opposition to my point of view just because I won't allow them to derail the thread with their own agenda is pretty specious.

I was not talking about what they did, or what they might have done. I was talking about what you did.

You said we're not gonna get bogged down in definitions.. then in the very next sentence in the same dang paragraph you got bogged down in definitions by providing incorrect definitions that every one of said words is nothing more than the same damn thing as all the other words.

Yes, some people use them interchangeably to piss on the thread of conversation, for example YOU by your own admission use these words interchangeably.

I put it to you that you use them interchangeably to throw stones at others, who like you, use them interchangeably. What is the difference, then, between you using them interchangeably and those the other side of your politics using them interchangeably?

Clearly a great many people on the MANY sides of political arguments do not use them interchangeably. Using them interchangeably is the problem no? Not having clear well understood definitions of terms makes it so that the conversation is useless and everyone avoids facts. Instead they end up saying that's not what I said you are a liar.. and the circle of screaming at each other ensues.

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument. I do not require you to accept it, but you have not shown how I did not sufficiently explain it. I trust that others did find the explanation reasonable and sufficient.

Again, if you don't like my threads or my rules then please don't participate in them. That is such a very simple and reasonable request don't you think?

I'll make you and everybody else a deal. I will structure my threads the way I see fit and if you like the topic and can live with the rules, I'll be happy to have you participate. If you don't like the topic or rules, I won't be offended in any way if you do not participate.

Likewise, if I like the topic and can live with the rules specified for your thread, I will enjoy participating. If I don't, I will not participate and will leave you in peace.

I think that's fair.

Why do you think I'm here in this thread and not yours

And that's swell. Thank you.

 

[Foxfyre]

I made my case. I provided a reasoned argument.

No you didn't!

There was no case whatsoever and reason was conspicuous by it's absence in what you posted.

Whatever.

The rules for the forum stated that improper Opening Posts would result in the thread being moved to another forum. I have had no complaints from authorities that any of my Opening Posts have been improper in any way. But if they are improper in your eyes, please feel free to report them and complain to your heart's content.

If the SDZ is going to be a place where a few people can dictate to everybody else how they phrase their OP and the rules for it and/or dictate how terms must be defined, then I'm out of here.

I'll leave it to the moderation team to determine that however.

The SDZ is in Beta mode and figuring out the rules is all part of the process which is what this thread is intended to be all about.

What is patently obvious is that there are some rules everyone agrees upon such as no ad homs and others that are nothing more than partisan attempts to avoid legitimate criticism.

If the SDZ is going to allow the latter then it will be nothing more than an partisan propaganda forum where no dissent is allowed. That would be counterproductive to USMB's business model and therefore unlikely to happen. If it means that you won't participate because you will be held accountable for inflammatory partisanship in your OP's then sobeit.

Oh, and your failure to substantiate your defamatory partisan allegation has seriously damaged your credibility IMO. Just thought you might like to take that legitimate criticism into account when you post in future. Just a little friendly advice that is worth everything that you just paid for it.

Time to summarize what we have learned in this thread.

I'll go further than just suggesting that if you don't like my posts, you don't like my opening posts, you don't like my rules, just report me DT. That's all I ask.

I'll stay out of your threads to avoid any chance of annoying you and you certainly should stay out of mine if they offend you. I won't dictate to you how to structure your threads and rules and you don't dictate to me how I structure mine.

I suggest we both take a live and let live attitude about it all and chill.

Again if you can get the mods to agree with you, power to you. I won't be participating on this forum further if that is the case, but it is definitely a free county. And if you have made a better argument than I have then good for you.

Now I will not respond further and I will leave your thread and will not post in any of your threads since my views are so unacceptable. That's the best deal I can offer you. Do have a pleasant afternoon.

 

[BlackSand]

So if the OP posts a malicious insult your only option is to ignore it?

You don't get to call them out on their defamatory insult and make them own it?

Whatever happened to personal responsibility and accountability?

Why are they excluded from the SDZ?

If you feel it is a malicious assault then that is your problem and not the intent.
You can call out whatever you want to call out ... But that doesn't effect the rules.
Personal responsibility would be best demonstrated by someone who takes responsibility for their own actions instead of blaming others.
As far as I have read ... The SDZ rules don't exclude personal responsibility or accountability at all.

You are welcome to make up whatever reasons you want to say they do ... But that is because it is your thread and your rules.

.