|
On August 13 2017 14:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 13:48 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:On August 13 2017 13:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 13 2017 12:12 Karis Vas Ryaar wrote:
whats the rule with tipping if your picking up takeout. Or if your at like a burger place? I never know what I'm supposed to do. (United States) In the US I never tip unless I'm being serviced. If they deliver food to your table/house then they get a tip. If you are doing the work of getting the food then there is no tip. What I can't stand is people who don't tip drivers (Taxi/Lyft/Uber/etc...) okay thanks. I've been tipping regardless just because I didn't want to make anyone mad You're "technically" able to tip anyone you want for any reason. I've kept my focus on the type of service provided mainly because I am not rich enough to tip 100% of the people I engage with. I don't tip hotdog stands and I don't tip McDonalds--for example. I do tip bellboys, transportation, hotel cleaners, etc... Because they provide me a service I am "tipping" for.
okay. Yeah traditionally I don't tip most fast food places. but take out and some of the nicer ones i have been. makes sense
|
|
|
Dafuq, when I'm the one driving to pick up my food, I never tip at the counter. Cross out the tip fill-in blank and write down the original price on the slip of paper they ask you to sign when you pay with a card. In fact, I think I should tip myself instead for delivering my own food.
If it's delivered to your door or at a restaurant being served by a waiter/bartender, tipping is pretty much mandatory there.
|
|
|
Tipping is just so fucking weird.
The rules for when it is socially expected to tip, and how much, are so weirdly complicated, and change so much from country to country to. Usually tipping in the situations where it is expected is almost compulsory, but they don't outright say it, they just look at you with contempt, and if you don't tip enough the next pizza you order is gonna be cold when it reaches you. I hate the whole thing. I wish they would just put the expected tip on the bill instead of me having to navigate this complicated labyrinth of arcane rules.
|
Tipping here in the US is another mechanism through which the low wage service industry continues to balloon. That said, I always tip well if service is at least reasonably good.
|
On August 13 2017 20:01 Simberto wrote:
Tipping is just so fucking weird.
The rules for when it is socially expected to tip, and how much, are so weirdly complicated, and change so much from country to country to. Usually tipping in the situations where it is expected is almost compulsory, but they don't outright say it, they just look at you with contempt, and if you don't tip enough the next pizza you order is gonna be cold when it reaches you. I hate the whole thing. I wish they would just put the expected tip on the bill instead of me having to navigate this complicated labyrinth of arcane rules.
Agreed, countries where it is expected that you tip unless they spit in your food could just add it to the bill and make it much easier for everybody. Is it just working on the F2P model where a few whales makes it worthwhile to keep it up? Basically have low prices for the normal customer and the random big tippers fund the employees with volume from the low prices?
|
On August 13 2017 20:01 Simberto wrote:
Tipping is just so fucking weird.
The rules for when it is socially expected to tip, and how much, are so weirdly complicated, and change so much from country to country to. Usually tipping in the situations where it is expected is almost compulsory, but they don't outright say it, they just look at you with contempt, and if you don't tip enough the next pizza you order is gonna be cold when it reaches you. I hate the whole thing. I wish they would just put the expected tip on the bill instead of me having to navigate this complicated labyrinth of arcane rules.
Its a sales function.
Lots of states in the midwest pay next to nothing (I'm talking $2-$3 an hour) and their "commission" is expected to be through tips. Tables are their customers and it is up to them to convince the customers to "pay them" for their service--through tipping.
Car Salesmen have a similar deal where they are payed per car. Recruiters payed per hire. And so forth.
So in those towns you either work fast food and have minimum wage, or you work as a waiter and "potentially" earn more than minimum wage if you "pull your bootstraps" and "work" for it.
It's America's worst form of torture.
|
On August 13 2017 15:12 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 14:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 13 2017 04:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then? Do you only read other people's posts selectively? I literally wrote what I would define a warlord is, on the immediate post after yours previously. In any case, the poiint still stands. You make up definitions and then argue for it, completely ignoring how the word is used and defined in both everyday use and academically. You are the only person using such definition, therefore it can only be said that you are only interested in communicating with yourself. On August 13 2017 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Duterte is warlord because his police state actively assassinates citizens, because he himself is killing citizens. This is despite the Philippines having a constitution, checks and balances. This is despite him being elected. By your own definition, Duterte is not a warlord, unless you are yet again using your own definitions for words in your own defintion.. Since reading comprehension is hard for you, let me repeat what was already brought up in the prior page. You said: But I would say no, being a warlord implies that military power is the sole focus of the leader with no interest or subservience to the country/natio/state. Otherwise you might as well say that Eisenhower/Hitler/Stalin was a warlord of WW2. Which was an idea I found interesting, but whose conclusion felt weak. Hence why I asked. What about first world leaders who use war to maintain the status quo? Bush and Iraq, Clinton and Bosnia, Bush and Iraq, Obama and Iraq, Etc... do leaders who use war to maintain the power dynamics where they are on top of the food Chain count as being a warlord? In regards to your thesis of “ warlord implies that military power is the sole focus.” Because I found your concept intriguing, I wanted to explore it further. Then JimmiC jumped in telling me that the answer was no. Which was confusing, because I had multiple ideas in my thread. And hence I asked a clarifying question. On August 12 2017 05:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
No matter how desperately you want it no. For all the reasons above you seem to ignore. Which one is a no? That warlords use military might to enforce control or that the US has been using military might to enforce rule in the Middle East? Which do you think is not true? Wherein I clarify if he is saying “no” to your idea that military might is the sole focus of a warlord, or if he is saying that 1st world countries in the US don't use or focus on military might. You then intrude with a Lewis Carol poem, implying that I was twisting definitions. Not wanting to troll—I asked you point blank. On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then? Right now, JimmiC's definition does not match your own according to his wiki-link, which describes warlords engaged in everything from running of the state (“Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies”), has interest in economics (“an institution governing political order that uses violence or the threat of it to secure its access to "rent"-producing resources”), and inter-party politics (“Under the feudal system of Europe, nobility--whether feudal lords, knights, princes or barons--were warlords”). The link does fit my idea of a warlord; a leader who using military means to get what they want. I even clarify and contextualize my definition further when talking to xM(Z On August 12 2017 15:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 14:50 xM(Z wrote:
the jist of your argument is: are warlords born or made?. Archeon covers the former while Thieving Magpie the later.
if you figure that out, it's done.
(definitions are guidelines, what should Trump all here is the time spent being one; status can't be denied by technicalities) Much agreed. Its like Pornography--you'll know it when you see it. Where it is apparent that the idea of a warlord is more vague to describe but more simple to understand. In fact, confusion only comes when you place the rules and restrictions that prevents that abstraction; such as when JimmiC let his xenophobic side show when he said: Duterte is closer then when you were trying to say obama clinton Where he somehow believes that presidents elected in different countries are treated differently when it comes to calling them a warlord. Sure, Duterte argues he's having a war on drugs while Obama was having a war on terrorism—but somehow he feels one is “more” warlordy than the other simply because... He doesn't actually say. So, going back to you, being that you don't actually read this discussion and its apparent your ability to track the dialogue is poor at best and sad at worst—what exactly is your problem with me? You ignore my questions, jump in on a discussion you were not part of, and when you're asked to clarify why you jumped in you somehow argue that I am changing definitions of words despite the wiki of that word fitting my definition more than it fits yours? Are you just trying to troll or do you just go ape-shit upon seeing my name? Calm down man, this is a video game website. You need to chill out. Lol how do you write the longest post ive read and then finish with that? Projection much? I didn't write no. That was one of the other many posters disagreeing with you but i understand the confusion there is many disagreeing. I wrote a simple definition of warlord then i followed up with the link to show more detail when they go into great detail they still dont name any of the american presidents you listed. And explain why if you read it just for info instead of just cherry picking what few random sentances you think MAY somewhat agree with you. I wondered after your moving the goal posts and strawman when you would get to your other old standby of poisoning the well. Xenophobe this time at least you showed a little creativity. I think he is closer because he has lead death squads and has also said he hopes to be like hitler and kill 3 million drug dealers. That being said i still do not consider him a warlord. For the many reasons in my and many others posts. On a side note trolling magpie, when over 5 people suggest you may be wrong have you ever considered the possibility you may be? This happens fairly often on here and i rarely if ever see someone support your position. Also its not always me against you. Just a thought but maybe take a breath and think hmmm maybe i could be a little off this time. Im also not sure why you're so invested and passionate about us agreeing with the definition you made up on the term warlord? Would it not be easier to just look up the existing definition?
You didn't say no?
On August 12 2017 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
No matter how desperately you want it no. For all the reasons above you seem to ignore.
Oh wait, you did.
Selective memory is selective I guess... I wonder what other habits you have that are selective.
The post was not about you. No need to jump in. I was asked a question whose thread simply included you because you jumped into the question I asked him. Much like most of this thread, you enjoy jumping into my conversations, yell about poisoning the well, brag about your wife and friends reading your TL Posts, and then ask me why I keep arguing with you. Its a bit tedious and is against the point of this thread. If you feel slighted even when I'm not talking to you just PM, otherwise stop tainting this forum.
|
On August 13 2017 20:34 Yurie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 20:01 Simberto wrote:
Tipping is just so fucking weird.
The rules for when it is socially expected to tip, and how much, are so weirdly complicated, and change so much from country to country to. Usually tipping in the situations where it is expected is almost compulsory, but they don't outright say it, they just look at you with contempt, and if you don't tip enough the next pizza you order is gonna be cold when it reaches you. I hate the whole thing. I wish they would just put the expected tip on the bill instead of me having to navigate this complicated labyrinth of arcane rules. Agreed, countries where it is expected that you tip unless they spit in your food could just add it to the bill and make it much easier for everybody. Is it just working on the F2P model where a few whales makes it worthwhile to keep it up? Basically have low prices for the normal customer and the random big tippers fund the employees with volume from the low prices?
Tipping is weird because employers are seen as "enabling" waiters the "opportunity" to make money. The goal is for employers to have zero to low cost increases, and putting the onus on the waiter to make their own money. Increasing the cost of the bill to compensate the employee makes it harder on the employer who is hoping to not pay the employee at all. Its fucked up.
|
|
|
On August 14 2017 00:21 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On August 13 2017 23:59 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 13 2017 15:12 JimmiC wrote:On August 13 2017 14:13 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 13 2017 04:44 Dangermousecatdog wrote:On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then? Do you only read other people's posts selectively? I literally wrote what I would define a warlord is, on the immediate post after yours previously. In any case, the poiint still stands. You make up definitions and then argue for it, completely ignoring how the word is used and defined in both everyday use and academically. You are the only person using such definition, therefore it can only be said that you are only interested in communicating with yourself. On August 13 2017 00:40 Thieving Magpie wrote:
Duterte is warlord because his police state actively assassinates citizens, because he himself is killing citizens. This is despite the Philippines having a constitution, checks and balances. This is despite him being elected. By your own definition, Duterte is not a warlord, unless you are yet again using your own definitions for words in your own defintion.. Since reading comprehension is hard for you, let me repeat what was already brought up in the prior page. You said: But I would say no, being a warlord implies that military power is the sole focus of the leader with no interest or subservience to the country/natio/state. Otherwise you might as well say that Eisenhower/Hitler/Stalin was a warlord of WW2. Which was an idea I found interesting, but whose conclusion felt weak. Hence why I asked. What about first world leaders who use war to maintain the status quo? Bush and Iraq, Clinton and Bosnia, Bush and Iraq, Obama and Iraq, Etc... do leaders who use war to maintain the power dynamics where they are on top of the food Chain count as being a warlord? In regards to your thesis of “ warlord implies that military power is the sole focus.” Because I found your concept intriguing, I wanted to explore it further. Then JimmiC jumped in telling me that the answer was no. Which was confusing, because I had multiple ideas in my thread. And hence I asked a clarifying question. On August 12 2017 05:06 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
No matter how desperately you want it no. For all the reasons above you seem to ignore. Which one is a no? That warlords use military might to enforce control or that the US has been using military might to enforce rule in the Middle East? Which do you think is not true? Wherein I clarify if he is saying “no” to your idea that military might is the sole focus of a warlord, or if he is saying that 1st world countries in the US don't use or focus on military might. You then intrude with a Lewis Carol poem, implying that I was twisting definitions. Not wanting to troll—I asked you point blank. On August 12 2017 08:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 05:50 Dangermousecatdog wrote:
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that’s all.” Do you have a different definition then? Right now, JimmiC's definition does not match your own according to his wiki-link, which describes warlords engaged in everything from running of the state (“Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies”), has interest in economics (“an institution governing political order that uses violence or the threat of it to secure its access to "rent"-producing resources”), and inter-party politics (“Under the feudal system of Europe, nobility--whether feudal lords, knights, princes or barons--were warlords”). The link does fit my idea of a warlord; a leader who using military means to get what they want. I even clarify and contextualize my definition further when talking to xM(Z On August 12 2017 15:39 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 14:50 xM(Z wrote:
the jist of your argument is: are warlords born or made?. Archeon covers the former while Thieving Magpie the later.
if you figure that out, it's done.
(definitions are guidelines, what should Trump all here is the time spent being one; status can't be denied by technicalities) Much agreed. Its like Pornography--you'll know it when you see it. Where it is apparent that the idea of a warlord is more vague to describe but more simple to understand. In fact, confusion only comes when you place the rules and restrictions that prevents that abstraction; such as when JimmiC let his xenophobic side show when he said: Duterte is closer then when you were trying to say obama clinton Where he somehow believes that presidents elected in different countries are treated differently when it comes to calling them a warlord. Sure, Duterte argues he's having a war on drugs while Obama was having a war on terrorism—but somehow he feels one is “more” warlordy than the other simply because... He doesn't actually say. So, going back to you, being that you don't actually read this discussion and its apparent your ability to track the dialogue is poor at best and sad at worst—what exactly is your problem with me? You ignore my questions, jump in on a discussion you were not part of, and when you're asked to clarify why you jumped in you somehow argue that I am changing definitions of words despite the wiki of that word fitting my definition more than it fits yours? Are you just trying to troll or do you just go ape-shit upon seeing my name? Calm down man, this is a video game website. You need to chill out. Lol how do you write the longest post ive read and then finish with that? Projection much? I didn't write no. That was one of the other many posters disagreeing with you but i understand the confusion there is many disagreeing. I wrote a simple definition of warlord then i followed up with the link to show more detail when they go into great detail they still dont name any of the american presidents you listed. And explain why if you read it just for info instead of just cherry picking what few random sentances you think MAY somewhat agree with you. I wondered after your moving the goal posts and strawman when you would get to your other old standby of poisoning the well. Xenophobe this time at least you showed a little creativity. I think he is closer because he has lead death squads and has also said he hopes to be like hitler and kill 3 million drug dealers. That being said i still do not consider him a warlord. For the many reasons in my and many others posts. On a side note trolling magpie, when over 5 people suggest you may be wrong have you ever considered the possibility you may be? This happens fairly often on here and i rarely if ever see someone support your position. Also its not always me against you. Just a thought but maybe take a breath and think hmmm maybe i could be a little off this time. Im also not sure why you're so invested and passionate about us agreeing with the definition you made up on the term warlord? Would it not be easier to just look up the existing definition? You didn't say no? On August 12 2017 03:14 JimmiC wrote:
No matter how desperately you want it no. For all the reasons above you seem to ignore. Oh wait, you did. Selective memory is selective I guess... I wonder what other habits you have that are selective. The post was not about you. No need to jump in. I was asked a question whose thread simply included you because you jumped into the question I asked him. Much like most of this thread, you enjoy jumping into my conversations, yell about poisoning the well, brag about your wife and friends reading your TL Posts, and then ask me why I keep arguing with you. Its a bit tedious and is against the point of this thread. If you feel slighted even when I'm not talking to you just PM, otherwise stop tainting this forum. I didnt say just no. Like some one above me had. Everyone jumps in, like yourself. No one goes "trolling magpie what is your thoughts on..." But because of how amazing and wonderful you think you are you think they are talking to you. I say poisoning the well because its a logical fallacy you fall back on. Maybe unlike warlord dont guess what it means but look it up. Infact you did it again. I have pmd you in the past. Guess what that post you just posted could have been a pm, but your need for the last public word wont let you. Like every topic ive had a discussion with you, there are 4-7 with a similar view as mine and you with you. Maybe you should take your own angry advice. Ill move on. Can you? Servers are starting to earn amazing cash here as minimum wage is rising to 15 bucks a hour and people tip 15-20% generally
Don't shit talk Acrofales just because he was being specific with his answers; it was great.
On August 11 2017 17:43 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 11 2017 11:44 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 11 2017 10:05 Shiragaku wrote:
I was reading up a bit on the Warlord Era of China and warlordism in the Congo and Roman Republic came to mind. Do you think it is more fair to categorize people like Crasus, Caesar, and Pompey as warlords more than anything? And now that I think about it, is it fair to say that the German princes during the 30 Years War were basically warlords as well?
So most of medieval and classic history consisted of civilized warlords? Are there leaders of wars who are not warlords? Like, if you were in a leadership position during a war you were part of, doesn't that automatically make you a warlord? No... Sorry. I meant: Yes. No...
I had two questions. He first stated No, showing his disagreement of the my entire post, and then he broke it down to be more accurate. Yes he says, there are leaders of wars who are not warlords. And then no he says, you're not a warlord if you were a leader in war.
His answers were succinct and precise.
You said "no" mid-discussion where I was asking clarifying questions--hence the need for my follow up question asking for specifics of which part of what I was discussing you were saying no to.
Don't accuse another poster for your ineptitude.
Also, repeating exactly what you have already said and describing the actions you have already taken is not poisoning the well--it is literally telling people what you've said and what you've done. Just read the damn definition: is a fallacy where irrelevant adverse information about a target is preemptively presented to an audience. I cannot pre-emptively state things you've already stated in this thread. That's like accusing you for posting in a Starcraft forum, its a known quantity. Repeating your own arguments to you is not poisoning the well because it is your own arguments that you have used against me to somehow make you feel better. If your own actions make you sound discredited, that is not my fault for you bringing it up in the first place.
|
Jesus, my question was suppose to be lighthearted, I did not expect it to become this serious.
On the topic of war I guess, this was something that made me curious from the Brood War days.
How the hell do Terran and Zerg players put up with the game? ZvT is really rough for Zerg and ZvZ is super boring making ZvP the only fun MU. TvP is very difficult for Terran, TvT is long and tedious, but TvZ is fun I guess. So basically, 33% of your MUs are fun.
With Protoss, PvZ is super fun, PvT is fun because we control the game, and PvP is probably the most enjoyable mirror matchup to watch.
|
On August 14 2017 04:16 Shiragaku wrote:
Jesus, my question was suppose to be lighthearted, I did not expect it to become this serious.
On the topic of war I guess, this was something that made me curious from the Brood War days.
How the hell do Terran and Zerg players put up with the game? ZvT is really rough for Zerg and ZvZ is super boring making ZvP the only fun MU. TvP is very difficult for Terran, TvT is long and tedious, but TvZ is fun I guess. So basically, 33% of your MUs are fun.
With Protoss, PvZ is super fun, PvT is fun because we control the game, and PvP is probably the most enjoyable mirror matchup to watch.
It's a lot easier to watch and play with nostalgia.
|
On August 12 2017 12:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one I have never read that definition--where did you find it? I guess that would mean that all the countries in Africa who are having civil wars are not actually warlords because they're trying to unify the state under one rule?
i found it in this old beat up notebook someone left, scrawled in green ink
|
On August 14 2017 15:25 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On August 12 2017 12:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one I have never read that definition--where did you find it? I guess that would mean that all the countries in Africa who are having civil wars are not actually warlords because they're trying to unify the state under one rule? i found it in this old beat up notebook someone left, scrawled in green ink
So warlord can go on an office, write down a constitution, and presto; they're no longer warlords? Sounds like a very loose definition.
|
On August 14 2017 22:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 15:25 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2017 12:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one I have never read that definition--where did you find it? I guess that would mean that all the countries in Africa who are having civil wars are not actually warlords because they're trying to unify the state under one rule? i found it in this old beat up notebook someone left, scrawled in green ink So warlord can go on an office, write down a constitution, and presto; they're no longer warlords? Sounds like a very loose definition.
It seems to be your shtick. You pick a word with a vague definition, and then amorphously pick different versions in every one of your posts. So, because apparenlty my initial succinct response wasn't enough to nip this ridiculous discussion in the bud, lets go.
First and foremost, "warlord" and "warlordism" are not just vague, you could argue that the very first use was explicitly underdefined and used to capture all the bad things about British imperialism. But here is wikipedia's disclaimer about the topic:
Although warlords were present historically in either pre-modern states or "weak state" societies, and in countries designated "weak states" or "failed states" in modern times, there is a tremendous degree of variance in the political, economic and societal organization, structure and institutions in states where warlordism exists. There is also a divergence of opinion within the field of political science as to what specifically constitutes warlordism, particularly in the context of the historical setting.
And this kinda thing usually happens when any clear definition leads to inconsistencies (usually of the form that you keep dredging up with "oh, so if warlordism is defined as X, then Y must be a warlord", where Y would not be a warlord according to whoever came up with definition X. So yes, it is a vague term and instead of defining it you should just continue to use the word as "I don't know what warlordism is, but I know it when I see it".
And then, no, modern democratic leaders are not warLORDS even if they are warMONGERS.
|
On August 14 2017 22:24 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On August 14 2017 22:12 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 14 2017 15:25 IgnE wrote:On August 12 2017 12:37 Thieving Magpie wrote:On August 12 2017 09:09 IgnE wrote:
warlords don't have constitutions for one I have never read that definition--where did you find it? I guess that would mean that all the countries in Africa who are having civil wars are not actually warlords because they're trying to unify the state under one rule? i found it in this old beat up notebook someone left, scrawled in green ink So warlord can go on an office, write down a constitution, and presto; they're no longer warlords? Sounds like a very loose definition. It seems to be your shtick. You pick a word with a vague definition, and then amorphously pick different versions in every one of your posts. So, because apparenlty my initial succinct response wasn't enough to nip this ridiculous discussion in the bud, lets go. First and foremost, "warlord" and "warlordism" are not just vague, you could argue that the very first use was explicitly underdefined and used to capture all the bad things about British imperialism. But here is wikipedia's disclaimer about the topic: Show nested quote +Although warlords were present historically in either pre-modern states or "weak state" societies, and in countries designated "weak states" or "failed states" in modern times, there is a tremendous degree of variance in the political, economic and societal organization, structure and institutions in states where warlordism exists. There is also a divergence of opinion within the field of political science as to what specifically constitutes warlordism, particularly in the context of the historical setting. And this kinda thing usually happens when any clear definition leads to inconsistencies (usually of the form that you keep dredging up with "oh, so if warlordism is defined as X, then Y must be a warlord", where Y would not be a warlord according to whoever came up with definition X. So yes, it is a vague term and instead of defining it you should just continue to use the word as "I don't know what warlordism is, but I know it when I see it". And then, no, modern democratic leaders are not warLORDS even if they are warMONGERS.
I'm simply trying to understand Igne's definition more than anything else. I'm fairly comfortable with my definition as you are fairly comfortable with yours.
But when someone comes in and places specific requirements into what is or isn't a warlord--I am simply asking them to see the logical conclusion of it. Hence why statements such as "Warlords don't have constitutions" rings untrue to me. I don't see any variables that negates people from being a warlord, and am certain than any attempt to list specific requirements or disqualifications will quickly yield examples for and against those strict adherences. However, I am not the one making the claim that people with constitutions aren't warlords, simple asking why it is that Igne would thing that it would be that easy to disqualify yourself from being a warlord.
|
well if you can make up definitions for "warlords" you can make up definitions for "constitutions." it's turtles all the way down dude
|
Can you make up a definition for 'definition'?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
