<--- Wonders why nobody has ever conceded to me when they were wrong... ;)

(Not that it's the least bit important to me. But even so...)

I have admitted to others that I was wrong. And I know I have agreed with you on rare occasions, but I don't recall ever admitting I was wrong when arguing with you. Maybe I never was? This seems like a good time for a ;)

[snip]

I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned

Umm, I neither said I was right or the dictionary was wrong, just that the dictionary definition may be outdated.

Umm, yes, you did say that the dictionary was wrong when you said "I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism". So you once again fail to admit your error.

I think the alternative sources provide sufficient evidence for me to say say that I made no error. Definitions of many things change over time, in a particular context Merriam-Webster's may well have been correct, I (and based on the evidence I gathered many others) do not believe it's definition to be accurate in a modern context.

If it helps us move off this, I'll happily admit that by Merriam-Webster's definition of socialism, Robert should give up his private property, but by many others it is not necessary for him to do so, in order to make the claim that he is a socialist, and leave it to Robert to decide which definition he should accept as authoritative. Good enough?

Good enough for whom? Did you admit that you were wrong to dismiss a valid, dictionary definition that the English speaking world relies on, and which was the basis of BrainSmashR's argument? No, you waffled on about how "alternative sources provide sufficient evidence for me to say say that I made no error." When you say clearly that BrainSmashR was right, that his definition is accurate and his result follows from his premise, then you have admitted your error; not by saying, as you did, that there are other alternative sources.

The English speaking world relies on Merriam-Webster? Perhaps you should visit the UK and see how far such a statement will get you, in case you were unaware the OED is accepted as the authority on definitions over there (and, quite possibly, in a good part of the remainder of the English speaking world), and it was that source (among others) that you now dismiss as "other alternative sources". Be that as it may, based on the definition supplied by BrainSmashr, his result follows from his premise. I will not go so far as to say BrainSmashr was right, because, as the preponderance of evidence supports, I maintain the premise (and, by inference, Merriam-Webster's definition) is inaccurate in a modern context.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I have agreed with you on rare occasions, but I don't recall ever admitting I was wrong when arguing with you.

I believe that you and I both share a mutually respected difference of opinion...

I was refering to those who would like nothing more than to see me go away... ;)

---

It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . .

Simply amazing.

One person says a word is defined this way...another says it's not defined that way anymore, because now it's defined this way.

Does this mean that I can pick a word and redefine it, and it should be completely accepted??

FFS...does anyone have the slightest inkling of how utterly inane an argument over a definition is?

The longer people sit here ( there....ANYWHERE ) having a pissing contest about how a word should be defined, the longer that absolutely nothing is going to be done to address the issues at hand.

Socialism, as originally defined means that, yes, one would have to give up his property to the government " for the good of the people ". So now...since that particular definition doesn't work for someone....we're gonna go with a different definition that more closely describes what it is that we want.

What a GREAT plan.

Let's just sit here and redefine words until everything is exactly the way we want it to be. That'll surely work.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Simply amazing.

One person says a word is defined this way...another says it's not defined that way anymore, because now it's defined this way.

Does this mean that I can pick a word and redefine it, and it should be completely accepted??

FFS...does anyone have the slightest inkling of how utterly inane an argument over a definition is?

The longer people sit here ( there....ANYWHERE ) having a pissing contest about how a word should be defined, the longer that absolutely nothing is going to be done to address the issues at hand.

Socialism, as originally defined means that, yes, one would have to give up his property to the government " for the good of the people ". So now...since that particular definition doesn't work for someone....we're gonna go with a different definition that more closely describes what it is that we want.

What a GREAT plan.

Let's just sit here and redefine words until everything is exactly the way we want it to be. That'll surely work.

Define "sophisticated" and you'll see what I mean that the English language changes over time. Much like "sophisticated", the word "socialism" means something different now than it did in the 19th century. I won't be asking anybody to use "sophisticated" according to its 19th century definition, that would be bizarre, so why should anybody be expected to use "socialism" as if its meaning hasn't changed since then?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Simply amazing.

One person says a word is defined this way...another says it's not defined that way anymore, because now it's defined this way.

Does this mean that I can pick a word and redefine it, and it should be completely accepted??

FFS...does anyone have the slightest inkling of how utterly inane an argument over a definition is?

The longer people sit here ( there....ANYWHERE ) having a pissing contest about how a word should be defined, the longer that absolutely nothing is going to be done to address the issues at hand.

Socialism, as originally defined means that, yes, one would have to give up his property to the government " for the good of the people ". So now...since that particular definition doesn't work for someone....we're gonna go with a different definition that more closely describes what it is that we want.

What a GREAT plan.

Let's just sit here and redefine words until everything is exactly the way we want it to be. That'll surely work.

Define "sophisticated" and you'll see what I mean that the English language changes over time. Much like "sophisticated", the word "socialism" means something different now than it did in the 19th century. I won't be asking anybody to use "sophisticated" according to its 19th century definition, that would be bizarre, so why should anybody be expected to use "socialism" as if its meaning hasn't changed since then?

What has changed about it, Bobby?? Seriously...I want to know. Does it no longer mean giving up the individual for the betterment of the group?? Does it no longer mean that corporations shouldn't be allowed to profit from their services as opposed to " donating " their gains to their fellow man??

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Argue with Merriam-Webster all you want, but be sure to take note that I neither create nor define terms...I just use them properly.

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned. With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category. And again you decide to sidestep the thread's topic and shoot the messenger. If you agree with the message you do know you can say so without everybody assuming it means you agree with everything the messenger says?

When you are wrong, the mature thing to do is just admit you are wrong. But to say that you are right when something as authoritative as the dictionary goes against you, then blame the dictionary, is simply ludicrous.

Umm, I neither said I was right or the dictionary was wrong, just that the dictionary definition may be outdated. My reason for saying this was that none of the post-WW2 Western European governments formed from parties that have called themselves Socialist have outlawed private property. So which is correct, modern practice or dictionary definition? BTW, if you want a longer discussion of Socialism than the three lines from Merriam-Webster, then wikipedia might be a place to look. And if we really want to split hairs I said "Last time I checked socialists did not have issue with private ownership of proprerty", and I've known a number, I said nothing about socialism.

Interestingly, dictionary.com has nothing about property in its collection of definitions of socialism, is that because the dictionaries it uses as sources are less authoritative than Merriam-Webster? For that matter neither does the Compact Oxford English Dictionary mention the removal of private property as characteristic of socialism. But you're right, I should have made these points in my original reply, rather than implying that Merriam-Webster may not be as up to date as it could be. Many thanks for shaming me into finding authoritative sources showing Merriam-Webster to be wrong.

Then apparently you didn't read the listing for the American Heritage Dictionary, listed in your dictionary.com link:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Or this one from wordnet, also provided by your link:

2.an economic system based on state ownership of capital

or this one from the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version)
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

---

As far as I know, BrainSmashR is right, socialism is as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I used to belong to the Labour party in the UK. We were very proud to have what is know as Clause IV printed on our membership cards.

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Tony Blair got rid of Clause IV in 1995 thus abandoning the principle of the common ownership of the means of production. Those principles are still held by socialists the world over.

There are other sources of What is Socialism? this from an American political organisation of today.

---

Argue with Merriam-Webster all you want, but be sure to take note that I neither create nor define terms...I just use them properly.

Socialism:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

I guess Merriam-Webster is still stuck in the 19th century with its view of socialism, at least as far as private ownership of property is concerned. With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category. And again you decide to sidestep the thread's topic and shoot the messenger. If you agree with the message you do know you can say so without everybody assuming it means you agree with everything the messenger says?

When you are wrong, the mature thing to do is just admit you are wrong. But to say that you are right when something as authoritative as the dictionary goes against you, then blame the dictionary, is simply ludicrous.

Umm, I neither said I was right or the dictionary was wrong, just that the dictionary definition may be outdated. My reason for saying this was that none of the post-WW2 Western European governments formed from parties that have called themselves Socialist have outlawed private property. So which is correct, modern practice or dictionary definition? BTW, if you want a longer discussion of Socialism than the three lines from Merriam-Webster, then wikipedia might be a place to look. And if we really want to split hairs I said "Last time I checked socialists did not have issue with private ownership of proprerty", and I've known a number, I said nothing about socialism.

Interestingly, dictionary.com has nothing about property in its collection of definitions of socialism, is that because the dictionaries it uses as sources are less authoritative than Merriam-Webster? For that matter neither does the Compact Oxford English Dictionary mention the removal of private property as characteristic of socialism. But you're right, I should have made these points in my original reply, rather than implying that Merriam-Webster may not be as up to date as it could be. Many thanks for shaming me into finding authoritative sources showing Merriam-Webster to be wrong.

Then apparently you didn't read the listing for the American Heritage Dictionary, listed in your dictionary.com link:

Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy.

Or this one from wordnet, also provided by your link:

2.an economic system based on state ownership of capital

or this one from the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version)
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

Very good, provided capital, a country's wealth (it's land, mines, industries, railways, etc), the means of production and distribution equate to Robert's private property, you may have a point, but as I made clear earlier, I'm not sure Robert's private property does, and until you can clearly show he does indeed own any of the above then why should he give up his private property in order for him to be "pro-socialist"?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

As far as I know, BrainSmashR is right, socialism is as defined by the Merriam-Webster dictionary. I used to belong to the Labour party in the UK. We were very proud to have what is know as Clause IV printed on our membership cards.

"To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service."

Tony Blair got rid of Clause IV in 1995 thus abandoning the principle of the common ownership of the means of production. Those principles are still held by socialists the world over.

There are other sources of What is Socialism? this from an American political organisation of today.

I think you'll find that I haven't argued against socialism standing for common ownership of the means of production ("With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category"). BrainSmashr's point was about private property, which, in an industrialized nation for the vast majority, and most likely including Robert, does not include ownership of the means of production.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

I think you'll find that I haven't argued against socialism standing for common ownership of the means of production ("With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category"). BrainSmashr's point was about private property, which, in an industrialized nation for the vast majority, and most likely including Robert, does not include ownership of the means of production.

Yes,I understand the reference to private property, but I don't see how that has changed in the 'definition' of socialism. By 'private property' do you mean personal property or property used in the means of production?

I think you'll find that I haven't argued against socialism standing for common ownership of the means of production ("With regards to public ownership of the means of production, it is true that this remains in practise to some degree, though, from Robert's previous posts I would say it's unlikely he possesses anything that falls into this category"). BrainSmashr's point was about private property, which, in an industrialized nation for the vast majority, and most likely including Robert, does not include ownership of the means of production.

Yes,I understand the reference to private property, but I don't see how that has changed in the 'definition' of socialism. By 'private property' do you mean personal property or property used in the means of production?

To get back to BrainSmashr's charge it was:

So have you turned your private property over to the government, or still just exercising your right to spew hypocrisy over the 'net?

I think it's clear that BrainSmashr was not referring to the means of production, but to Robert's personal property.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

To get back to BrainSmashr's charge it was:

So have you turned your private property over to the government, or still just exercising your right to spew hypocrisy over the 'net?

I think it's clear that BrainSmashr was not referring to the means of production, but to Robert's personal property.

I am just wondering whether we are at cross purposes here. I came in because I was interested in what you had written earlier "the word "socialism" means something different now than it did in the 19th century." as my own perception is that it hasn't changed.

I have always admired your posts bobby, and I don't want any misunderstanding to arise.

To get back to BrainSmashr's charge it was:

So have you turned your private property over to the government, or still just exercising your right to spew hypocrisy over the 'net?

I think it's clear that BrainSmashr was not referring to the means of production, but to Robert's personal property.

I am just wondering whether we are at cross purposes here. I came in because I was interested in what you had written earlier "the word "socialism" means something different now than it did in the 19th century." as my own perception is that it hasn't changed.

I have always admired your posts bobby, and I don't want any misunderstanding to arise.

Many thanks for the compliment. In the 19th century socialism was used by some interchandeably with communism (wikipedia states that some atheists preferred the term socialism over communism because the later sounds similar to communion). Thus in the 19th century some, who would nowadays be termed communists, referred to themselves as socialists and advocated the abolition of private property. I don't believe the same is true of the vast majority of socialists today, though, if I am shown to be wrong I'll concede the point.

Anyways, off for a few days travel, hopefully when I get back the thread will have returned its focus to the subject Robert opened with.

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Very good, provided capital, a country's wealth (it's LAND, mines, industries, railways, etc), the means of production and distribution equate to Robert's private property, you may have a point, but as I made clear earlier, I'm not sure Robert's private property does, and until you can clearly show he does indeed own any of the above then why should he give up his private property in order for him to be "pro-socialist"?

Well personally, I've never seen a house floating in the sky. So I can therefore assume his home is indeed built on some piece of LAND, and as indicated above, falls under the realm of a country's wealth.

---

or this one from the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version)
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

I ask what is wrong with that?? Will never happen, people are way to self-centered and greedy. We generally will kill before sharing. But it would be good if a country's wealth was distributed to more of the population than a few at the top.

or this one from the Kernerman English Multilingual Dictionary (Beta Version)
the belief or theory that a country's wealth (its land, mines, industries, railways etc) should belong to the people as a whole, not to private owners

I ask what is wrong with that?? Will never happen, people are way to self-centered and greedy. We generally will kill before sharing. But it would be good if a country's wealth was distributed to more of the population than a few at the top.

Good for who?
Those that worked hard and sacrificed for everything they have?
Those who just do enough to get by?
Or those who own nothing, do nothing, and are supported by the government?

---

Perhaps the REAL problem is GOVERNMENT of ANY kind PERIOD. Governments always lead to some form of control over the people. But there is always someone who wants to tell others what they can and can't do or say (back to the topic of Censorship).

Looking at this definition from socialism from Webster you could argue the US is socialist:
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.

Just showing how definitions don't always mean a whole lot... even they can be spun.

Good morning Qui-Gon.
Nice to see you again.
I hope all is well with you today.
Thanks for joining in the discussion.

Having exchanged pleasantries, I would like to post now.

The original intent was to discuss censorship, but as in most conversations, the topic can change without notice.

I'd like to try and steer the topic back to censorship if I may.
I realize that it's not my job to direct the conversation and I normally let the threads I start go where they may, but I did begin with censorship as my theme and I'd like to get back to it.

Society as a whole has profited by free and open discourse. The free western democracies have long held that cencorship is a tool of tyrants, despots and oppressive societies.

The power to control through censorship is one that we as a society have stood against and for the most part, our elected leaders have not tried to violate.

When a citizen starts to feel frightened to exercise their right to speak out against an injustice or a direction their government is taking, or even against some small, tiny, little insignificant bureaucrat in the lowest levels of authority, then we are all damaged.

The problem with censorship is that it usually begins with a small fanatic pushing an agenda that seems, at first glance, to be legitimate and good for the public at large.
It doesn't take very long before it goes from protection of the public to being a tool used to control the public and/or individuals with opinions not shared by those of the authorities.

Once censorship is allowed to be used as a tool of those in authority, the ability to express one's views becomes quite limited.

All through history we have examples of writers who have fought against censorship using the weapons of misdirection such as comedy, irony, metaphor. These writers were driven to this by the need to get around the restrictions placed upon them by small minded censors put into position by frightened administrations.

The founders of western democracies were very aware of the dangers involved when censorship is permitted to thrive.
They knew that eventually it would be abused by those given the authority to decide what the public sees and hears.

They knew that those with the power would also use it to stamp down opposing political views in the course of time.

This is why censorship is such a dangerous and slippery slope.
Once that direction is taken, not just the obscene material is subject to the censor, but everything that doesn't fit into the views of that censor becomes targeted.

Very soon, only the views approved by the authority are seen.

I'd like to use this forum as an example of the bigger world if I may.

We all enjoy our varying degrees of freedom in the countries in which we live.
I'm going to say that virtually everyone in the SETI boards has quite a range of freedoms.
A great many of us enjoy using the forums as a sounding board for ideas and opinions. Some of these, we may not always agree with. But we keep coming back.

Why? Because we find the variety of opinion to be interesting. If this variety were not to exist, I suspect that many people would soon tire of the concept of allowing their computers to be used for free by SETI and would eventually just leave the program or just not bother turning it on to allow it to run.

I see a lot of people with high RAC numbers and a lot with very low RAC numbers.
The ones with low RAC numbers might not be missed at all, but if the high RAC numbers were to leave, I think SETI would suffer greatly.

The example I gave is to illustrate why citizens of oppressive counties will leave behind their homes and families to find freedom elsewhere.

While the uneducated and unskilled (we've seen these words before) may not be missed by the government they are escaping, the highly productive members of that society would most certainly be missed as their contributions are suddenly withdrawn.
Freedom from censorship is an innate instinct in humans and one of the higher goals we seek as citizens and as human beings.

That is just such a gross distortion of the female figure.

A woman with un-natural body and strange lemon shaped breasts sucking on an ice-pop that is a euphemism for a penis is not my idea of something a mod should post.

I'm not suprised there are so few women (members or mods) involved in these forums if we represent women in such a way.

Sometimes we don't need to censor...

... We just have to create a vision of the world that people might not feel welcome in.

Would I censor the image? No.

Would I think it's a pile of dung? Yes.


Sorry.


.