MSNBC's Carlson claimed Obama's sex-ed policy provides "powerful fodder to deride him"
On the July 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker, host Tucker Carlson asserted that Sen. Barack Obama's (D-IL) support of "sex education for primary school kids would seem to provide Obama's political opponents with powerful fodder to deride him, as [former Vice President] Al Gore was once derided for inventing the Internet, or [1988 Democratic presidential nominee] Michael Dukakis was once for furloughing Willie Horton."
Carlson was referring to a speech Obama gave at a July 17 Planned Parenthood event, in which he noted that Alan Keyes, his Republican opponent in the 2004 U.S. Senate election, had attacked him for "support[ing] teaching sex education to kindergartners." Obama continued: "You know, which, I didn't know what to tell him. But it's the right thing to do. You know, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools." According to a July 18 ABCNews.com report on the speech, the Obama campaign subsequently pointed to an October 6, 2004, article in the Daily Herald of suburban Chicago that reported Obama's clarification that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten." The Daily Herald article quoted Obama saying, "Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it." ABCNews.com further reported that, according to his campaign, the sex education legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois Senate supported "local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork" and "envisioned teaching kindergarteners about 'inappropriate touching.' "
As Media Matters for America has noted, Willie Horton -- an African American convict who assaulted a man and raped his fiancée after escaping a furlough from prison in Massachusetts -- was frequently invoked by the 1988 campaign of George H.W. Bush to portray Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis as soft on crime.
As Media Matters has also documented, the assertion that Gore claimed to have "invent[ed] the Internet" has been thoroughly debunked.
Carlson himself hasn't required actual "fodder to deride" Obama. In the month of July alone, Carlson has said Obama "seems like kind of a wuss," "sounds like a pothead," and gave a speech that was "kind of wimpy, " as Media Matters has noted.
From the July 19 edition of MSNBC's Tucker:
CARLSON: Welcome to the show. Senator Barack Obama is on the campaign trail. He's talking about, of all things, sex education. Senator Obama brought it up at Planned Parenthood's national conference. Here's part of what he said.
OBAMA [video clip]: I remember Alan Keyes. I ran against Alan Keyes, I don't know if you guys remember Alan Keyes. But I remember him using this in a campaign -- in his campaign against me saying, Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergartners. You know, which -- I didn't know what to tell him. But it's the right thing to do. You know, to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in the schools.
CARLSON: In other words, "I'm for it, and I'm proud of it." Is this really a good idea? The idea of sex education for primary school kids would seem to provide Obama's political opponents with powerful fodder to deride him, as Al Gore was once derided for inventing the Internet, or Michael Dukakis was once for furloughing Willie Horton. Today Obama's campaign tried to explain what he meant by the statement, telling MSNBC that his approach would, among other things, quote, "help protect children from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators."
It only provide "powerful fodder" for small narrow minded folks like Tucker and Joe.
My daughter told a story about her boss. He had his small (age 4or 5) daughter in a mountain bike shop. There were a couple of guys shopping and she was running around the store when she pulled up her dress and announced "I have a vagina". She was proud the guys laughed and life continued on. What's wrong with educating kids. No one is saying you have to use the "sex education" that you would teach teenagers but what wrong with a little education. Americans seem to have an unhealthy attitude regarding sex.
They also seem to think that if you talk about it then they're going to do it, you know, have sex. Demystify it, and everything will be all good.
If the Rightwing didn't have NON-ISSUES to "deride", God forbid, they'd have to talk about REAL issues ... war, torture, singing statements, outing CIA agents, Katrina, health care ... and all these issues are DISASTERS and the GOP "record" is disasterous for America.
So, they search for, or failing that just INVENT, things to DERIDE in their smear campaigns of personal destruction and character assassination.
Carlson is at the vangard of seeking such non-issues to distort and exploit. Face it, this is all he's GOT to try to promote "his guys". They can't win on MERITS, so they have to win by trying to tear down opponents to BELOW their own level. At this point, reaching a level BELOW the GOP is impossible.
It's 'powerful fodder' because a jackass like Carlson says so. Let the moronic moralists gather and complain that their children may learn something about sex before they get pregnant or an STD. Who's the 'wuss' Carlson? Obama or the so-called 'moralists' who don't have enough guts to talk to children in a direct and informative manner?
The only fodder here, is fodder for Tucker Carlson...
Fodder to provide the American people with a simple-minded, slap happy, brain dead look at sexuality and sex education.
Romney did try to jump all over it and said something like no one in his state (when he was governor) ever came up to him and said they needed to improve sex education and start teaching it earlier, but it bombed when it was revealed that the state actually already had directives in place to start teaching sexual education as early as pre-school. Duh!
Now for something completely different. Kerry apparently made a funny today! He supposedly said the following limmeric, and of course the reich thinks it's another campaign gaffe:
"There once was a man named Vitter / Who vowed that he wasn't a quitter / But with stories of women / And all of his sinnin' / He knows his career's in the -- oh, nevermind."
And they say John Kerry is a lousy comedian.
That's Funny!
Tucker - Has no college degree, thus cannot possibley have a degree in early child develoement, education or political science. I would guess the general viewing public would assume the talkng head on TV has a degree in SOMETHING. Could it be his famous journalist father helped him along the way? Just imagine all the really smart, educated and eloquent people who don't have a national TV audience to enlighten because this one is taking up space and oxygen.
Tucker being is fodder for derision, what an arrogant elitist know it all little jerk he is. He's really got a bug up his you know what about Obama. I guess I couldn't be a political spouse because I would be too tempted to wait for Tucker outside MSNBC’s beautiful Secaucus studio and greet him with a pocketbook to the face thereby causing my husband to lose for having a crazy wife.
Lynn, I don't know what it is about Obama that irks Carlson so much. More than all other conservative pundits on cable news, Carlson has been slamming Obama the most. Moreover, after deriding Obama in certain segments, he turns around and gives Obama a backhanded compliment (e.g., "well, I have nothing but high-hopes for Obama, I like the guy! He's a gifted speaker.") as if that dissolves all the previous ridicule towards the Senator.
At least with Scarborough (who’s also not a big fan of Obama) isn’t as hackneyed and childish with his criticism. Scarborough, whom I disagree with most of the time, doesn’t come off as an elitist, condescending jackass like Carlson, either.
Pres....he did say......"with all due respect".
Hmm, good point, Monk. ;)
...and, right. Tucker is one entitled footstep away from a guy like GWB... silver spoons abound. No credibility except money... I guess that's all it takes.
The fact is that it does provide fodder whether it should or not. He used a very ambiguous and slightly creepy phrasing of 'age-appropriate sex education' for kindergarteners, and then left it to his campaign to pick up the pieces with a press release clarifying what he meant. Like it or not, this is the way good candidates get in trouble. They say something stupid or they say something completely harmless in a stupid way.
While Al Gore never claimed to invent the internet, the words he used on Larry King were so poorly chosen that they could honestly be misconstrued as him saying just that. It was the same with John Kerry and the voting both ways on war appropriations. It sucks, but this is the way it works. And Senator Obama stepped right into this one. I hope he gets out of it since he's by far my favorite of the Democratic top tier.
I think you get one out of three. The Kerry comment, for people who didn't know what he was talking about, did sound odd. Regarding Gore, I'm not sure what else he could have said. And for God's sake, the phrase "age-appropriate" is key here. If it was just "sex education", then it would be ambiguous, but "age-appropriate" clearly implies that it's nothing explicit. It seems perfectly straightforward to me, and his clarification only reiterates the obvious meaning of the phrase.
These things do become fodder, but I disagree that Gore and Obama "walked into" some pitfall. We're talking about people who will lie about just about anything here. If a Democrat lists their accomplishments, their words get twisted to make it look like exaggeration. If Democrats list their plans, their words get twisted to make the idea look radical.
They can't run for office without talking about their accomplishments and plans. If people can twist "age-appropriate sex education", or plant the idea that Gore said "invent" when he didn't say that, they can twist just about anything.
Blame the liars.
I thought it was Larry King, but it was actually Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer. Here's the quote:
"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."
Listen, I know what he means, he's uses the word initiative three times. But he uses it in two different ways. One could honestly infer that he was claiming to have played a leading role in creating the internet. It was a clumsy way of saying what he meant to say, and people can honestly misunderstand his meaning. Of course that gives fodder to people who are free to dishonestly use his words.
As for this instance, age-appropriate is highly ambiguous. And for people who are uncomfortable with sex education to at least some degree, to leave it to them to define that term is a sloppy thing to do. It is. And he's going to pay for it.
Gore DID take a leading role in creating the internet in the way we know it today. Except for Gore it is unlikely we would have the internet we have right now. There is no REASON to misinterpret this except the GOP LIED and said he INVENTED the internet and THAT is what caused the confusion. I also do not see anything to be confused about in the term age appropriate, how is it ambiguous? I think the only reason to be confused is if you are looking to be offended.
A: He didn't take a leading role in creating the internet. He didn't mean to imply that he had. He meant to say that he supported initiatives that funded programs that redeveloped the very rudimentary computer-based communication/information-sharing system previously used by government agencies into the world wide web we know and are using at this moment. There's a big difference between that and taking a lead role in actively creating the internet. Again, I don't believe he meant to imply that he helped to 'invent' or 'create' the internet. Still, his words could be seen to imply just that. And, as any politician should know, it's not what you mean, but what you say.
B: Age-appropriate, science-based sex education for kindergarteners? Explain to me how this is not ambiguous. If it were not ambiguous, why would it need to be clarified the next day? It wouldn't need to be clarified if it were not initially unclear. Look at the two phrases he used 'age-appropriate' and 'science-based.' What scientific information is going to be used to determine the difference between good and bad touching? I mean, honestly, why can't you at least admit there could be a better way for him to have communicated his point? It's not an admission that he's wrong, or bad. It's an understanding of the clear fact that he was quite clumsy when he allowed those words to leave his mouth.
Honestly, I take no pleasure in the senator making such a stupid mistake. Again, of any of the top tier candidates from either party, he's the one I would prefer to be America's face to the world. Both the other Democratic front-runners were my senators at one time, and I don't really like either of them. And I honestly can't see myself ever considering any of the Republicans currently or likely to be in the race, so I've still got high hopes for Obama. And I'm being absolutely sincere when I say that.
All of that being said, he blew it. He walked headlong into a gaffe that people are going to use against him for weeks if not longer.
Age-appropriate, science-based sex education for kindergarteners? Explain to me how this is not ambiguous.
There is no such thing as a linguistic act without ambiguity. Some are definitely more ambiguous than others. And while Obama's statement certainly could imply a great many things, you could say that about any single statement. What, specifically, is the problem with what he said?
If it were not ambiguous, why would it need to be clarified the next day?
Just like any proposition, it requires elaboration, explanation, and clarification. Again, that's hardly a reason to criticize Obama -- it's a reason to ask for more detail and context.
Look at the two phrases he used 'age-appropriate' and 'science-based.' What scientific information is going to be used to determine the difference between good and bad touching?
I took that statement to mean that instruction would apply the findings of child psychology to help determine what information would be appropriate for children of particular ages. Obama might have meant something else, but it's not an incoherent statement, and I find it odd that you seem to think it is an ESPECIALLY ambiguous or unclear remark.
I mean, honestly, why can't you at least admit there could be a better way for him to have communicated his point?
Sure. He could have written a position paper. Political speech is a genre that thrives on ambiguity. But as political speech goes, this doesn't strike me as any more or less controversial or ambiguous than any other remark.
I guess I'm just wondering what you're afraid Obama might have meant? What horrible, horrible thing could he have been suggesting covertly?
I think this is the real problem. Whenever a politician discusses sex -- the single most strictly regulated topic in public discourse and media, and about which Carlson and company cannot discuss explicitly without fear of being labeled indecent -- opponents encourage audiences to imagine the worst, most perverse nightmare and project it into the ambiguous space left in the politician's remarks.
Why wasn't Obama more clear? Why didn't he talk, in extreme detail, about what would and would not be covered in his ideal sex ed program? Why didn't he name the body parts that would and would not be included in lesson plans for grades K-3, 3-6, 7-9, 10-12?
You get the idea. It's the Catch-22 of public sexuality. You talk about it explicitly, you're branded a pervert. You don't talk about it explicitly, then you must REALLY be a pervert because you're afraid to say what you think explicitly.
Ironically, of course, this is the very reason why public sex-ed reform is important.
If I were charged with responding to Carlson, I would turn the tables on him and ask: what kind of horribly repressed and perverted person are you to hear the words "age-appropriate" and "sexual education" and imagine something objectionable?
All right, rather than provide an itemized rebuke to your various well-thought out, but nonetheless intellectually insincere points, I think I will spend most of my time reiterating what I've already said since it seems where I'm coming from is a mystery to some of the respondents. Again, I have no reason other than basic honesty to post as I have. I certainly bare no ill will nor even political friction for Senator Obama. I simply believe, in this case, Tucker Carlson has a point, the phrasing and (greater than average) level of ambiguity to the senator's call for 'age-appropriate' sex education to six year olds will (and already has) provided fodder to his political opponents. I think the words I used were something like 'it sucks' but it's true nonetheless.
The very fact that people decided my completely well-reasoned argument only says how far people will go not to agree with someone they are politically at odds with no matter how rational they may be. The irony here is that we're really not that far apart politically. I just consider it a point of principle to admit when someone I support has done something stupid. As the senator did the other day.
Again: It's not a question of what he meant. It's a question of what he said; how it could be misconstrued by honest, even intelligent people; and, unfortunately, how it could be distorted by people who oppose his candidacy.
I'm not defending people who have a problem with sex education (although, I think their beliefs are often sincere beliefs deserving our respect whether we agree or not). Nor am I defending the dishonest ways the phrase is already being spun. I'm simply saying that anybody who didn't see this coming really needs to reevaluate their understanding of how things have worked in American politics for the past several decades.
Oh, and let's not pretend both sides are not incredibly guilty of this type of behavior.
The word 'attacked' or 'disagreed with' belong someplace in the first sentence to the second graph. Sorry, typed too quickly. Didn't proofread.
Breakerbaker: "The very fact that people decided [to ignore?] my completely well-reasoned argument only says how far people will go not to agree with someone they are politically at odds with no matter how rational they may be."
Breaker, what then do you make of your decision not to respond directly to the content of my comments, which by your own account were "well-thought out"?
I totally agree with you, by the way, that comments can be "misconstrued by honest, even intelligent people": after all, you misconstrued my comments as intellectually insincere, when in fact they are not. If you truly think I'm wrong about something, then I'd appreciate your telling me where you disagree with me. Otherwise, how can I engage you in a substantial dialog?
BreakerBaker: The irony here is that we're really not that far apart politically. I just consider it a point of principle to admit when someone I support has done something stupid. As the senator did the other day.
And here's where I would suggest, with all sincerity, that we disagree. I don't think there's anything foolish about what the senator said. Again, even if what he said was ambiguous, what possible, plausible interpretation of it could there have been? What's the big bad thing he could have possibly been misconstrued as endorsing?
To your final point: I am not in any way arguing that this sort of spinning is endemic to any one party.
"Again, even if what he said was ambiguous, what possible, plausible interpretation of it could there have been?"
Exactly. "Age-appropriate" means appropriate for their age. We all know that. If there's anything ambiguous about it, it's simply that people don't know how what's specifically taught. Is it supposed to be a big blunder that he didn't go into the full criteria of what's specifically appropriate for each age? I'm just not seeing the problem, and I don't think anyone besides Breaker is either.
For reasons I went into in greater detail elsewhere, age-appropriate doesn't really mean anything.
Of course it does it means appropriate to the age. I think the post this is a response to doesnt really mean anything.
Were you to not later completely make my point for me, I would say that you really got me there. Unfortunately, you do totally make my point later, so you didn't even come close to getting me. No one's questioning what the definition of the combination of words 'age' and 'appropriate' means. The question is what it actually means in the context of what we're talking about. And that meaning is far from clear to any of us, really.
Okay, if you want me to itemize...
Part One:
There is no such thing as a linguistic act without ambiguity. Some are definitely more ambiguous than others. And while Obama's statement certainly could imply a great many things, you could say that about any single statement. What, specifically, is the problem with what he said?
Your opening statement that no linguistic act is without ambiguity is hyperbolic, and it's therefore false rationalization feeding the rest of the graph until the question. The content of the question itself, I believe I've addressed elsewhere. Still, as to avoid being called out for avoiding your question: I don't believe there's anything WRONG with what he said. In that, I don't believe the intent behind what he said was objectionable. Politically, however, Senator Obama did, as I've said, commit a gaffe by dropping the phrase sex education along with the word kindergarteners and using as his only clarifier the phrase 'age-appropriate.' Again, I don't have a problem with the phrase age-appropriate. Still, there's no standard as to how we should define what is and what is not appropriate to children of any age, so we (the audience) are left with our own subjective idea of what that means. Keeping in mind that some people don't believe sex education is appropriate at any age, and regardless of your own subjective read, you must see how such a subjective qualifier could be deamed insufficient. Right?
Just like any proposition, it requires elaboration, explanation, and clarification. Again, that's hardly a reason to criticize Obama -- it's a reason to ask for more detail and context.
For reasons I've already laid out, it most certainly is a reason to criticize him. I mean, quite honestly, for what he seems to be referring, one needn't even use the term 'sex education.' But since he did use what is, in many circles, an uncomfortable and misunderstood topic, it obviously would have behooved him to clarify his meaning.
I took that statement to mean that instruction would apply the findings of child psychology to help determine what information would be appropriate for children of particular ages. Obama might have meant something else, but it's not an incoherent statement, and I find it odd that you seem to think it is an ESPECIALLY ambiguous or unclear remark.
I never even implied he was being incoherent, and your inference of his intent--no matter how accurate--doesn't, in itself mean anything. In that, it doesn't say anything. It describes how one would determine the methods without actually describing what those methods are. That being said, it's still more to the point than 'science-based.' You at least name the science you're talking about. When speaking of sex education, there are a few possible sciences.
Sure. He could have written a position paper. Political speech is a genre that thrives on ambiguity. But as political speech goes, this doesn't strike me as any more or less controversial or ambiguous than any other remark.
I don't think we disagree terribly here. That is, with the exception of your assertion that it's neither more nor less controversial or ambiguous than any other remark. I already think I've described why it's both.
Part Two
I guess I'm just wondering what you're afraid Obama might have meant? What horrible, horrible thing could he have been suggesting covertly?
Again, I'm not the least bit afraid about what he meant. I simply suggest that you do a little role playing for a moment and pretend that your opinions on the topic of sex or sex education are not as 'progressive' as they may be. What could someone infer by what he's saying?
I think this is the real problem. Whenever a politician discusses sex -- the single most strictly regulated topic in public discourse and media, and about which Carlson and company cannot discuss explicitly without fear of being labeled indecent -- opponents encourage audiences to imagine the worst, most perverse nightmare and project it into the ambiguous space left in the politician's remarks.
Okay, I'm not defending people decontextualizing his comments and using it for their own gain. I'm criticizing him for not properly contextualizing his comments in the first place. I don't know why people want me to be making an argument I never made and don't agree with.
Why wasn't Obama more clear? Why didn't he talk, in extreme detail, about what would and would not be covered in his ideal sex ed program? Why didn't he name the body parts that would and would not be included in lesson plans for grades K-3, 3-6, 7-9, 10-12?
Are those the options? Absolute lack of detail or extreme detail? Really, that's the best we can do? That's all that's on the menu? Soup and sandwiches? Is it possible to get half a sandwich and a smaller bowl?
You get the idea. It's the Catch-22 of public sexuality. You talk about it explicitly, you're branded a pervert. You don't talk about it explicitly, then you must REALLY be a pervert because you're afraid to say what you think explicitly.
As much as I like that book, I don't know why people always need to bring Heller into these discussions. Just because you frame something as if it's a no-win situation doesn't make it so. This isn't a catch-22. There are more than two options, and you know it.
Ironically, of course, this is the very reason why public sex-ed reform is important.
Again, I don't have any problem with sex education. I don't have a problem with teaching abstinence, either. That is to say, as the lessons don't end with abstinence.
If I were charged with responding to Carlson, I would turn the tables on him and ask: what kind of horribly repressed and perverted person are you to hear the words "age-appropriate" and "sexual education" and imagine something objectionable?
And we finally make it back to the original point of the talkback: Tucker Carlson. As will happen on this site, the interns and editors get ahead of themselves and post things that are not all that objectionable. Mr. Carlson posted a question to which the answer was clearly yes, but since that answer meant bad news for a Democratic politician, it had to be posted as misinformation. The only problem is that it's not misinformation. There will probably be plenty of misinformation regarding this story, but this was a simple question. One that answers itself.
The problem is, you can't change the question just because you don't like the answer. That's what politicians do.
Breaker,
I didn't ask you "to itemize". How you choose to respond to my comments is entirely up to you, and I appreciate your taking the time to do so.
First of all, my statement about linguistic acts being necessarily ambiguous was not hyperbolic -- it's accurate. Ask anyone who studies sociolinguistics. Give me any utterance and I can provide you with multiple possible interpretations.
I understand you to be arguing simultaneously that there's nothing wrong with what Obama said, and yet that he committed a political gaffe by leaving the audience to draw its own conclusions as to what "age appropriate" sex-ed would mean. Again: what possible bad conclusion could anyone draw from Obama's statement? You offer the example of someone who finds sex ed objectionable at any age, but this clearly isn't the issue: in that case, no matter how specific or ambiguous Obama had been in choosing his words, such a person would still object to any support of sex ed in school.
So I still don't see the gaffe: if Obama had gone into greater detail or clarified his position, I can just as easily imagine someone being offended and making "fodder" of his words, just as Carlson is doing.
BreakerBaker: <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } --<em> Just because you frame something as if it's a no-win situation doesn't make it so. This isn't a catch-22. There are more than two options, and you know it. </em></p><p> <!-- @page { size: 8.5in 11in; margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->
If I failed to adequately describe my point concerning the double-bind regarding sexuality in the public sphere, then have a look at Michel Foucault's "The History of Sexuality" -- an entire book devoted to the subject.
But here's the real problem. That's the second time you've suggested that I'm not being sincere in my argument, even though I've assured you that I am. If you don't believe that I'm accurately describing what I actually believe, then there's no use in my replying: you can always argue that I'm not being sincere. (More proof that any statement can be interpreted as having at least two meanings: true, and disingenuous.)
I welcome a dialog with you, but not if you refuse to return me the most basic courtesy that I am extending you: taking you at your word (by which I mean, trusting you to be trying to accurately represent your position.)
Finally: I agree with you that Carlson's comments are not untrue. I believe MMFA is implicitly arguing that Carlson is framing Obama's remarks as controversial without explaining what could possibly be especially controversial about them. That was my interpretation. But of course, I'm sure there are more.
I tried doing this earlier, but I went on for too long, and didn't copy my response before posting. Twenty minutes wasted. This time, I will try (and probably fail) to be a bit more concise. I'll limit my responses to three topics: linguistics; possible legitimate inferrences; and insincerity in debating practices.
1: Linguistics: Regardless of what 'anyone who studies sociolinguistics' has to say (and I certainly question your dubious use of the word 'anyone'), while verbal language is necessarily abstract, it needn't always be ambiguous. While it's true that any series of words can be read in numerous ways, a lot of the ambiguity we're able to infer comes not only from the words themselves but from contextual clues and intonation. There are plenty of assertions and utterances that, by themselves, lack ambiguity (e.g. 'My name is...'; 'This is my father.'; 'I'm a forensic anthropologist.').
2: As to possible, plausible inferrences. Regardless of what you think you read, my mentioning of those who are uncomfortable with sex-ed at any age was nothing more than a contextual assertion. I assert that these people exist, and that their beliefs (whether we share them or not) should therefore be recognized and understood. I then suggested you express a little empathy, and use a little imagination to determine how the phrase 'age-appropriate sex education for kindergarteners' might be misconstrued by some. This is where we start to get into a basic lack of sincerity with regard to how one is even willing to view the situation at hand, but it's an issue I will deal with in a moment.
I will say this: I'm 28 years old. My first experience with sex education (that I remember) was when we had a man come to our class to discuss, among other things, the application of a condom. We were in the fifth grade. I'm not arguing that this was age-inappropriate, but I don't think it would be that difficult to imagine a pretty convincing argument to that effect. I graduated from high school when I was 17, so I was 10 the first time the state sanctioned someone to tell me how to put a condom on (And this was the state of Georgia!). I think just about anybody would agree; that's pretty young.
Of course, I'm not claiming Senator Obama was suggesting that we teach five year olds about erections, or masturbation, or intercourse, or anything of that nature. By his campaigns description, he was more or less talking about teaching children that their bodies are their own and to recognize the difference between good and bad touching. (It hardly took a full position paper to say what he meant, did it?) The irony that I see, and I think I've said this already, is that I don't think it was all that necessary for the senator to even refer to the type of lessons he was describing as sex education. I'm not saying it's necessarily an inaccurate description. But I sort of think it was an unnecessary one all the same.
3: On insincerity in debating practices. I did't mean to imply that you were taking insincere positions. I meant to state outright that several of your debate tactics were less than honest. I stand by that. I think you mean what you say, but I think you're using a shorthand debating practice which weakens your argument. I mean, I've already discussed instances in this response that show parts of your argument to be, lazy, insincere, or both.
For instance: You can't possible believe there's no exception to your linguistical ambiguity clause, and even if you do, you can't possibly believe there exists a consensus without dissent among learned people in any field. Yet, here you are, a little over confident in your own authority on the matter (Is it ironic for me to say that since I haven't yet budged on any of my assertions?)
Furthermore, you claimed Senator Obama had the choice of either saying what he said, or being overly detailed. As if there were no middleground. Well, you and I both know middleground exists. Yet you, in an attempt to condescend to my argument, put forth a scenario we both know to be fictional. It's a false tactic. And anybody with half a brain (which you clearly have--and more) could spot a mile away. It does a disservice to your argument and you as principled individual because it creates in the minds of those around that you have a leisurely relationship with the truth.
To your final point on insincerity in debate:
I don't know how to assure you that I'm not trying to pull a fast one on you. This is what I really believe. I actually do believe that discourse concerning sexuality in the public sphere in the United States is subject to something that could be characterized fairly as a Catch 22.
As an example: your solution to Obama's "gaffe" is that he should have simply avoided calling a sexual education program by the name of sexual education. To do so, you say, was "unnecessary". I can think of no greater supporting example for my argument than that.
Obama dared to mention sexuality and children in the same breath, and even though you concur that he didn't endorse anything especially controversial with his remarks, you and Carlson seem to agree that Obama's characterization of sexual education as sexual education was a political mistake. And if that's the case, then it doesn't matter how precisely Obama had chosen his words. "Age appropriate" is indeed an ambiguous term, and one worthy of greater clarification... but is it particularly controversial? Is this really the term that strikes you and Carlson as "fodder" for derision? So what if it's not precise -- why is its imprecision cause for controversy rather than a simple call for clarification?
I maintain that the only controversy here is the one that Carlson is producing through his framing of Obama's statement as "fodder" for derision, and that this controversy in potentia would attend to any public political discourse about sexuality as sexuality. As you say, Obama certainly could have avoided this problem if he had not referred to his position as an endorsement of a sexual education program by name... but why should he have to speak euphemistically about something that is, after all, a form sexual education?
This is a somewhat complicated point, and again, if I've failed to articulate it well, I would refer you to Foucault.
(My first response to the first of your posts is listed last because I replied to each nested comment individually. If you want to take them in order, scroll down to find my comment beginning with "Dear Breaker" and then scroll upwards for each successive reply.)
Hey, no offense, but I've been to art school, twice. I've been referred to and referring to Foucault most of my adult life.
I don't do it anymore because my thoughts are my own and I needn't have the advice of a dead frenchman to determine whether my thoughts are valid. Nor do I need his counciling on whether or not someone else's thoughts are valid. I've said it. I mean no offense, but I find it to be an unbecoming debating tactic.
Furthermore, the point you're making is not all that difficult to understand. It's simply inadequate or inapplicable in this scenario. While you feel I've proven your point with regard to the Catch 22 concept, I've really done no such thing. I may have given you a bit more fodder for that argument but, with respect, I already disproved it two or three posts ago. All I said was that it was unclear whether Senator Obama needed to use a term I readily admit makes many people uncomfortable. Based on what I've heard, I'm not even clear as to whether it's necessarily all that accurate a classification. It may still be. I simply don't know enough about the theoretical program. Nor, does it seem, do any of us.
Still, I don't think it would have been a problem had he used the words sex education in a more artful way. One that included a specific clarifier as to give some better idea as to what he was speaking. Instead, he went the short route, and looked pretty foolish because or it.
As to whether you're pulling a fast one, you're still doing it. You're trying to make this about something large when in fact it's about something quite small. You're argument is a theoretical one that doesn't relate cogently with the practical scenario that spawned it. You're arguing about something big (SEX IN AMERICAN DISCOURSE) while I'm simply talking about what a guy said and how he could have said it better. Again, not every unpleasant choice is a Catch 22. Indeed, most things identified as such are so classified by lazy minds unwilling to see the situation as it is.
BreakerBaker: "Hey, no offense, but I've been to art school, twice. I've been referred to and referring to Foucault most of my adult life. I don't do it anymore because my thoughts are my own and I needn't have the advice of a dead frenchman to determine whether my thoughts are valid."
I mean no offense, but that's a totally illegitimate reason to reject a philosopher's intellectual contribution. Your later comment about "lazy minds" rings a little hollow coming from someone who refuses to take seriously one of the more influential theorists of power in the 20th century on the basis of his being dead and French.
I have no problem with Foucault. I have a problem with someone making a completely (to use your word) hollow argument, and then citing one of the most important modern philosophers to back it up. Using the pretense that what you're trying to say is far too complicated to do on your own. Sometimes people mistake what is wrong for what is complicated. And if I can say that with respect, that seems to be what you were doing with regard to your Catch 22.
To your second point:
I never said that I couldn't imagine a position opposed to Obama's. I certainly can. That's not the point. People disagree with politicians for what they believe all the time: it's not especially controversial or "fodder for derision". It's just a disagreement.
You stated earlier: "Mr. Carlson posted a question to which the answer was clearly yes, but since that answer meant bad news for a Democratic politician, it had to be posted as misinformation." This seems simply untrue to me. MMFA never explicitly called Carlson's comments misinformation. I took this post by MMFA to be taking issue with Carlson's decision to frame Obama's remarks as "fodder for derision" when, as you have indicated, it seems that Obama meant nothing objectionable by them.
You seem to be suggesting that merely by characterizing an educational program concerning sexuality for children in kindergarten as "sex ed", Senator Obama was committing a political gaffe. You say that to call this sex education was "unnecessary".
This is exactly what I meant when I characterized discussion of sexuality in the public sphere as a Catch 22 or a double bind. Of course Obama could have used a different word to describe the programs he supports. Of course it was "unnecessary" to refer to education concerning sexuality as sexual education. But why shouldn't he? What's wrong with calling it what it is?
I maintain that Obama's gaffe, as you call it, was not a gaffe at all, and that it is in fact Carlson who is attempting to make his remarks into "fodder for derision" rather than a position about which people can honestly disagree.
You're of course welcome to disagree... but you've indicated that you don't think Obama is endorsing anything especially controversial. So remain confused about your basic objection to this story by MMFA.
Correction: Carlson did not call Obama's comments "fodder for derision" but rather "powerful fodder to deride him". I was working from memory and inaccurately cited Carlson.
I've already addressed why there is no Catch 22. Or, if there is a greater Catch 22 (which I'm highly dubious of), it doesn't cogently apply the scenario we've been discussing. I therefore wish to hear no more of the silly Catch 22 argument. That is, unless you're prepared to actually list a series of options to which there was clearly no preferable end. So far, you've talked in platitudes and generalities seemingly to dress up what you must know is a losing argument.
As for misinformation and the comments by Tucker Carlson never being identified as such, I direct you to the Media Matters for America mission statement:
"Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.
Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation — news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda — every day, in real time.
Using the website www.mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions."
(Emphasis Mine)
Dear Breaker,
Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I hope my response helps to clarify my position for you.
On linguistics:
You began by saying, "Regardless of what 'anyone who studies sociolinguistics' has to say...", which strikes me as a bit odd. Why disregard experts?
Furthermore, I'm not sure where you disagree with me anymore, since you acknowledge that "it's true that any series of words can be read in numerous ways". If that's not a universal claim about the ambiguity of language, I'm not sure what is. I already said that some acts of language are more ambiguous than other, but you seem to concur with the premise that you earlier dismissed as hyperbole: that no linguistic act is free of ambiguity. Where do we disagree?
The examples you gave are no exception to this rule: 'My name is...' -- do you mean your first or last name, or are you speaking figuratively (as in "My name is mud")?; 'This is my father.' -- who is "this"? "I'm a forensic anthropologist" -- you mean, licensed by the state, or are you speaking figuratively?
You say that these sentences "by themselves" lack ambiguity. But that's precisely the point: linguistic acts are always embedded within social contexts. They never appear "by themselves". And that's why they are always subject to multiple potential contexts and interpretations. But you made this point more succinctly than I could ("it's true that any series of words can be read in numerous ways"), so I don't think I need to reiterate something upon which we both seem to agree.
As for my statement that you could ask "anyone" who studies sociolinguistics and would find that they agree -- you're absolutely right: I overstated my position, and I apologize. To be fair: based on my experience working in the field and working with linguistic anthropologists, I can only tell you that the majority do maintain that language is a necessarily ambiguous process, that any communication that lacks ambiguity is an example of a simple code rather than a full language, and that I've been unconvinced by arguments to the contrary. I really don't mean to seem over-confident, just confident in my position: a section of my doctoral exams was devoted to sociolinguistics, and I think I'm familiar with the field.
You're absolutely right, though: I'm sure there are people who study sociolinguistics who disagree with my argument. I just don't happen to know of anyone who takes that position seriously. I'm not dismissing potential counterarguments... I'm just unaware of one that's compelling. And I can imagine that you can see why, since you maintain that "any series of words can be read in numerous ways".
You began by saying, "Regardless of what 'anyone who studies sociolinguistics' has to say...", which strikes me as a bit odd. Why disregard experts? I'm not disregarding experts, I'm disregarding your claim that anyone (and therefore everyone) would ever tell me the same thing about anything.
Furthermore, I'm not sure where you disagree with me anymore, since you acknowledge that "it's true that any series of words can be read in numerous ways". If that's not a universal claim about the ambiguity of language, I'm not sure what is.
The examples you gave are no exception to this rule: 'My name is...' -- do you mean your first or last name, or are you speaking figuratively (as in "My name is mud")?; 'This is my father.' -- who is "this"? "I'm a forensic anthropologist" -- you mean, licensed by the state, or are you speaking figuratively?
Don't forget contextual keys and intonation. I didn't think of a name because I was hoping you'd allow the notion that I was going the straightforward route. While we can all say do you mean literally or figuratively to everything we say, that doesn't qualify all combinations of words as necessarily ambiguous.
You say that these sentences "by themselves" lack ambiguity. But that's precisely the point: linguistic acts are always embedded within social contexts. They never appear "by themselves".
Again, we're headed to the land of hyperbole. For instance, I could talk to myself. As I seem to have been for quite a while on this talkback. In all honesty, I do see your point. I think it's overstated. But I think it's valid. As I did when I originally called it hyperbolic. Still, we're admittedly pretty close on this one.
BreakerBaker: "Again, we're headed to the land of hyperbole. For instance, I could talk to myself. As I seem to have been for quite a while on this talkback."
You could talk to yourself, and you would still be doing so within a social context: at the very least, it would be one of social isolation. You could be talking to yourself in a crowd, which would be a different social context. Or, you could be talking to yourself in a purely narcissistic exercise in an internet discussion forum. These would all be social contexts: sad and pitiable social contexts, but social contexts nonetheless.
You can call me want you want. It doesn't change the fact that I'm still right, and you're still holding tight to faint glimmer of one area where you believe you've bested me. I will concede your linguistic point for the sake of good sportsmanship, and for the sake of returning to the original matter at hand. If we're not completely bored yet.
Here's a shining example of a disingenuous debate tactic: you claim that you're "still right" but you'll concede my point for the sake of "good sportsmanship." How exactly can you expect anyone to believe both of these statements simultaneously?
If you concede the point, then concede it. If you don't, then make an honest counterargument.
You've been arguing with a forked tongue throughout this thread. You claim that Obama said "something stupid", yet you find nothing objectionable about what he proposed -- only that he said something vague that could offend someone, and that this alone supports Carlson's characterization of Obama's remarks as providing fodder for derision. You claim that I am hyperbolic in my assertion that language entails ambiguity, and yet you make a universal claim about all words being subject to multiple interpretations. I could go on, but really, why bother? I think we agree: we're bored.
I'm not looking to "best you". This isn't a duel. And I would ask you to take your ego out of this--and all--debate.
Your definition of the phrase 'social isolation' is inaccurate in the previous thread. Furthermore, when someone speaks within the realms of isolation, the only person to interpret the words is the speaker himself. Therefore, there's only one interpretation. You're first statement was that no linguistic act was without ambiguity. You later made it about sociolinguistics.
Still, I understand your point. My only reservation from the beginning was in your use of unnecessary and inaccurate absolutes. Again, you can call me what you want. You can liken me to a reptile if you wish. You can do whatever makes you feel better. Even if that means ignoring the simple fact that I'm right.
It has nothing to do with a fork tongue. I haven't contradicted myself a single time. I conceded the point because the two of us were talking about different things. I saw your point. I saw it as a valid and good point. I chose to concede the discussion on those grounds. It doesn't mean I agree with you entirely. It only means I think you'd made at least one of your points quite well. Unfortunately, it was the least relavent to the initial conversation. Still, since you did make the point (and my point was sort of an obvious example of an exception proving your rule), I conceded. As infuriating as that apparently is to you.
As to the original discussion: Whether it should be that way or not, Tucker Carlson was right. He wasn't even prophesizing. The derision had already begun. It wasn't misinformation (the implicit classification given it by being posted on MMFA in the first place). It was already happening! And my other point was that it could have been avoided. And about all of that (and more), I was right.
But yes, we are bored. If you choose to respond, calling me a toad, a badger, or whatever, I humbly allow you the last word.
I see no gaffe by Obama
Keeping in mind that some people don't believe sex education is appropriate at any age, and regardless of your own subjective read, you must see how such a subjective qualifier could be deamed insufficient. Right?
And those people can opt out. Saying that different people might see a difference in what IS age appropriate is not the same thing as the terms meaning being ambiguous that is it is not the same thing as saying people dont know what age appropriate IS. I do NOT think it was insufficient. He pointed out that local school districts would be making the decisions and drawing the lines he was specifying AS age appropriate so it would be hard for HIM to be specific about those lines which A are going to be drawn differently in different areas and B Havent been drawn yet. I STILL have no idea what you dont understand about age appropriate
And those people can opt out.
Here we are: those people. The people you don't agree with, whose beliefs you don't respect, and on whom you believe it would be best to impose your own. Just as they would you. Um, last I checked, this man is looking to be elected the president of all you people. And me too. No matter how you want to frame the narrative otherwise, they're not your enemies. They're your fellow citizens. They have come out in strong numbers and elected the worst president in modern history at lease one time. But they're just other people. Honest people for the most part. Not stupid. Just with a different biography than your own. Don't make this about them. It's not about them. It's about the senator not considering them when he framed his remarks. It's about a clumsy remark that I've already said was not WRONG...just dumb. We all say dumb things. Even the people we want to elect president. It does us no good to deny the obvious.
Speaking of denying the obvious: In your attempt at shouting me down, you've kind of admitted the ambiguity without meaning to. You state outright that what is and is not age appropriate has not even been determined. That once it is determined, it won't even be standardized. Instead, it will be localized. Therefore, you accept the possibility of a different definition of the term for each and every school district across the country?
You argue that the term isn't ambiguous, but you clearly accept it as being an amorphous construct yet to even be constructed. So again, remind me why you take issue with anything I've said?
BreakerBaker: "Here we are: those people. The people you don't agree with, whose beliefs you don't respect, and on whom you believe it would be best to impose your own."
Solon never said anything about not respecting the beliefs of people who would want to opt out of such a program. People can disagree and still respect opposing views. And an opt-out program seems like far less of an imposition than a total rejection of a sex ed program for all students of a certain grade.
Where did Solon ever suggest that people who disagree with Obama are -- in your own words and not Solon's -- "enemies" or "stupid"?
Please don't use such rhetorical tactics. They strike me as, for lack of a better term, insincere.
All right, maybe I was being a little unfair. I allowed myself to play a little semantic game. I guess my real point to that was, and should have been, that Solon and a lot of people here, are defending something not even they understand. They just trust the speaker. And don't trust those who don't trust or don't agree with the speaker. There's not a lot of respect for people who have any problem with anything a Democrat would have to say. There's not a lot of empathy.
A little semantic game? Now that's a precious euphemism.
I suppose I could have said that I was divining his meaning. At any rate, I responded in haste, and apologize to Solon.
Actually, you have to really distrust Obama to really get any mileage out of this "ambiguous" nonsense. Since what he said has an actual meaning, any suppositions that one might come up with regarding the specifics have to meet that criteria. Does it mean showing the right way to put on a condom? No, that's not age-appropriate. Does it mean talking about STD's? No, not age-appropriate. So the only real issue someone can have with it is if they don't believe that it would meet a reasonable standard fitting the phrase. Otherwise, what's the harm?
Either that, or someone has issues with sex education in general, in which case it doesn't really make much sense that they would genuinely care about the specifics.
The criteria you're using to determine what is age-appropriate is a subjective one. You may call it common sense, but most people recognize there's little common about a lot that some people consider common sense. Again, for you this time, the point I'm making is not that people do not understand the meaning of the words themselves. The point is that the words have no objective meaning in the context at hand. The entire phrase 'age appropriate, science-based, sex education for kindergarteners' has no meaning at this juncture. The senator, in his original comments, didn't seem to think any clarification was necessary.
And again, the clarification provided specific examples, which shows that the problem is vagueness.
There's simply no reason to believe that Obama isn't sincere when he's talking about this. Obviously it's subjective, but anyone who believes that it's a ruse to corrupt children, that any sex education is inappropriate or that experts in the field can't make these determinations isn't going to be swayed by anything Obama says or any subsequent clarifications.
I'm not calling Senator Obama insincere. I'm not claiming his intent is to corrupt the children. I'm simply attempting to offer the clear point that he was insufficently clear with regard to the matter discussed throughout this forum. Whether they allow their children to participate, there are a lot of parents out there uncomfortable with allowing the state to determine what and when matters of sexuality are discussed with their children. It doesn't make them puritanical it makes them parents. I offered an example earlier of subject matter the state once determined age appropriate for ten year olds. It wasn't a criticism of my own experience, it was simply an offering to you and anyone concerned of the very inherent ambiguity with regard to the nature of age-appropriate material.
Here again is the definition. Emphasis on applicable definitions.
–adjective 1.open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer. 2.Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous. 3.of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character. 4.lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
I didn't say you held any of those views, or that such parents are puritanical. What I'm saying is that people who have an issue with something "age-appropriate" have to think there's some risk that somehow the material is not exactly that. I just don't see how that makes for any real gaffe.
I'm sure something has been presented as "age-appropriate" that wasn't, but unless that appears to be very common or inherent in the system somehow, then basing judgment on that is on a par with the idea of dumping medicare because a few people have ripped off the system.
Unless you really wish to continue this, I think this is going to be my last word. I welcome your response, but I probably won't reply anymore on this topic.
What I'm saying is that people who have an issue with something "age-appropriate" have to think there's some risk that somehow the material is not exactly that. I just don't see how that makes for any real gaffe.
What I'm saying is there's no such thing as age-appropriate. The concept is theoretical at best and open to as many interpretations as there are people to interpret it. It's a phrase that sort of says something, but in fact says very little absent any clarification. The best clarification he offered at the time was 'science-based' but I've offered elsewhere why that is still far from sufficient.
I'm sure something has been presented as "age-appropriate" that wasn't, but unless that appears to be very common or inherent in the system somehow,...
How can you be sure that's happened? How would you know? No one can really tell you what's age appropriate. They can tell you what they believe would be appropriate for a child of a certain age. But that's not the same thing.
It's not like baby toys. I have a one year old, and there are all sorts of toys that are determined to be inappropriate for infants (mainly if there are small parts that could be deemed choking hazards). But this isn't like that. Even once standards are in place, they'll necessarily be subjective standards. Someone will determine what kind of information a child can and should understand at a certain age, that will be voted on, and eventually determined 'age-appropriate' or not. It's not going to be scientific. How could it be?
The least the senator could have done (and I've said this all along) is actually say what he meant. Assuming even he knew.
And that's my last word. Cheers.
I dont agree that what he said was stupid. I dont agree the term age appropriate has a greater than usual level of ambiguity. What is so hard to understand about appropriate for the age? I dont see your problem with what Obama said and I DO agree with the point that this seems like a catch 22 IF you are more explicit you are taken to task for being indiscreet and if you are not explicit you are being ambiguous.
I try not to concern myself with what people CHOOSE to believe. I prefer to focus on what is real. I've said again and again the exact reason the phrase is more ambiguous than others, and again and again all people can use to rebuke me is essentially 'nuh-uh.' Prove me wrong or, short of that, at least try to. Otherwise, all you're doing is stating the opinion you choose to hold regardless of whether it stands up to even the most basic critique.
With respect, the same goes for the legitimacy of the Catch-22 argument when placed in a scenario where there is clearly more than two options.
A YES he did and he didnt just imply it he said so directly. He took a leading role from his subcomittee on Science and industry to create the infrastructure for what has become the internet. Even Newt Gingrich admitted this was true. I dont know what your argument against this is. Except for Al Gores tireless advocacy to develop the potential for what WAS the Arpanet it is unlikely we would have the internet we do today.
B. What is ambiguous about age appropriate? I guess you can READ something else into it besides appropriate for the age in question but I dont see that much ambiguity myself. Many things have to be clarified due to exactly the kind of spinning the rightwing is doing on this issue, the fact rightwing pundits throw up a lot of smoke doesnt mean that he didnt make himself clear in the first place nor that no matter HOW he phrased it their spin wouldnt have created the same kind of misperception.
Sorry, didn't mean to ignore you.
A: Nothing you said in your A contradicts the simple fact that Al Gore's contribution was in allowing others to do take the leading roles in creating the internet as we know it today. I'm not lessening his importance. I'm being a stickler for detail.
B. Age appropriate is ambiguous not because people don't understand the words themselves, but because there is no standardized criteria on which to determine what qualifies as age appropriate. I don't know how many times I can say the same thing and how many times people can pretend I haven't said it or they haven't understood it.
I've only skimmed the thread, but I don't anyone's made the point this way;I think the problem with your stance that the phrase is "ambiguous" is that you are simply using the wrong word. You mean "vague" or "unspecified".
Ambiguous:open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer.
The phrase "age-appropriate" only has one possible interpretation, appropriate for a certain age. There's simply no alternative there. Something like "my mother and my wife don't get along because she doesn't trust her" is ambiguous. Two people listening to that might get different impressions of what one would mean by that, whether the mother doesn't trust the wife or vice-versa (or possibly both, if very poorly stated). But for what Obama said, it's not like two people could have different interpretations about what Obama means by the phrase. They might have different suppositions or theories as to what is age-appropriate or not, but that is not the same thing.
The key difference is that something ambiguous can lead you to a conclusion that might be false, whereas something vague gives you a basic understanding of the concept but leaves you wanting details, like "qualified buyers". One thinks:"OK, I have to be qualified. What, specifically, does that entail?" Now, please note that the clarification you're so fond of citing didn't explain what the phrase itself meant (because it didn't need to), it provided specific examples of what it might entail.
The phrase "qualified buyer" might have a thousand different standards for a thousand different offers, but the meaning of the phrase itself remains constant. The details, the specifics are unstated, but it's just plain silly to say that the phrase "doesn't really mean anything".
If you disagree with that, please address what I've said here instead of repeating yourself from earlier. Thank you.
"The key difference is that something ambiguous can lead you to a conclusion that might be false..."
I should amend this:"...something ambiguous can naturally lead you to a conclusion that might be false". It's something that sounds like you should be able to understand the meaning, but doesn't provide enough information for you to do that accurately. You can come to a conclusion about the specifics of "qualified buyer", but there is nothing inviting one to do so - one would have to jump to that conclusion without any prompting.
There's nothing in "age-appropriate sex education" to invite people to come to any conclusion about what is specifically appropriate for a child of three or four years old. One would have to make a guess that doesn't rely on what the person said. One might reasonably guess that "qualified buyer" depends on credit rating, but there's nothing in the phrase itself that naturally leads one to come away with that distinct impression.
A conclusion about something ambiguous comes naturally because it has to be based on what was stated, by definition. "When he said X...it sounded like he was referring to Y, not Z. Maybe he meant it the other way?"
At the very least, isn't this a valid way of looking at this? If not, why not?
I'm going to actually be brief on this one. Your definition of the work ambiguous is lacking. Here's what the American Heritage has to say:
am·big·u·ous
–adjective 1.open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer. 2.Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous. 3.of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character. 4.lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.Again, I haven't claimed that anyone misunderstood the specific and decontextualized definition of the phrase 'age-appropriate.' I've said that there's quite a bit of ambiguity as to the meaning of the phrase in context. As there is a lot of ambiguity as to what would qualify.
That's like the sixth or seventh time I've said that, but it's the first time I included a definition.
That definition automatically posted tiny. Sorry. Hopefully this will work better.
–adjective 1.open to or having several possible meanings or interpretations; equivocal: an ambiguous answer. 2.Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous. 3.of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character. 4.lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
Your definition is too small to read, but I've read it in full elsewhere. As I point out, there is nothing in the phrase from which to "interpret" anything. You have to jump to a conclusion.
I specifically asked you to address what I said, and not repeat yourself, yet you tell us the same thing for the sixth time. You yourself acknowledge that we all know what the phrase "age-appropriate" means. Therefore, there is only one interpretation of that! But when you are looking for details for what qualifies it as such, then your issue is that the statement is vague. You are conflating the two terms, and they are not interchangeable.
I'd like to add, now that I realize it, that you were criticizing people for saying "nuh-uh" to your points, but that's exactly what you did regarding my post by denying its validity or relevance without any specifics whatsoever.
Your definition was incomplete and therefore unsatisfactory. You also stated that my interpretation of the word ambiguous was incorrect. I posted just one dictionary's definitions of the word, and at least two of the four meanings given apply directly to what I'm saying. Since the entirety of your post relied on an inadequate foundation, all I needed to do was point out the fundamental flaw to nullify your argument. I'm sorry it wasn't more elaborate. I'm trying to stop wasting energy saying the same thing over and over again.
Obviously I won't even bother with the main definition, since I've addressed it at length.
2.Linguistics. (of an expression) exhibiting constructional homonymity; having two or more structural descriptions, as the sequence Flying planes can be dangerous.
No, that's not it.
3.of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify: a rock of ambiguous character.
The nature is certain;appropriate for a certain age. That's not difficult to comprehend, distinguish or classify, you just can't imagine what the details are.
4.lacking clearness or definiteness; obscure; indistinct: an ambiguous shape; an ambiguous future.
This is about the only one you seem to have any shot at, and it still seems like a stretch. The meaning of the phrase itself is clear, again. The specifics of what qualifies for the term is unclear, which is what makes it "vague". Again, isn't that a fair way of looking at it?
It's possible to argue that the plan of which Obama is speaking of is itself ambiguous. However, you repeatedly say "the phrase" is ambiguous. The plan and the expression describing the plan are not the same thing. Perhaps that's where your confusion stems from.
It seems to me that you're criticizing Obama for being ambiguous and not saying something the best way. Yet, you don't say what he's supposed to have said, as far as I've seen. So in doing so, by your own definition, you are being ambiguous and could express it better.
A: the only definition I don't accept as being particularly applicable to my use of the word is number 2.
B:I think your problem is that you keep abandoning my reference to context. I've said again and again that we understand the meaning of the words 'age' and 'appropriate', but in the full context of what we're discussing, the classification 'age-appropriate sex education' is: open to or having several possible meanings, of doubtful or uncertain nature; difficult to comprehend, distinguish, or classify; and lacking clearness or definiteness, obscure, indistinct.
C: As for what he should have said: I've said again and again that something akin to what his campaign claims he meant (spotting pedophiles; differences between good and bad touching; their bodies are their own; etc) would have been sufficient.
Carlson is such a hack and his fake outrage is getting old.
Great picture of Tucker...
It's that's perfect goofball, dipstick look. Here's.........Tucker.
This "fodder for derision" concept is a great one for the Rightwing Media.
Depicting these Rightwing hired-gun propagandists as buzzards circling "a story", or as a swarm of flies indicating they think they've found their "fodder", is both appropriate and visually correct.
Buzzards and flies. Flies and buzzards. Carlson and Limbaugh and Hannity and ... on and on. Perfect.
This reminds me of an old Ann Coulter arguement I read in one of her articles (and I think its in one of her books) in which she says "liberals" are trying to teach "fisting" to kindergartners
To back up her claim, she cited the syllabus of a college course on sexuality. It is unfortunate that some people like nasty things such fisting and sh*tting on each other, but it DOES happen. In any case...it was a college course and not to teach you how to fist or a good fisting technique...but rather it covered the entire range of human "sexuality".
Ann wants to believe as Tucker does that their boogeyman "the left" wants to teach fisting to kids...so it doesn't matter if it's true or not. Like other cultic loons, these two start with their belief...their conclusions and they work their way out from there.
Prediction:
Later on the election season next year when TC is called out for deriding Obama for his pothead comments, etc, he will bring up the sex ed thing as his rationale even though it came AFTER his pothead comments.
Tucker Carlson is a contemptible little scumball. I formed this opinion after he refered to John Edwards lawsuit against a company responsible for a pool/fountain that literally disemboweled a child who sat on an unprotected pump inlet as a "jacuzzi case". Why he continues to be on the air is a mystery.
The furlough program that put Willie Horton on the street was created by Dukakis' predecessor, Republican Gov. William Weld.
Tucker, King George and the right wing media Lords would all like us to march back to the Dark Ages. So be a good little serf and get in line for your mutton.
"Oh, and let's not pretend both sides are not incredibly guilty of this type of behavior."
we don't have to pretend breakerbaker, because they aren't. i challenge you to cite a comparible distortion, by a "liberal" media pundit, about oh, mcain or romney. you can't, because there aren't any. of course, with the republican candidates, who needs to make stuff or up or distort their very own words, they do such a fine job all by themselves.
your arguments lack intellectual heft. they are, in a word, substanceless. anyone so stupid they don't understand the term "age appropriate", shouldn't be allowed to go to the bathroom by themselves, much less vote. anyone who argues that sen. obama's statement was ambiguous is either brain-dead, or a transparent fraud.
so breakerbaker, which is it?
Oh, come on. What Obama said was clear to anyone who isn't freaked out by the word "sex." If parents want their kids to think that they came out of mommy's stomach then that's their hang up. I'd prefer that kids learn words like "uterus" when the time comes. Anyone freaked out by Obama's statement has to competely ignore the phrases "age-appropriate" and "science-based." All they heard was "sex-ed" and they reacted.
They do need to start educating prenatal and high school 'soon to be parents' about the dangers of toxic fluoridation tainting linked to mental retardation and autism in developing children. It also makes sense to then repeat that information K-12 in the schools. In order to keep vital public information issues like this asleep, such a ridiculous sex-scandal would be made of a side topic in order that the most vulnerable are kept in complete ignorance while they needlessly become injured by anoxic brain damage, i.e. the arrest of the brainstem in sleep paralysis.
Unfortunately a cottage industry of disinformation surrounding autism and possibly even non-meningiococcal meningitis has already been put in place to hide the toxin's impact, covering it up with anything from wheat gluten to mercury and common bacteria.
Any non-whackjob (i.e. actually science-based) sources you would care to cite to support your claim.