Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.....In principle, I'd agree with what you are saying here; a society full of good-faith interlocutors would benefit from striving towards a set of unified definitions to maximize communicative clarity. In practice, we don't live in a society of good-faith interlocutors, and telling people they are wrong about the definitions of words rarely succeeds in changing their ways. It is often going to be the case that the best we can do is to try to understand what others mean while explaining as best we can what we ourselves mean. Conversation would often profit by moving away from broad categorical terms like "socialism" and remaining in narrow, descriptive terms like policy suggestions anyway. Categorical terms make it too easy and convenient to try to argue against others by pushing them into a "label box" and dismissing them. "What you're saying is socialism, and that makes it wrong," or, "I can see now that you're a racist, I've no longer any need to listen to you," or so forth. Which is better: to discuss a particular policy or idea and perhaps convince the other party that it is a good idea (even if they only realize it's a good idea later on, when there's no face to be lost by changing their view in person), or to quarrel with them about the strict definition of a word like socialism and ensure the conversation goes no where?
The problem is, there are people who decide to label an idea as socialism, even though it isn't, and, since they believe socialism is evil, or a "sickness of the mind", they have decided that they will never believe that the idea is good.Which is better: to discuss a particular policy or idea and perhaps convince the other party that it is a good idea (even if they only realize it's a good idea later on, when there's no face to be lost by changing their view in person), or to quarrel with them about the strict definition of a word like socialism and ensure the conversation goes no where?
That's an extraordinary view. You regard all government as inherently evil, so do you want there to be no government at all? If so, who makes the laws? Or shouldn't we have laws?I view all government as inherently evil and what they take from people in a big percentage only enriches political cronnies and disrupts economy. Whatever country you live in corruption and state crime are only on a rise everywhere. Less money for government---> better for society as a whole.
No, I never claimed that I want an anarchy. I want as little power and funds in hands of government as possible because they are not working for you or me.That's an extraordinary view. You regard all government as inherently evil, so do you want there to be no government at all? If so, who makes the laws? Or shouldn't we have laws?
Well, I will not necessarily say what you should or should not do, but even a person who is not truly discussing in good faith might have useful information or insights to provide. That said, if you feel they lack either information or insight, then I can see why you'd not want to bother.Maybe I'm misunderstanding you.....
But, I don't see the point in discussing anything with someone who isn't a "good-faith interlocutor." If someone is unwilling to be open minded and really consider whether they are using terms incorrectly, why then should I assume that they have good faith in any other area or topic of debate?
So does this fellow simply not believe the threat of prosecution produces a deterring effect, or what? I can see some potential merit in altering prosecution patterns regarding drug infractions, but theft targets the very businesses and citizens that keep your local economy running. Why should they remain in the community and pay taxes to fund a D.A.s office that shrugs when they are victims of theft. If the community is worried about people not having enough diapers or somesuch, there are other ways to handle that.That includes a move to stop prosecuting people for theft of personal items worth less than $750. It only applies to necessary items, Creuzot says. Theft for economic gain or resale will be charged.
“If they’re stealing $750 worth of diapers, let’s be honest: It’s going to take a lot of rear ends to put $750 worth of diapers on, so that probably doesn’t fit that category and so we would prosecute that case,” Creuzot said.
Prosecuting poor people for stealing essential items wastes taxpayer money because they won’t come out any more financially stable after they serve their sentence, Creuzot says, and prosecution doesn’t help the business that is stolen from either.
|Similar History Discussions||History Forum||Date|
|About German reparations and hyperinflation||European History|
|Poland demands one TRILLION (US) dollars from Germany for WWII reparations!||Current Events|
|Why do black nationalists not cite the African kingdoms for reparations?||General History|
|Should there be reparations given to African-Americans for slavery?||Controversial History|