04 Feb 05
Originally posted by NyxieLike "The world is better off without Saddam. But GWB was wrong to remove him."?
That is my definition. Two opposing ideas stated at the same time with the expectation that they are somehow related and should be accepted.
Doublespeak
Nyxie
Or is double think/speak something else?
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyActually the question wasn't addressed to you. Notice it falls after a semicolon. AThousandYoung was restating the question for your reference not asking you it.
Critical thinking.
In a direct post to me you did use a question mark in asking me a question. I responded to your question. I replied to the subject of your question.
This isn't that tough, yet we still don't communicate very well. Do we?
You can replace the semicolon can be replaced with 'The question we are debating is in fact'.
I just realized also that in NewSpeak doublethink is used only when it is a conscious choice.
Better might be duckspeak (To speak without thought). Or doubleplusungood duckspeak (really really bad speaking without thought).
04 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by XanthosNZThis is the Debates forum. It isn't to be used for personal messages. There is a function reserved for that.
Actually the question wasn't addressed to you. Notice it falls after a semicolon. AThousandYoung was restating the question for your reference not asking you it.
You can replace the semicolon can be replaced with 'The question we are d ...[text shortened]... plusungood duckspeak (really really bad speaking without thought).
I think you would be better to say that when one becomes confused and doesn't really understand the world, one should resort to double-speak.
Oh. Sorry. You demonstrated it for all to see. Thanks.
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by XanthosNZI do have a simple question for you then.
Actually the question wasn't addressed to you. Notice it falls after a semicolon. AThousandYoung was restating the question for your reference not asking you it.
You can replace the semicolon can be replaced with 'The question we are debating is in fact'.
I just realized also that in NewSpeak doublethink is used only when it is a conscious choice.
...[text shortened]... ak without thought). Or doubleplusungood duckspeak (really really bad speaking without thought).
Why did he reply to me and my post instead of to RC and his post?
Just curious. Critical thought demands that we notice such things as who is addressing us and what they are asking us or telling us. That seems to be a real problem tonight.
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI addressed you because you didn't seem to understand what it was that we were debating. I was describing the question that we were all debating.
I do have a simple question for you then.
Why did he reply to me and my post instead of to RC and his post?
Just curious. Critical thought demands that we notice such things as who is addressing us and what they are asking us or telling us. That seems to be a real problem tonight.
04 Feb 05
1 edit
Originally posted by AThousandYoungOh. I'm sorry I missed it. I just responed to what you asked ME. Sorry.
I addressed you because you didn't seem to understand what it was that we were debating. I was describing the question that we were all debating.
By the way... did you notice that my post was not to you on this one? Thought not.
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by AThousandYoungLook. I think we are just not on the same page. Maybe it is my fault. If so, I apologize. You can take what you will from it. I am just not sure why you attack me for no reason.
I addressed you because you didn't seem to understand what it was that we were debating. I was describing the question that we were all debating.
04 Feb 05
I have thought of another example of doublethink/speak :
To keep "revisionist judges" from interpreting the constitution in a way that is contrary to others perceptions, we are going to pass an amendment to the constitution.
This idea and philosophy is contradictory even unto itself.
Nyxie
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by NyxieYou are exactly correct.
I have thought of another example of doublethink/speak :
To keep "revisionist judges" from interpreting the constitution in a way that is contrary to others perceptions, we are going to pass an amendment to the constitution.
This idea and philosophy is contradictory even unto itself.
Nyxie
The solution of the problem of Coke infected judges was shown by Thomas Jefferson.
The congress has the right and the duty to establish the courts.
Jefferson didn't like what HALF the federal judges did in his second year as president.
Do you know what he did? And what will be done again this year?
As per the constitution, he had congress simply abolish the courts he didn't like. That is what the constitution says to do.
We will be doing that in about two years. As soon as the domestic agenda is either won or lost.
The congress simply fires the entire court that it doesn't like.
Surprise!!!!
Not too many people know that this is the way it works. But it does.
Much to the chagrin of commie judges everywhere. Grin.
They are on their way out, and Europe will just have to crap their pants and suffer through more government of the people, by the people and for the people. Sorry.
04 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by Nyxieyour definition is not as good as the common usage:
I have thought of another example of doublethink/speak :
To keep "revisionist judges" from interpreting the constitution in a way that is contrary to others perceptions, we are going to pass an amendment to the constitution.
This idea and philosophy is contradictory even unto itself.
Nyxie
there are different concepts and different words are required for the different concepts.
doublespeak and doublethink are totally different things.
oxymoron and doublethink have a little in common : contradiction.
oxymoron has contradiction within a word or very short phrase ... doublethink has contradiction within a larger text.
doublespeak does not require contradiction ... it simply involves a kind of code ... the politicians don't like to say the truth blatantly so they use prettier, code words to describe their ideas ... it demands the listener read between the lines to understand their meaning ... then, of course, the politicians can later simply say that you are reading too much into their words if they want to detach themselves from the speech later.
doublethink is not the same as doublespeak.
doublethink is very dangerous for politicians.
you will see that this speech has the doublethink safely behind a firewall of doublespeak ... and so it will never harm GWB politically or legally.
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by flexmoreHave you read 1984? It's doubleplusgood.
your definition is not as good as the common usage:
there are different concepts and different words are required for the different concepts.
doublespeak and doublethink are totally different things.
oxymoron and doublethink have a little in common : contradiction.
doublespeak does not require contradiction ... it simply involves a kind of code ...[text shortened]... to detach themselves from the speech later.
doublethink is not the same as doublespeak.
I never said they were the same. I was simply trying to give examples. Put them in whatever category you wish.
Nyxie
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by Nyxiei haVE READ IT.
Have you read 1984? It's doubleplusgood.
I never said they were the same. I was simply trying to give examples. Put them in whatever category you wish.
Nyxie
it did originate "doublethink" but not doublespeak.
http://www.answers.com/doublespeak&r=67
"
History of the Term
The word doublespeak was coined in the early 1950s. It is often incorrectly attributed to George Orwell and his dystopian novel Nineteen Eighty-Four. The word actually never appears in that novel; Orwell did, however, coin newspeak, oldspeak, and doublethink, and his novel made fashionable composite nouns with speak as the second element, which were previously unknown in English. It was therefore just a matter of time before someone came up with doublespeak. Doublespeak may be considered, in Orwell's lexicography, as the B vocabulary of Newspeak, words "deliberately constructed for political purposes: words, that is to say, which not only had in every case a political implication, but were intended to impose a desirable mental attitude upon the person using them."
"
04 Feb 05
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI just responed to what you asked ME. Sorry.
Look. I think we are just not on the same page. Maybe it is my fault. If so, I apologize. You can take what you will from it. I am just not sure why you attack me for no reason.
You seem to make a huge effort to avoid being clear. What do you think I asked you? Please copy-paste the question in my own words, clearly labelling it as the question you answered 'yes' to, if you wouldn't mind. I ask this with all due respect; I am honestly confused about what you thought I asked you.
By the way... did you notice that my post was not to you on this one? Thought not.
Yes I did. As you pointed out, there's nothing wrong with a third party answering a question not directed at him on this public forum. Don't be condescending.
I don't attack you for no reason. I have good reasons for my attacks. If you'd like, I will tell you what they are. Pick a particular attack and I will give you the reasons I attacked you that time.
06 Feb 05
2 edits
Originally posted by flexmoreGiggle.
your definition is not as good as the common usage:
there are different concepts and different words are required for the different concepts.
doublespeak and doublethink are totally different things.
oxymoron and doublethink have ...[text shortened]... blespeak ... and so it will never harm GWB politically or legally.
Double speak and double think are both just silly things that mean people chose "maybe" instead of yes or no.
But I forget. You are by definition "Flexible". Flexmore. Flexless. Makes no diff. Flex still has no reason to arrive at what is real. It just keeps flexing to prove it is a thing of power. Chimpness on it's best day.