Replies

I'm going to adjust your definitions -- many of them are wrong in key aspects. They are just correct enough to give a layman the wrong impression of the actual consequences. :-)

I don't have time right at this moment, but maybe later today if I have the time.

Thank you for your post! I look forward to the adjusted definitions. The ones I posted at 503 are derived primarily from linked sources, so the adjusted definitions will also be informative as to the valuation of the sources themselves.

just correct enough to give a layman the wrong impression of the actual consequences. :-)

Ouch. Its hard to see how a Julian of up-papa-pweese Norwich might lose her calling.

Ortega has an interesting opening chapter in Man and Society where he shows the people talking non-stop about law, rights, the State, about the nation, about the public disposition to public defense, about good politics, about bad politics, about pacifism and war, about mankind, about social justice and injustice, about collectivism, capitalism, about socialism, liberalism, authority, about the individual and society, etc. etc. And the don't only talk about it in the paper, in the club, in the cafe, in their circle--they don't just talk, they discuss. And they don't just discuss, they argue about what that all these words imply. And in the contest it appears that people kill each other, by hundreds, thousands, millions. No doubt this contest appears more serious by some people than others. . . People talk, people talk about all these issues, but what people say about them fails to achieve that minimum of clarity without which this talk becomes dangerous. Talking brings with it certain consequences, and given the seriousness of such topics mentioned, the consequences are serious as well.

He then adds that this problem isn't just with the common folk, but that it exists among the professionals in the field. I reckon quoting such professionals for evidence, or employing their words is the naive pleasure of turning ignorance into a commodity.