Succeeding Through Word Manipulation

[wenglund]

  Nobody really pays much attention or cares.

 

Perhaps Edmund Burke's famous saying may be manipulated to say: Evil prevails when good men don't pay attention or don't care."

 

It can even be JKW's ideal.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[jkwilliams]

Yes. Both of these fit the alleged "narrow" definition. (Note that the "narrow" definition didn't contain a divorce or deceased modifier)

So, basically, it was indeed a narrow definition.

 

Again, no one is disputing the accommodating nature of language. Among other things, what is in dispute is whether certain language accommodations are actually "nice" or not.

Does it matter whether anyone thinks a language accommodation is nice or not? Not especially. That's the nature of language, and people can weep and wail and gnash their teeth, but it doesn't change that.

 

Merrian-Webster defines Spouse as:  "Someone who is married: husband or wife."

Historically, then, the opposite sex meaning of Spouse is more than implied. As indicated, it is entailed in the gender-specific definitional terms of "husband" and "wife". Manipulating the word Spouse thus entails also manipulating the terms "husband" and "wife."

If we're going to reduce millennia of marital custom and law to a single line in a dictionary, so be it. That said, here are the definitions of "husband" and "wife" from the same dictionary:

"Husband: a married man : the man someone is married to; a male partner in a marriage"

"Wife: a married woman : the woman someone is married to; a female partner in a marriage"

The funny thing about this is the use of the article. If there is to be only one husband and one wife, the appropriate article would be "the," not "a," as in "the male partner in a marriage" and "the female partner in a marriage." But instead it's "a", meaning that there is no specified number of husbands or wives (that's the nature of the indefinite article). And, politically correct as they are, Merriam-Webster doesn't say "the man a woman is married to" but "the man someone is married to," again leaving open the gender of the spouse. So, perhaps they got Merriam-Webster to redefine these terms before the language police could stop them.

 

While the word "monogamish" is, itself, a manipulation of the word "monogamy," and is being used as you describe, the word "monogamy" is also likewise being manipulated as I described.

It would be helpful to see some examples of "monogamy" used in this manipulated way.

 

The examples suite my purposes well enough--your lame dismissals notwithstanding.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

A post from Wade is never complete without an insult. Bonus points that this one is direct and not veiled.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

If it isn't glaringly obvious from all that I have said,

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

It is apparent that it is not glaringly obvious, let alone obvious. Control the language you control the debate.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[wenglund]

Ok. I was simply curious as to whether the terms "wife/husband" were actually being used by SS couples. If not, then that would negate one of Wade's list of terms being manipulated, since other terms are being employed instead.

 

If you doubt that the terms wife and husband are being used in relation to same-sex couples, simply do a Google search using the parameters of "same-sex wife."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

If anything, I am grateful that Wade introduced me to the FRC. I hadn't heard much of them before, other than occasionally hearing James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" bits on the radio. What I found there was example after example of dishonest pseudoscholarship, including complete misrepresentation of data (in polite circles we call that lying). I don't have a problem with people speaking up about what they passionately believe, as that's what we should be doing, but there's no excuse for such utter dishonesty.

For better or worse(mostly the latter) I've known about the FRC for a long time now. While not directly related to our SSM discussion the FRC is no friend of the LDS. Equating us to non-Christian violent cults.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

A post from Wade is never complete without an insult. Bonus points that this one is direct and not veiled.

Sensitive much? I have called people's posts lame all the time. Didn't think I was insulting someone. Ha.

[jkwilliams]

Deleted.

Edited November 6, 2013 by jkwilliams

[thesometimesaint]

Not sensitive, just quite familiar with Wade's approach. Being called lame is nothing to being told you have psychological and emotional defects that require cognitive behavioral therapy. Now there's a veiled insult!

 

And it does nothing to further the debate. It is meant to insult and stop debate.

[jkwilliams]

For better or worse(mostly the latter) I've known about the FRC for a long time now. While not directly related to our SSM discussion the FRC is no friend of the LDS. Equating us to non-Christian violent cults.

It's not directly related, but it is a good analogy to the discussion here. Mormons want (rightly, IMO) to define themselves as Christians in the broad sense that anyone who believes that Jesus is the Son of God and is their Savior is a Christian. Certain Evangelical factions want to restrict the definition of "Christian" to apply only to those who accept certain creeds and doctrines.

Gay people want to use the words "family" and "spouse" in the broader definition, whereas the FRC and this thread want to add specific restrictions to the definitions.

It's just odd to see people decrying normal political practice and use of language.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Not sensitive, just quite familiar with Wade's approach. Being called lame is nothing to being told you have psychological and emotional defects that require cognitive behavioral therapy. Now there's a veiled insult!

That indeed is an insult. But I didn't see that in his post. Ha.

[jkwilliams]

Deleted because it was off-topic.

Edited November 6, 2013 by jkwilliams

[Stone holm]

Not sensitive, just quite familiar with Wade's approach. Being called lame is nothing to being told you have psychological and emotional defects that require cognitive behavioral therapy. Now there's a veiled insult!

 

Wade seems to think commenting adversely on other's mental abilities somehow adds to his arguments, which is normally a sign of a weak argument in the offing.

[thesometimesaint]

Wade seems to think commenting adversely on other's mental abilities somehow adds to his arguments, which is normally a sign of a weak argument in the offing.

 

As a matter of fact I am smarter than the average bear, but then again bears aren't very smart.

[wenglund]

So, basically, it was indeed a narrow definition.

 

To my mind, the absence of exclusionary modifiers would make the definition more inclusive and broad, not narrow (I put the word "narrow" facetiously in quotes so as to make that point), But, you are free to manipulate the word "narrow" however you wish.

 

 

Does it matter whether anyone thinks a language accommodation is nice or not? Not especially. That's the nature of language, and people can weep and wail and gnash their teeth, but it doesn't change that.

 

So you say. But, I don't happen to view your personal opinion as the gold standard. I happen to believe that not all changes in language is for the better, and that some changes may be deleterious--particularly negative changes in words that represent good and beneficial ideas. To each their own.

 

 

If we're going to reduce millennia of marital custom and law to a single line in a dictionary, so be it.

 

You reduced it to a single word: "handcuffs." So be it.

 

 

 

That said, here are the definitions of "husband" and "wife" from the same dictionary:

"Husband: a married man : the man someone is married to; a male partner in a marriage"

"Wife: a married woman : the woman someone is married to; a female partner in a marriage"

The funny thing about this is the use of the article. If there is to be only one husband and one wife, the appropriate article would be "the," not "a," as in "the male partner in a marriage" and "the female partner in a marriage." But instead it's "a", meaning that there is no specified number of husbands or wives (that's the nature of the indefinite article). And, politically correct as they are, Merriam-Webster doesn't say "the man a woman is married to" but "the man someone is married to," again leaving open the gender of the spouse. So, perhaps they got Merriam-Webster to redefine these terms before the language police could stop them.

 

...which underscores my point about changes in the meaning "spouse" necessitates changing the meaning of "husband" and "wife." Nicely done!

 

 

It would be helpful to see some examples of "monogamy" used in this manipulated way.

 

Do a Google search using the parameter: emotionally monogamous homosexuals

 

 

A post from Wade is never complete without an insult. Bonus points that this one is direct and not veiled.

 

I appreciate you supplying this unintended object lesson on how to stereotypically manipulate using the word "insult," if not also how to manipulate the word, itself. While not as strident a form of dismissal as "bigot" and "homophobic," it can, in some circumstances, be just as effective, particularly where people are easily manipulated by such dismissals.

 

While you may not agree that your dismissals were lame, it is not an insult for me to consider them as such, any more than it was insulting for you to consider my examples as lame or not good enough.

 

And, while my posts may often disagree with your beliefs, there is no legitimate call to stereotypically characterize my posts as "never complete without an insult."

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 6, 2013 by wenglund

[wenglund]

Wade seems to think commenting adversely on other's mental abilities somehow adds to his arguments, which is normally a sign of a weak argument in the offing.

 

I had no idea I thought this, So, I am issuing a straw-eliminating CFR.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Rob Osborn]

That's an awfully narrow definition of the word "family." Is a single parent with 5 kids a family, or not? Are brothers and sisters a family if their parents are dead or absent? The nice thing about language is that it tends to accommodate different situations. Whether anyone likes it or not, a gay couple raising a child is a family just as much as a heterosexual couple caring for an elderly parent is also a family.

 

Spouse is a gender-neutral term deriving from a Latin word for binding together, such that a spouse is someone legally or religiously bound together with another person. (I always thought it was funny that the Spanish word for spouses is the same as the word for handcuffs, both implying being bound together.) Historically, it's implied but not definitive that the other person is of the opposite gender, but if that implication vanishes, it doesn't materially affect the definition.

 

Actually, the word is "monogamish," which is used to describe committed marriages that are not necessarily sexually exclusive. The definition of monogamy as sexually exclusive to a single partner has not changed and isn't likely to change.

Maybe you can come up with some better examples.

I beg to differ. A "family" has been defined over the years as having a mother, father and children. When a person states they were raised in a "family" setting this is to mean the traditional "family". A gay couple raising a child is not what can be traditionally called a "family". Its called "two gay people raising a child".

[Rob Osborn]

The FRC is not example of heroics.

 

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/groups/family-research-council

I guess if you are Satan then of course not. We must be careful to what side we are on.

[Rob Osborn]

If anything, I am grateful that Wade introduced me to the FRC. I hadn't heard much of them before, other than occasionally hearing James Dobson's "Focus on the Family" bits on the radio. What I found there was example after example of dishonest pseudoscholarship, including complete misrepresentation of data (in polite circles we call that lying). I don't have a problem with people speaking up about what they passionately believe, as that's what we should be doing, but there's no excuse for such utter dishonesty.

Whose the liar here?

[wenglund]

It's just odd to see people decrying normal political practice and use of language.

 

Are you referring to people decrying the normal political practice and use of the word "lame"?

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[thesometimesaint]

We really are through the looking glass.

 

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - - that's all."
(Through the Looking Glass, Chapter 6)

[thesometimesaint]

I guess if you are Satan then of course not. We must be careful to what side we are on.

 

I've never had any ambition to be the Son of the Morning or a hero, My highest aspiration has been/is to be a good dad to my children, and member of the Church.

 

Ps; A hero is someone whom got so scared he/she ran the wrong way.

Edited November 6, 2013 by thesometimesaint

[Rob Osborn]

I've never had any ambition to be the Son of the Morning or a hero, My highest aspiration has been/is to be a good dad to my children, and member of the Church.

 

Ps; A hero is someone whom got so scared he/she ran the wrong way.

So your views are aligned with the Family Research Council. Thats all, you are on the right side and a hero also.

Edited November 6, 2013 by Rob Osborn

[thesometimesaint]

So your views are aligned with the Family Research Council. Thats all, you are on the right side and a hero also.

 

The FRC uses words to hurt and destroy. So while I disagree with SSM I use words in a more compassionate fashion that respects the rights and feelings of others. God and the Constitution allow us to be jerks. They don't require us to be so. While am usually correct(IMNTBHO) on the "side" I choose to be on.  I'm no hero, except to my kids, and grand-kids.

[jkwilliams]

The FRC uses words to hurt and destroy. So while I disagree with SSM I use words in a more compassionate fashion that respects the rights and feelings of others. God and the Constitution allow us to be jerks. They don't require us to be so. While am usually correct(IMNTBHO) on the "side" I choose to be on.  I'm no hero, except to my kids, and grand-kids.

Well said. We all choose which "side" we want to be on, but we don't have to choose to be jerks.

[wenglund]

The FRC uses words to hurt and destroy. So while I disagree with SSM I use words in a more compassionate fashion that respects the rights and feelings of others. God and the Constitution allow us to be jerks. They don't require us to be so. While am usually correct(IMNTBHO) on the "side" I choose to be on.  I'm no hero, except to my kids, and grand-kids.

 

I like and agree with the point you are making that the way words may be used can be hurtful.

 

Accordingly, we may do well as a society to beware and resist hurtful word usage.

 

I believe this applies to word usage in relation to valued institutions.

 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited November 6, 2013 by wenglund