ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old Today, 11:01 AM   #2161
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 37,043
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Ok, I'll bite. You are equating the words 'any authority' and 'all authority'. Do you agree that 'any' and 'all' are not necessarily synonymous? Or would that mess up your equivocation?
Try substituting "an" for "any", and see how the definition changes. The changed definition would apply to the American revolutionaries. So why didn't Merriam-Webster write "an" instead of "any"? Because "any" means something different. The definition with "an" instead of "any" would be wrong.

If this confuses you, consult other definitions. There are plenty of online dictionaries. Hell, MW itself provides other definitions. For example, their definition for English language learners is pretty good:

"a person who believes that government and laws are not necessary"

dictionary.com gives this as the first definition:

"a person who advocates or believes in anarchy or anarchism."

Not so useful, it just kicks the can down the road. How about the second definition:

"a person who seeks to overturn by violence all constituted forms and institutions of society and government, with no purpose of establishing any other system of order in the place of that destroyed."

So, were the American revolutionaries anarchists? No. Obviously.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old Today, 11:11 AM   #2162
mgidm86
Illuminator
 
mgidm86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 3,021
Originally Posted by MostlyDead View Post
Not that I know of, but they were definitely brought in at later rallys, which would seem to indicate that the stakes are raising. Is having concern that the situation is escalating so imprudent?

Were they brought in or did they show up on their own? If someone invited them for protection I'd like to see evidence of that.
mgidm86 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » USA Politics

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:33 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 2014, TribeTech AB. All Rights Reserved.
This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.