 | | Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) This can be taken many ways. If intended as a slur about our arts/literature/media, etc... it's irrelevant, and untrue. If intended as a comment on melting pots vs. many separate cultures, it's also untrue. The US has more of a unified culture (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) It is a simple observation. (...) You are a little wrong here about the UK. But I think, overall, we have mixed well - given that most immigrants arrived here post WW2. As far as I know we have never had legal segregation in the UK. (...) I (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes: May I? (...) Yes. And to compare, how is the history of British society and homosexuals? It's not exactly a political freedom, but it's similar, and your record sucks. (...) We did. (...) Evolution is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I happen to feel connected to this particular fight since I'm from the US, but it's really not my favorite of these examples. I prefer the one where Shaka, using nothing but spears and genius, routed the British army in Zululand (South (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) As does most of the world, up until a few years ago many still viewed this homosexuality as a medical condition. Thankfully, those days have mostly passed - so much so that homosexuality is not an issue. Indeed, there are a few at the highest (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) The keyword is militia. My dictionary says: militia a military force which only operates for some of the time and whose members often have other jobs, used either instead of or to support the official army. I’d hate to get involved in (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Your dictionary is wrong, when viewed in the context of the US constitution. Words change meanings, but to understand the 2nd, you have to know what militia meant to the founding fathers, and what they meant when they said it. Intent is (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I tend to view my dictionary in the context of the English language. If you do consider it in the context of your constitution - did not some states/real real militia back then? Was a militia then not more like my dictionary describes? (...) (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) You make good points, both for the importance of meaning and the difficulty of determining intent. As I understand it, the term "militia" as it applies to the 2nd has never come before the Supreme Court, so there is no "final" definition to be (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) No. (...) Asked and answered. The very text you cite goes on to shred that argument. But you didn't cite that part, did you? This subthread is about the difference between description and argument. Either *admit* your bumpersticker snipe was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Well what was a "militia" back then? Let's start here: =+= When the U.S. Constitution was adopted, each of the states had its own "militia" -- a military force comprised of ordinary citizens serving as part-time soldiers. The militia was (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) I am not sure if it is what you are after, but if you scroll down to "THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN THE COURTS" at (URL) find: "Since Miller, the Supreme Court has addressed the Second Amendment twice more, upholding New Jersey’s strict gun control (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Is that like Lar += 2? :) --Todd (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Oh...well if that's all it takes, then I can dispel your assertions by mentioning that there are a few blacks at the highest levels of US government too. Great. (...) them? Their rights did protect them. But bad men in the government -- the (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Indeed. So what is the point of your system, if your "god given" rights can be removed the government? Are they only fair weather rights? (...) I know of no UK school which has a "whites only" policy in the last century. I know of no UK (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) From what I recall of history, the Zulus led by Shaka were anything but ragtag; they were an extremely well trained, organised and disciplined army consisting of men who had been taken into the army as boys and brought up in a military and (...) (24 years ago, 15-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| |
| | Re: Description vs. argument
|
|
(...) Things are worse than I thought in the US. "blacks" have been out of the closet here for a long time. Scott A (24 years ago, 16-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
