Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 22:11:08 -0400, JDG wrote The problem, Dave, is that many people in general, and you and Nick in specific, use the phrase serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting while actually meaning agreement from other nations before acting. I'm quite sure that you don't know what I actually mean. Nick ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
* Nick Arnett ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: I'm quite sure that you don't know what I actually mean. I'm quite sure that NOBODY knows what you actually mean. Nobody, not even Nick. Because it is NONSENSE. Damn that brain-destroying religion! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
At 03:57 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The president's use of the phrase permission slip in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of hall pass. That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. Absolutely and utterly wrong, Dave. You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting The problem, Dave, is that many people in general, and you and Nick in specific, use the phrase serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting while actually meaning agreement from other nations before acting.President Bush chose to analogy to emphasis that he is *not* opposed to *a)* so long as *a)* does not mean *b)*.Indeed, the analogy emphasizes that if *a)* truly does not mean *b)*, then there must exist at least some set of cases in which the US will act _after *a)*, but _without_ *b)*. That's the real reasoning behind the analogy, not the caricature you represented. JDG ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Permission Slips Re: Rhetorical Questions RE: Removing Dictators Re: PeacefulchangeL3
On Apr 25, 2005, at 7:11 PM, JDG wrote: At 03:57 PM 4/25/2005 -0700, Dave Land wrote: Your question reminds me that the metaphors we choose have power. The president's use of the phrase permission slip in the state of the union address was carefully chosen to call up visions of the United States as a child, having to go begging some adult nation for a kind of hall pass. That vision was intended to be so repulsive that to suggest that the US must seriously consider the opinions of other nations before acting was to reduce our great nation to childishness. Absolutely and utterly wrong, Dave. Metaphors /don't/ have power? The president's words /weren't/ carefully chosen to activate frames that would render opponent's arguments repulsive? You are conflating two separate things: a) serious consideration of the opinions of other nations before acting and b) agreement from other nations before acting Tomayto, tomahto, potayto, potahto. Let's call the whole thing off. I understand the difference, and while I clearly will never choose my words carefully enough to satisfy you (and why should I try?), I believe that I write well enough that others do not suffer your reductionist thinking. That's the real reasoning behind the analogy, not the caricature you represented. I respectfully disagree with the characterization of my depiction of the president's tactician's use of framing devices as a caricature. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
