Dan,
The definition of "used" is not "cast in a vote". It is "employed". One way a
permanent member of the UN Security Council can can use its right to veto a
resolution is to threaten to actually veto the resolution, thus hoping to
forestall the resolution from coming to a vote (otherwise, why not simply let
it come to a vote, then simply veto the resolution). The stated intention to
veto was a threat, and in that way the veto (power) was used. It requires
extra work to not understand this. So, I say, it is disingenuous to claim that
the French government didn't use their veto (power). That is not a judgement
of whether they should have. It's just an acknowledgment of how they used it.
> b) You are interpreting "used" as "presented as a possibility or threat to
> influence the actions of others." This has some merit, but is pretty
> clearly a secondary definition.
I didn't realize definitions had ranks. Who assigns these?
> c) Using the primary, or direct, definition is hardly disingenuous.
Gerard was attempting to refute the assertion that the French government had
"used" their veto. Since the so-called "secondary" definition was clearly the
meaning in the original assertion, and was factually accurate, to deny that
this is what happened is disingenuous.
>
> d) Please explain your use of "extreme". The only thing I see that is
> "extreme" is your use of the word itself.
Perhaps, but Gerard was being cute, and it irritated me.
>
> Seriously, since this whole debate is about opinions, wouldn't it be more
> civil, and thereby perhaps more effective, to simply say, "IMO the veto was
> used, in the sense that the threat of a veto was employed to influence
> actions of other countries."
Again, perhaps I could have been more gentile, but that would not (IMO) have
been more effective in refuting Gerard's specious refutation - the veto was
used, precisely in the sense you state, and for that purpose, which was the
original assertion (not mine, but the way). And again, that doesn't imply a
judgement of the French government's action.
>
> Then we empty-headed liberals wouldn't find it so easy to pick your logic
> apart. <g>
a) I had not, until you so labeled yourself, assumed you to be empty-headed or
liberal, and don't understand what your political orientation has to do with
this discussion. <g back atcha>
b) You have not demonstrated to me that my logic was flawed, let alone that
you had "picked it apart". If my comment to Gerard was not civil (which I
don't necessarily tumble to, but seeing as how I'm far from perfect, I'll admit
is possible), that in no way diminishes (or enhances) its validity.
I do commend you on an articulate and largely unrhetorical (I may have just
coined this word) attempt to do so, though. <G>
Joe
>
> Dan Covill
>
[excessive quoting removed by server]
©2003 Joe De Ville |
