posted
My husband and friends tell me I should stop thinking all the time. Never used the word unacceptable though- more like obnoxious and annoying.
Posts: 1001 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd say no... If you can't think of something, how can you try to see both sides of the argument?
Posts: 1355 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps when you're standing before Gozer the Gozarian and are asked to choose the form of your destruction?
Posts: 3960 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It is unacceptable to think of a situation where "It is unacceptable to think ..." is a responsible start to a sentence.
Posts: 2827 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: - In a speech given by the President of the United States
Oh wait, I'm not so sure about that last one.
The words "think" and "President" should rarely be used in the same sentence. Unless the President got someone different to write his speeches.
Posts: 6026 | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Steve, President Bush wasn't talking about himself thinking, but rather telling us what is and is not acceptable to think.
Of, if I were writing an Onion article: In a bold new move today, President Bush continued his administration's expansion of the power of the executive branch by laying claim to jurisdiction over the innermost thoughts of the American populace.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet.
No, it's not. It's wrong and pretty awful, but people are actually allowed to hold that thought in their mind.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
How about a situation where you must act quickly? So quickly, in fact, that it would be unacceptable to take the time to think about your action?
Posts: 1810 | Registered: Jan 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:No, it's not. It's wrong and pretty awful, but people are actually allowed to hold that thought in their mind.
Yes, but it's possible (acceptable, even) to say that sentence using a different definition of "think" and "unacceptable" than you seem to be using here.
"Unacceptable" is often use specifically to express "disfavored in society" not rising to the level of forbidding, and "think" is often used to mean "hold the opinion that."
"That is unacceptable behavior," for example, is often used to condemn acts that are not against the rules but are rude or otherwise have a negative effect on those who witness them.
"I think that you are an idiot" is more often used to mean "I hold the opinion that you are an idiot" than "a thought is present in my mind that you are an idiot."
So "It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet" can be rewritten "It is disfavored society to hold the opinion that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dagonee: It is unacceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet.
Not only is that an acceptable thought, and a hypothesis that deserves trial, but it might actually be accurate. Without Nazi Germany, would American eugenics interests have been checked? Would the Soviet Union have had an opponent in Europe, or might they have expanded eastward without an invading Hitler on their western front? Would America's industrial base had their WWII jumpstart, and would we be able to develop into the power we became if we'd had substantial competition from Europe or Japan for the next half-century? Hell, would Germany have lost if they had a sane leader guiding them?
It's not unacceptable at all. Only six million Jews died in concentration camps because of Hitler -- how many more people might have suffered if Hitler never existed?
Posts: 3293 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I strongly disagree with your usage of unacceptable. It is used to mean either this thing is not or at the very least should not be allowed.
That being said, I did post this a bit quickly after reading the President's remarks where he presumed to tell the country that it is not acceptable to think certain things and didn't stop to think about all the potential usages of the words.
On reflection, even using the definition I had above, I can think of limited situations where that statement could be responsible.
Of course, I'm pretty sure these usages would be using very different definitions and very different contexts than the President's statement. Do you disagree?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Not only is that an acceptable thought, and a hypothesis that deserves trial
Once again, "think" does not mean only "have a thought in one's mind." It also means to hold as a belief.
And that belief is not acceptable - acceptable here not meaning "something we allow" but rather something pleasing to the receiver. Even if the statement were true, I bet I can find millions of people to whom such a belief will not be acceptable.
I'm not saying that the hypothesis can't be considered. The way I'm using the words - very common uses of the words, I might add - means something very different.
If you want to explain how it can't mean what I've said, be my guest. As it is, you're arguing about something else entirely.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:It is used to mean either this thing is not or at the very least should not be allowed.
Yes, it is used like that. Sometimes.
However, it is NOT used like that every time it is used. Not by a long shot.
quote:Of course, I'm pretty sure these usages would be using very different definitions and very different contexts than the President's statement. Do you disagree?
I have no idea what statement you're referring to. Perhaps you'd like to link and quote it, and then explain why that statement is irresponsible.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think that your usage of unacceptable is a very common one. I don't think it is one at all. But as I said, ultimately, I can think of something like, "In the service of the Jewish anti-defamation league, it's unaccceptable to think that the Nazis were a force for good on the planet."
Of course, Lalo was reacting to the statement as if it took the same form as that from President Bush, which, barring other circumstances, I think is the default form such a statement would generally be parsed as.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:QUESTION: Mr. President, former Secretary of State Colin Powell says, "The world is beginning to doubt the moral basis of our fight against terrorism." If a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and former secretary of state feels this way, don't you think that Americans and the rest of the world are beginning to wonder whether you're following a flawed strategy?
BUSH: If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic.
It's just -- I simply can't accept that.
It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
quote:It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
I think it's clear he's not using "unacceptable" in the "should not be allowed" sense.
Read the line above: "It's just -- I simply can't accept that."
Which is the literal definition of unacceptable.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Whatever. I don't think it is, but I really don't care to argue the point. Shouldn't have really gotten into it in the first place.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's a shame he thinks it's unacceptable, though. Because if he were able to accept the thought, he might actually see that his "kill innocent women and children" bit isn't the isolating factor he thinks it is.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Whatever. I don't think it is, but I really don't care to argue the point. Shouldn't have really gotten into it in the first place.
You started the thread. You don't want to discuss with people who disagree with you?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think people tend to say that when they don't literally mean, "I can't accept the thought."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care to argue about the usages of the word "unacceptable". I don't think Dag's usage is correct. You disagree. I'm okay with that. I see no reason to continue on with a "Is too", "Is not" exchange.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Icky, You think we shouldn't let people even consider these things?
I would have interpreted Icarus's statement, coming so soon after his previous post, to mean he thought the president was using the other meaning of "unacceptable," not the "shouldn't be allowed" meaning. That's just me, though.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: Icky, You think we shouldn't let people even consider these things?
No, that is not what I mean. As has been noted, I don't think Bush is talking about what should be allowed. I think you are being too literal. What I think is that the thought that the actions of the American military, taken as a whole, are analogous to those of the terrorists, is absurd on the face of it.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:I see no reason to continue on with a "Is too", "Is not" exchange.
It's more like, "Here's several examples and explanations of usage that suggest it is," "is not" exchange.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I don't care to argue about the usages of the word "unacceptable". I don't think Dag's usage is correct. You disagree. I'm okay with that. I see no reason to continue on with a "Is too", "Is not" exchange.
Fair enough, but wasn't the usage of the word "unacceptable" pretty much what the whole discussion hinged on?
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
I mean that if Bush were to accept the possibility that our behavior and the behavior of our enemies might be compared in some way, then he wouldn't have identified as the major difference between us the fact that they've killed innocent women and children in pursuit of a cause.
Because here's the thing: so have we. We've done EXACTLY that. By this point, we've probably killed more innocent women and children (and men) than they have.
So it's not the death of non-combatants that's the problem, here; there are other distinctions being made. And I think Bush has difficulty being explicit about those distinctions precisely because, by his own admission, he's not capable of drawing ethical comparisons between our behavior and the behavior of our enemies.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think I fully understand you yet. We have killed inncent women and children and men, but generally not on purpose. I think Bush's difficulty being explicit about the moral distinctions between terrorists and the US military are simply due to his general inability to speak coherently.
And stating that there is no comparison, is, of course, a comparison.
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I think is that the thought that the actions of the American military, taken as a whole, are analogous to those of the terrorists, is absurd on the face of it.
I don't see how that statement could be, using what was actually said, said to mean that. I do accept that, ultimately, that'll be the official story of what was meant. This wasn't actually a prepared statement (well, probably not anway).
However, I think it betrays the same type of thinking as the prepared statements such about how "Responsible debate over Iraq must be limited.":
quote: The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
There has been an organized effort by this administration to declare that certain ideas are off limits, can not be brought up, and even shouldn't be considered.
The idea that it's acceptible for an American president to state during an official communication a statement that literally means that certain ideas are unacceptable to even think is not something I'm okay with.
edit: I was actually angry that he had the balls to say something like that and think that he could get away with it. Seems like other people have a different interpretation of it and he can get away with it. So, there you go.
quote:What I think is that the thought that the actions of the American military, taken as a whole, are analogous to those of the terrorists, is absurd on the face of it.
I don't see how that statement could be, using what was actually said, said to mean that.
Why not? It's the obvious interpretation to me.
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: However, I think it betrays the same type of thinking as the prepared statements such about how "Responsible debate over Iraq must be limited.":
quote: The American people know the difference between responsible and irresponsible debate when they see it. They know the difference between honest critics who question the way the war is being prosecuted and partisan critics who claim that we acted in Iraq because of oil, or because of Israel, or because we misled the American people. And they know the difference between a loyal opposition that points out what is wrong, and defeatists who refuse to see that anything is right.
There has been an organized effort by this administration to declare that certain ideas are off limits, can not be brought up, and even shouldn't be considered.
I don't see it as the same. I find the second statement far more objectionable. Even so, it's basically typical politician-speak: those who criticize our motives are not honest critics. Not different from something I might hear from a democrat under criticism from republicans.
Still, there is a big difference between saying "Those who criticize me are boogerheads" and saying "the idea that our soldiers are comparable to terrorists is absurd." (And I know, I know, that's not how you read the statement you quoted. My point is that while I agree with your larger point about this admninistration's response to criticism, I just don't think this is an example of their most objectionable tactics.)
Posts: 13680 | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:And, there, you've drawn me in to the is not, is too again.
You have a strange way of characterizing things, Squicky.
quote:The examples you offered are of things that are aginst some set of rules, not merely things that some people disapprove of.
Rules of social convention, not coercion.
If all you're saying is that President Bush said that "it is against the generally agreed-on rules of social convention..." then I'm not sure why you're so up in arms against this. Because that sentence is almost certainly true for a large portion of Bush's audience (in this new, looser sense of "allowed" you're trying to apply to my examples).
Which does not seem to be at all the sense you were using "rules" in this thread. Certainly, such an interpretation wouldn't match up with this question to Icarus: "You think we shouldn't let people even consider these things?"
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I was actually angry that he had the balls to say something like that and think that he could get away with it. Seems like other people have a different interpretation of it and he can get away with it. So, there you go.
To me, this was another instance of the stuff I quoted above or the "If you're not with us, you're against us." with Thought-Crime overtones.
It's not something I think should be let stand. To me, it should be said, specifically, that the President did not in any way, shape, or form mean to say it not allowed for American citizens to think anything.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't see how that statement could be, using what was actually said, said to mean that.
You truly don't see it? At all?
I can understand someone interpreting your way. I can understand thinking the way you've interpreted it is the most natural interpretation, even though I disagree. I can't understand how you can't, after hearing some fairly detailed explanations, see how someone else could possibly mean the other.
Literally, I can't grasp how someone with an advanced degree can't comprehend other people interpreting that statement as "the idea that our soldiers are comparable to terrorists is absurd."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Dag, The President stating in his official capacity that some thoughts are against the rules is, to me, a very bad thing. If he wants to say, it's something we should look with disfavor on, I'm still going to think it's an improper thing to say, but I'm not going to be anywhere near as incensed about it.
He can also say, as he did in the preceding bit, that it's unacceptable to him personally, but when the President says, flatly and during an official communication, that something is unaccepted, he's speaking from the office. And that's not something the office should ever be allowed to even come near.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Literally, I can't grasp how someone with an advanced degree can't comprehend other people interpreting that statement as "the idea that our soldiers are comparable to terrorists is absurd."
I can accet, taking the context, that people may assume that this was meant. I don't see that, given those actual words, that this could be the literal meaning of them. They don't mean that in any way I'm familiar with them.
Consider it this way. He writes that on a piece of paper and signs his name to it and issues it as an Executive Order. What's it mean now?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:The President stating in his official capacity that some thoughts are against the rules is, to me, a very bad thing.
I actually haven't commented on this aspect, for the very simple reason that I don't think he said this.
Again, I wish you even attempt to provide some analysis other than "I disagree" concerning the interpretation. As it stands now, you've basically said "it means this because it means this."
quote:He can also say, as he did in the preceding bit, that it's unacceptable to him personally, but when the President says, flatly and during an official communication, that something is unaccepted, he's speaking from the office.
If this is what's bothering you, then take out the line-feeds, which weren't part of his spoken words:
quote:If there's any comparison between the compassion and decency of the American people and the terrorist tactics of extremists, it's flawed logic. It's just -- I simply can't accept that. It's unacceptable to think that there's any kind of comparison between the behavior of the United States of America and the action of Islamic extremists who kill innocent women and children to achieve an objective.
It's a clear picture of someone who is astounded at the concept and is speaking of his personal thoughts about it.
"It's unacceptable" is most naturally read in the context of following "I can't accept that" as "I find this unacceptable," not "this is against the rules."
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
