Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Translation: "I'm unable to defend the rhetoric I use regularly, and so, will do everything I can to divert the topic to something I can exploit for demagoguery."
I think I'm doing a pretty good job of defending my rhetoric. You just don't like it.
And by "public trust" I mean a position in government paid by tax money.
Any president's FIRST duty is to ensure that all who work in government, as head of the executive branch, fulfill whatever duties they have, and do so with integrity and accountability.
You seriously think that is a definition of "public trust"? You think it makes sense to write, "This person holds a public trust. She is a Senator?" Really?
It's pretty apparent that this isn't what you think it means given that you were talking about the abuse of "public trust" in your sentence I quoted from another thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Tolerance of abuse of power and public trust would NOT be tolerated in any administration I ran.
I have no idea what the point is of acting like you don't know what this phrase means when you've used it correctly before.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
So, please define for me what you mean when you say "public interest".
Rand is more of a libertarian than a conservative.
American liberalism and conservatism are both authoritarian and cruel. Rand is more focused on economic self interest and human nature, not so much social agendas or religion.
Define "authoritarian".
It is true that modern liberals are extreme authoritarians, but the label generally doesn't suit conservatives.
You seriously think that is a definition of "public trust"?
You asked what I meant.
I told you what I meant.
Now are you telling me I don't know what I meant?
Or are you telling me I used the incorrect words? Are you the composition police here?
I am asking YOU to tell me what you mean when you say something is in "the public interest". It seems only fair if I have to answer your questions on what I mean when I write something, you should have to do the same. And I'm guessing that the concept of "fair" is near the top of your priorities list in terms of what you what make people do.
I'm telling you that you are being disingenuous in that you yourself have used the word "public" in the very way that you now claim is the result of faulty thinking. Sorry but you know exactly what "the public" is. Why you want to act like you don't is beyond me. Perhaps you are just killing time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwmdk
Or are you telling me I used the incorrect words? Are you the composition police here?
Commonly accepted definitions of words exist for a reason. You may want to make them up as you go to suit your purposes in the moment, but a sense of ethical argumentation should prevent you from doing so. Something to think about.
What Rand said isn't just her opinion but reality. It is how human beings are. Most people most of the time look after their own interest.
The left likes to confuse what the world should be in their view with what the world is. Of course the world then disappoints them by asserting what it really is.
Any attempt to true to coerce human nature is pointless and often with a real agenda of controlling people.
Social conservatives use religion to feel better about our world. Innocent lefties use their wishful thinking ideologies to expect a non existent better world. They can only come back and blame that humans aren't what they should be(in other words, the failure of their system).
Smart people focus on what they want. It is just stupid to sacrifice oneself for a so called better world. All you are doing is to hand power and benefits to other people who get on top of you. You have no control over who they are and what they do.
It's not that if you are poor, you are for socialism. Wanting money doesnt make you a socialist. Most people are just selfish. It's all about benefits. The poor fight one another viciously for low stakes. The only generosity you see in our world is when a rich person's interest isn't threatened by a poor person in any way. You then get the rare display of human compassion, whose existence relies on the absence of competition.
I'm telling you that you are being disingenuous in that you yourself have used the word "public" in the very way that you now claim is the result of faulty thinking. Sorry but you know exactly what "the public" is. Why you want to act like you don't is beyond me. Perhaps you are just killing time.
You really have a lot of nerve claiming I'm doing what I haven't, but you have done in this entire thread.
After all, THIS was the quote you disagreed with:
Quote:
“Since there is no such entity as 'the public,' since the public is merely a number of individuals, any claimed or implied conflict of 'the public interest' with private intersts means that the interests of some men are to be sacrificed to the interest and wishes of others.”
There is no such entity as the "the public", it is merely a reference to all individuals. And ANY claimed conflict of "public interest" with private interests means that SOME people's interests are then redefined as "the public's interest" and SOME people's interests are EXCLUDED from your definition of "the public interest".
You have consistently argued that "the public" means everyone, and yet, you precisely deny just that, and when asked to define what you mean by "public interest" you have refused, said rude and nasty things to me, and all over just been generally verbally abusive, as a way of attempting to avoid having to provide a definitive explanation of YOUR OWN MEANING.
I have no conflict or failure to understand.
Quote:
Commonly accepted definitions of words exist for a reason. You may want to make them up as you go to suit your purposes in the moment, but a sense of ethical argumentation should prevent you from doing so. Something to think about.
LOL!
Here you are, attempting to defend the "definitive" meaning of a word, while at the same time denying it, because "you know what I mean", meaning I have to accept the conditional deviations you make.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
