| Subject: Loaded terms |
Author:
obitchecker
|
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
Date Posted: Sun, May 17, 2009 9:29:03
In reply to:
Mercedes
's message, "Hey Everyone! Well, Obitchecker, as far as the whole world being blown up--Good! Then we can ALL go together in one big party to Heaven!" on Sun, May 10, 2009 8:08:05
From Wikipedia
Loaded language, also known as emotive language or high-inference language, is verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
Loaded words and phrases are those which have strong emotional overtones or connotations, and which evoke strongly positive or negative reactions beyond their literal meaning (Italics mine)
Now, from this definition do you really need me to tell you which words of yours fit that definition, Mercedes?
Never mind, I will anyway.
gang: strong emotional overtones or connotations, evokes strongly negative reactions beyond literal meaning.
change our whole way of life: attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion, merely stated without demonstration.
selfish: verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
Neo-Con: stated in a way that in meant to evoke strongly negative reactions beyond its literal meaning.
took advantage: verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
tried to warp and twist his Neo-Con...: verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
agenda: evokes strongly positive or negative reactions beyond its literal meaning.
turning the US laws around: verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
try and 'justify' his 'enhanced interrogation' methods: "scare quotes" are meant to evoke strongly negative reactions.
Just a bunch of 'tough cowboy diplomacy' tactics: strong emotional overtones or connotations, and which evokes strongly negative reactions beyond its literal meaning
most hated country on earth: debatable statement, and verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
DELIBERATELY LIED: also debatable (see link in above post), and verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
No WMDs: not a loaded statement but debatable as certain truth (again, see link in above post).
Neo-Con agenda: verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
at the end of a gun: verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
eye off the ball': same.
I bet the Taliban...: maybe not "loaded", but a "bet" is not a fact, statement is highly debatable.
'Democracy at the end of a gun' Neo-Con dream-turned-to-nightmare: verbiage that attempts to influence the listener or reader by appealing to emotion.
'collateral damage' of the 'war on terror': again, scare quotes (may I ask, if civilians were killed by us in Afghanistan, as is practically unavoidable as by all accounts it is standard practice for terrorists to hide in areas where they know any attack on them will take civilian lives as well, would this not also be 'collateral damage'? Or now just collateral damage?)
I could go through your other posts and give examples of loaded language in them as well, but I won't.
....the 'war on terror'(which, by the by, CAN NEVER be won, because terror is NOT a person or a place--it is an IDEA that cannot be discovered until the person who believes in it ACTS, by killing, suicide bombing, or by just advocating its use).
What are you saying, that there is no organization whatsoever to terrorism? Sure, some are acting totally independently, but most are not. And let me get this straight, are you saying we should fight the Taliban, but we can't fight Osama Bin Laden (who though protected by them was not the Taliban but the organizer of terrorism)?
And yes, I'm angry, but at a lot more than just Bush and his administration. I am angry at them for mishandling the whole situation, and for misjudging in believing that after toppling Saddam Hussein all Iraqis would quickly just cheer us and install democracy and we could move on. But I'm also angry at Bin Laden and other terrorists, and at Saddam Hussein for what he did to HIS people. And I'm angry at the American Left for many of their attitudes throughout this as well. (And now I'm starting to use loaded terms...see what anger does?) Frankly, I've got enough anger for everybody involved, but you know something, in the end, anger doesn't provide solutions, it just leads to more anger, and possibly worse. Solutions are more likely to come out of cold determination.
[
Next Thread |
Previous Thread |
Next Message |
Previous Message
]
| |
Feedback: 