Declaration of Independence found in Britain's National Archive

[Proton Soup]

Good point - I was looking for a point when pointlessness was the point.

seriously, though, much of the conversation here is because you have a pet peeve and want to argue about the word terrorist.

 

[russ_watters]

You're wrong for at least three pretty obvious reasons:

4. That's an overgeneralization of how the dictionary works anyway. It is only half of the equation:

Lexicographers apply two basic philosophies to the defining of words: prescriptive or descriptive...

The prescriptive/descriptive issue has been given so much consideration in modern times that most dictionaries of English apply the descriptive method to definitions...

Because of the broad use of dictionaries, and their acceptance by many as language authorities, their treatment of the language does affect usage to some degree, even the most descriptive dictionaries providing conservative continuity. In the long run, however, usage primarily determines the meanings of words in English, and the language is being changed and created every day.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_prescription

Examples:

While descriptivists argue that prescriptivism is an unnatural attempt to dictate usage or curtail change, prescriptivists argue that to indiscriminately document "improper" or "inferior" usages sanctions those usages by default and causes language to "deteriorate". Although the debate can become very heated, only a small number of controversial words are usually affected. But the softening of usage notations, from the previous edition, for two words, ain't and irregardless, out of over 450,000 in Webster's Third in 1961, was enough to provoke outrage among many with prescriptivist leanings, who branded the dictionary as "permissive."

The word "ain't" was just an improper contraction and the word "irregardless" just sloppyness. They were born of a natural evolution in usage only and had no definition to begin with. The word "terrorism", however, is in the dictionary and in law. It has a definition. People are just trying to screw with it for nefarious purposes.

5. If the word "terrorism" is successfully co-opted and changed in the dictionary, will it really matter in an objective discussion? Correct or incorrect usage of a word does not have anything to do with whether the act it is describing was right, wrong, or indifferent.

To me these just make the common statement just another common fallacy. (kinda like the one we were just discussing!). Anti-relativity crackpots use this fallacy when arguing about Einstein's ether speech, so while the word in question in this thread is political and legal in nature, the concept of precision of speech is important scientifically.

Irregardless - a good rule of thumb (for everyone) is that you should use words the way they are defined in the dictionary in order to avoid confusion about what you mean. And on the flip side, when someone uses a word and their usage doesn't provide additional context to the meaning, you should assume they are using the dictionary definition.

 

[Proton Soup]

dictionaries often have several definitions. speech requires context. "the" definition is rather hard to define unless maybe you're reading a medical journal, of the legal jargon in a specific legal district.

 

[FireSky86]

No. This is one of my big pet peves:

One of the global purposes of this forum is to get people to think scientifically. One important aspect of thinking scientifically is using clarity of thought and communication. Precision of wording and objective application of definitions is critical for effective scientific communication and thought. Whether done on purpose or due to carelessness, such statements as the cliche Proton Soup posted are logically flawed and wrong.

Insist on precision of wording and objective application of definitions.

That is understandable. I really did not know what to write when I said 'to each his own, you know'. I don't have a Ph.D. but I am a big fan of science. You are right in the area of being precise in the critical aspect of scientific thought. It is important in today's society that we understand this. Unfortunately, most American's do not. This can some consequences in society.

 

[cristo]

Interesting historical issue. Yes, it is obvious that France would want to help the colonists and yes, their help was essential for winning the war, but the question for the French at the time would have been more complicated than just that. It isn't necessarily useful to join a losing cause, especially if you join after the war ends: and due to the slow speed of transportation and power difference between the Brits and colonists, that was a possibility the French government had to consider.

Absolutely it would have been a difficult decision for the French, and I think the clincher was that the colonists were holding their own against the British Army. Thus the French Navy took on the Royal Navy, which would have been a very brave decision to make, given the strength of the Royal Navy at that time. The French Navy managed to hold their own, which encouraged the Spanish and the Dutch to join in.

So, by this time, the British as fighting a war against the colonists, France, Spain and Holland, and not just in North America. The sea battles took place in the English channel and the atlantic, and land battles took place around the world. The situation was then looking dire: the British army wasn't very strong, and the French had managed to weaken the Royal Navy. Couple that with the fact that the colonists were fighting with passion about something they cared about (as opposed to the Brits who were just fighting against unrest in the colonies) and the result was inevitable.

Needless to say, French involvement is given some treatment in American history classes, but not as an independent and in-depth topic. Does it get more in French schools? The issue for France would be a complex one (similar to the US's initial involvement in WWII).

I'm not sure. I wasn't even taught about the war of independence in school.