Marxism

Actually, it does matter. It suggests that he is an irrational man, given to jumping into things without adequate consideration. As far as I can tell, that character flaw still continues, even as his political ideology has switched.

It is sometimes said that we could improve our schools by closing all of our college departments of education. I have some sympathy with that view (that schools of education do more harm than good).I have a similar view about business schools. Before there were business schools, the top management of a company tended to be engineers who understood the product. In todays world they are usually MBAs who understand only the bottom line. And I think that change has done more harm than good.Hmm, this is way off topic for the thread

Okay. Your use of "STEAL" is incendiary.As far as I know, "steal" means to unlawfully take something. As long as welfare recipients are within the law they are not stealing. And as long as taxation is in accordance with the law, that is not stealing either. And that's more incendiary language. You are falsely accusing people of condoning stealing. People do not like to be the target of such clearly false accusations, so you should not be surprised when they react rather strongly to the language you choose to use. And that is more incendiary language, because it also amounts to a false accusation of condoning stealing. I hope that I have helped explain to you why you are misunderstood.We belong to a community, and meanings of words are shared among people of that community. It is perfectly okay for you to have your own private meaning of "steal" that disagrees with the meaning used by most other people. But when you use that private meaning in a public forum, you should expect to be misunderstood.

Don't be silly? Would I?I would use the verb "steal" in the same way that it is used by others in the community around me.You are using "steal" as it is used by a very narrow community of right wing extremists. And it is fine to use the word that way when communicating with that narrow community. But when you are trying to communicate with the larger community, then you must stick to the shared meaning used by that larger community -- that is, unless you are trying to be deliberately provocative and incendiary.It's your choice. If you want to be provocative and incendiary, then continue as you have been doing. If you want to communicate, then you will need to use words in accordance with the meanings shared by those with whom you wish to communicate. Good. Because that was what I was attempting to do.

Did you actually check any references?The English language is very complex, and words are used in a variety of ways. (that's one of several definitions). I have not said anything about a moral consensus.We are part of a language community, and we share meanings within that community. If we wish to communicate, then we need to choose words according to how they will be understood by those with whom we want to communicate.Meanings involve consensus. We can communicate based on that consensus with respect to meanings, even when there is no moral consensus. But if you are not willing to use shared meanings, then communication becomes impossible. And there you go, being incendiary again by making false accusations.You are in effect saying that Faith has the one true meaning of "steal" and anybody who disagrees is necessarily wrong and non-objective. That's similar to the "no true scotsman" fallacy.

I am in favor of public education. We can agree to disagree on that without having to be disagreeable.As it happens, my children were educated at private schools, mainly because of the poor quality of the neighborhood schools where I lived at that time. It cost an arm and a leg. But I still support public education, and I support paying for public education with taxes. As for the "as private education remains available" part, I agree that private education needs to be available as an option.And yes, the world has always been a crazy place. But we do what we have to do to live in it.I managed to survive 8 years of Bush (whom I consider a candidate for the worst president ever). So I dare say that you can survive 4 or 8 years of an Obama presidency.Even though we sharply disagree on some things, we probably agree on a lot more. Wouldn't it be better if people aired their differences in rational discussions, and avoided demonizing those with whom they disagree. Maybe there is a lot of common ground where people could work together to make the nation and the world better places.(subtitle line taken from the statement by Rodney King).

And there you go demonizing people again. Or, more precisely, you are demonizing me.Nothing is a crime unless the laws call it a crime. That's what the word "crime" means.If you were intending to talk about things being wrong, even though not a crime, then I quite agree that is possible. And people do things that I consider wrong far too often. That it is not against the law does not mean that it was not wrong. When a baseball player steals a base, that is not wrong. And I'm guessing that you don't think that wrong either.Again, language is very complex. The whole idea that a word like "steal" has one true objective meaning and that you know that meaning - it is just laughable. I'll grant that we seem to live in different worlds.In the world that I live in, demonizing people is very wrong and unchristian. In the world I live in, if we disagree with government policies we express that disagreement at the polls, not by demonizing people.Incidentally, I consider myself a fiscal conservative. I voted for the Democratic candidate last election because at present the Democrats are the party of fiscal conservatism. And, in case that confuses you, I will restate it differently. The "tax and spend" Democrats are more fiscally conservative than the "spend and run up a huge debt for our grandchildren" Republicans. And "spend and run up a huge debt for our grandchildren" is a pretty accurate description of Republican economic policy since 1980.

You, Faith, are well into "this condemning thing". Your posts are incendiary, precisely because you are into "this condemning thing."Apparently you do not see that in yourself.

quote:

---

matt 7:3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

---

And that is why you are not communicating effectively.In order to be an effective communicator, you need to be able to see yourself as others see you. And here the important "others" are those with whom you are attempting to communicate.

Or maybe it is because you live in Limbaugh-Beck-land, where taxation is stealing because Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck and co. say it is, but you are unable to provide a rational explanation because Limbaugh and Beck do not actually have a rational explanation.

Can you provide any actual examples where this occurs?I think you might be making a good case against things that happen in the mythical wonderland created by the polemicists of the political right, so that they can con people like you into their intellectual scam.

That's a name. It isn't an actual example.Somehow I am under the impression that "welfare, as we know it" was ended during the Clinton administration.

Yes, indeed, I can understand how that would be exhausting.The reason that it is so exhausting, is that what you are trying to explain is a fabricated myth. And it is hard to explain such myths, because people keep asking for actual evidence and there isn't any.

Oh, no, I do not believe or suggest that you are making it up.What I do suggest is that other people are making it up, feeding it to people like you in a strongly emotional message, and thereby conning you into become an agent of their spreading of lies.

Meanings are subjective, not objective.People are making up stories about taxation amounting to stealing. And they are using highly emotional appeals to spread these stories. Yes, you could have. And you would have been laughed out of town for spreading such obvious nonsense.