Evidence for God from Science

vendace20 wrote:With all due respect, you obviously have no idea how much unconscious processes influence our everyday decisions and behaviour. In this case, as an example, the word "Democratic" directly connects with the very highy esteed word "democracy", and unconsciously forms the connection between the Democratic party and "the people" (demo-cratic). Now, if we replace the word with a meaningless phrase like Democrat, it effectively prevents people from, in the unconscious, making the connection.

With all due respect, this is gobbledegook. You have no evidence whatsoever that August wasn’t merely shortening the word. Does a democrat say “I’m a democratic”? In fact, in every day speak it makes more sense for a non-democrat to call it a democrat government, since “democratic government” can be construed as an endorsement of the party.

It might also have something to do with the fact that it ends in "rat", and since people dislike rats this might actually change the meaning from a positive one to a thorougly negative.

Have you met August? Do you know his intentions? So how was August’s use of this derogatory?

And, if I may, the question I proposed wasn't a rhetorical one. I can make plausible psyhocological hypothesis any day of the week, but I really want to know why many conservatives change the word democratic to democrat. However, this is a somewhat irrelevant point, unless this change is brought into common everyday lexicon.

A democrat can be defined as an advocate or supporter of democracy. What’s your point?

There are really only two things I agree with: 1) Full drug legalization. 2) Stopping America's interventionist foreign police.

Very Freudian. What drugs to you indulge with?

DannyM wrote:With all due respect, this is gobbledegook.[1] You have no evidence whatsoever that August wasn’t merely shortening the word.[2] Does a democrat say “I’m a democratic”?[3] In fact, it makes more sense to call it a democrat government, since “democratic government” can be construed as an endorsement of the party.[4] Why would a non-supporter want to be seen as endorsing the democratic party? So in fact, on top of being grammatically sound, it appears to make more sense.[5]

[1]I fail to see how this paragraph in question was "language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand." I only used one somewhat sophisticated word, "lexicon", however I honestly had a hard time coming up with a simpler word that means the same thing. As an example, how many simple synonyms can you think of for the word "unconscious"? It's much easier for me to use the word that first comes into my head and not think about every single word I use for a minute.
[2]I don't have evidence he used it for any of the reasons I gave (since I can't read minds). However, it is practically always used to demean the Democratic Party. Here's a quote from the New Yorker, "The 'Ic' Factor"

The New Yorker: The 'Ic' Factor, August 7, 2006, by Henrik Hertzberg wrote:An alternative view is that it’s called the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party itself takes this view, and many nonpartisan authorities agree. The American Heritage College Dictionary, for example, defines the noun “Democratic Party” as “One of the two major US political parties, owing its origin to a split in the Democratic-Republican Party under Andrew Jackson in 1828.” (It defines “Democrat n” as “A Democratic Party member” and “Democratic adj” as “Of, relating to, or characteristic of the Democratic Party,” but gives no definition for—indeed, makes no mention of—“Democrat Party n” or “Democrat adj”.) Other dictionaries, and reference works generally, appear to be unanimous on these points. The broader literate public also comes down on the “Democratic” side, as indicated by frequency of usage. A Google search for “Democratic Party” yields around forty million hits. “Democrat Party” fetches fewer than two million.

[3]No, because in that context the word [democrat] is being used as a noun, not an adjective, hence it's grammatically correct.
[4]That's why the D is capitalized, to separate the noun and the adjective from each other. Also, you can judge by looking at the context which purpose it's being used for. Also, when you said "Democratic government", I think you meant to say "Democratic congress". And by the way, you just vindicated my point. You admitted that the word "Democratic" has a good "sound" to it, and hence it must be shortened to "Democrat" to prevent this. For a fuller explanation look at my prev. post.
[5]It is NOT grammatically sound, it's not even grammatically correct! If you want to check this, go to any (online or otherwise) dictionary and look if it has the words "Democrat party" and "democrat (adjective)". If you can accomplish this, I'll buy you a pint if I ever come to the US

There are numerous explanations for why conservatives (and only conservatives) use the word, here is the best taken from the same article (which mainly reiterates my points.)

There’s no great mystery about the motives behind this deliberate misnaming. “Democrat Party” is a slur, or intended to be—a handy way to express contempt. Aesthetic judgments are subjective, of course, but “Democrat Party” is jarring verging on ugly. It fairly screams “rat.” At a slightly higher level of sophistication, it’s an attempt to deny the enemy the positive connotations of its chosen appellation. During the Cold War, many people bridled at obvious misnomers like “German Democratic Republic,” and perhaps there are some members of the Republican Party (which, come to think of it, has been drifting toward monarchism of late) who genuinely regard the Democratic Party as undemocratic. Perhaps there are some who hope to induce it to go out of existence by refusing to call it by its name, à la terming Israel “the Zionist entity.” And no doubt there are plenty of others who say “Democrat Party” just to needle the other side while signalling solidarity with their own—the partisan equivalent of flashing a gang sign.

Have you met August?[1] Do you know his intentions?[2] So how was August’s use of this derogatory?[3]

[1]It's possible. [2] This is an obvious rhetorical question, but I will still address it. No, I can't read his thoughts. However, if one word has been used only for one purpose (as a slur towards democrats [used in this context as a noun, not an adjective]) by one group (conservatives), it's fairly probable that he used it for that one reason, since it's actually grammatically wrong to say "Democrat party" or to use "Democrat" as an adjective. The only defense left I can think of is that he made an unintentional typing error, although that seems improbable to say the least.

A democrat can be defined as an advocate or supporter of democracy. What’s your point?

I still didn't get a reason Yes, a democrat [noun] is technically a supporter of democracy, although it's more commonly used as a noun to describe members of the Democratic party. When democrat is used as a noun, it's grammatically correct. However, when it's used as as an adjective to describe things related to the Democratic party (e.g. "Democrat congress"), it is grammatically wrong to use it. I can't find single dictionary that has the word Democrat (adj.) or Democrat party (n.). Call me crazy, but I think there's a reason for this.

Very Freudian. What drugs to you indulge with?

I don't understand how that particular quote was Freudian, but thanks anyways I also find it interesting that you'd think I'm a drug user only because I support drug legalization. As an obvious example, legalizing gay marriage has relatively high support, but it's not because they're all homosexuals. Also, not everyone who supports drug legalization has a personal stake in it.

However, to be honest, I have taken several psilocybe semilanceata on two occasions. I haven't used them for over a year now, but I can sincerely say those 12 hours were definitely among my top 5 experiences during my whole life. You should note that I don't support drug legalization because of any selfish motives, since their legality doesn't make too much of a difference for me. The legal drugs (prescription drugs, tobacco, alcohol) are infinitely more dangerous than any natural hallucinogens, and that's one of the problems I have with the massively inconsistant drug laws among others.

But to return to the topic being discussed, after thinking about it the main reason for me having a crush on Ron Paul is that he can't be bought and he's principled. Why is this important? Obama promised numerous, great things while he was campaigning and I got fairly excited. Then he was bought, and the rest is history. I don't want the same to happen to any other president, I want them to do what they say they're going to do.

Edit:

August wrote:It seems you don't have much of a clue about anything. If your opinion is swayed by the removal of three letters then you seem to be pretty weak-willed.

I didn't notice the irony until now, but I just wanted to point out that in fact two letters are removed, not three.

vendace20

I know the Democratic Party is called the Democratic Party. This is not my disagreement. But nevertheless you are correct. I was taking August’s words to mean a congress of democrats. But technically you are absolutely correct. So my apologies.

vendace20 wrote:I fail to see how this paragraph in question was "language characterized by circumlocution and jargon, usually hard to understand." I only used one somewhat sophisticated word, "lexicon"

Not the issue. All your vague talk of the “unconscious” is what prompted me to call your ramblings gobbledegook. And I stand by that until you can present some substance to the ramblings.

vendace20 wrote:I don't have evidence he used it for any of the reasons I gave (since I can't read minds). However, it is practically always used to demean the Democratic Party.

So what? You just admitted you have NO EVIDENCE. Never mind what you think it is “practically always used” for.

Have you met August?

vendace20 wrote:It's possible.

Do you know his intentions?

vendace20 wrote:This is an obvious rhetorical question,

No it’s not an obvious rhetorical question. To make the accusation you have you must know something of his intentions. Vague Freudian ramblings of the “unconscious" doesn’t cut the mustard.

vendace20 wrote:No, I can't read his thoughts.

Thank you.

vendace20 wrote:However, if one word has been used only for one purpose (as a slur towards democrats [used in this context as a noun, not an adjective]) by one group (conservatives), it's fairly probable that he used it for that one reason, since it's actually grammatically wrong to say "Democrat party" or to use "Democrat" as an adjective. The only defence left I can think of is that he made an unintentional typing error, although that seems improbable to say the least.

Irrelevant. You need to show the “probability” here, and not with vague ramblings about the unconscious.

vendace20 wrote:The legal drugs (prescription drugs, tobacco, alcohol) are infinitely more dangerous than any natural hallucinogens, and that's one of the problems I have with the massively inconsistent drug laws among others.

Please clarify this. Do you know many people involved with heroin, crack, ecstasy, ketamine, etc?

DannyM wrote:Not the issue. All your vague talk of the “unconscious” is what prompted me to call your ramblings gobbledegook. And I stand by that until you can present some substance to the ramblings.

Well, I think my point about democRAT party doesn't have to be explained since it's pretty obvious. I think I was being fairly clear about my other point as well, but let me try to put it simpler. Democratic party (unconscious connection)--> Democracy. Democracy = good. Democrat party (no unconscious positive connection), or DemocRAT (unconscious connection)---> Rats. Rats =/= good.

I believe this is also known as loaded wording. Obvious examples are pro-choice ---> anti-life, expert ---> elitist, drug user ---> junkie, homosexual ---> queer, polytheism ---> paganism, etc.

So what? You just admitted you have NO EVIDENCE. Never mind what you think it is “practically always used” for.

I'd like to correct myself, it's actually used 100% of the time by conservatives as a slur towards the Democratic Party. It isn't a part of proper English language (i.e. it's about the same if a called Republicans Pubics), it's not used by the general public, and always has a negative sound to it.

DannyM wrote:

vendace20 wrote:

DannyM wrote:Do you know his intentions?

This is an obvious rhetorical question,

No it’s not an obvious rhetorical question. To make the accusation you have you must know something of his intentions. Vague Freudian ramblings of the “unconscious" doesn’t cut the mustard.

You're basically asking me whether or not I can read another's thoughts. Since no human can accomplish this, it's obviously just a rhetorical tool that you can utilize to make me say "No, I can't read his thoughts." However, the fact that I can't perform supernatural tasks doesn't mean everything I say is hence wrong. My argument goes like this:

1: The words Democrat party and Democrat (adj.) are loaded language.
2: They are always used as such, since there is no other reason to use them.
3: Hence, it's reasonable to assume that someone who uses the word is using it for a negative purpose.

wrote:Irrelevant. You need to show the “probability” here, and not with vague ramblings about the unconscious.

Look above. And I still stand by my belief that my "ramblings" weren't vague.

vendace20 wrote:

DannyM wrote:The legal drugs (prescription drugs, tobacco, alcohol) are infinitely more dangerous than any natural hallucinogens, and that's one of the problems I have with the massively inconsistent drug laws among others.

Please clarify this.[1] Do you know many people involved with heroin, crack, ecstasy, ketamine, etc?[2]

[1]Natural hallucinogens: Psilocybin/psilocin, mescaline, salvinorin A, DMT, etc. I think The Lancet made the point I hinted at in my last post most convincingly (they've actually made it on a couple of occasions). The first was a simple chart of physical damage and addiction potential, on which they placed numerous illegal and legal drugs. They made the case that all drugs less dangerous than the legal ones (alcohol and tobacco) should be legal. You can see it for yourself here.Now, I think they scored some drugs like LSD way too high, sine LSD is incapable of producing physical harm by itself. Many studies have confirmed this and when I asked a head doctor (not a head as in body part, but a "boss" of a sector of doctors in a hospital), he confirmed it for me and said it doesn't do any physical damage to any organ. Hence I feel that this chart has overrated the dangers of some soft drugs, but seems pretty accurate overall.

In another article, The Lancet ranked alcohol as the most harmful drug, more dangerous than opioids, crack cocaine, methamphetamine, cocaine, etc. Here's a graph derived from the article. I will note proudly that magic mushrooms are ranked the least harmful. I have been vindicated. Can you see that when you compare soft illegal drugs and deadly legal drugs, there's no reason why the deadly drugs (alcohol, tobacco, etc) should be legal. However, if they must remain legal, why not allow drugs that are much less dangerous than them to be legal?

Also, did you know that tobacco kills 435,000 people every year in America? However, ALL illegal drugs combined kill about 17,000. Now, 17,000 people dead is 17,000 people too much but you at least get the sense of which is a bigger problem.

[2]You brought up some pretty hard drugs (ecstasy in itself is not very dangerous, but the fact that it's almost always cut makes it very dangerous in the world we live in). No, I personally don't know anyone using hard drugs. However I and a few of my friends have use magic mushrooms (the least dangerous drug in the world).

Maybe he said Democrat instead of Democratic because it clarifies that he's referring to the political party rather than the form of government?

Seraph wrote:Maybe he said Democrat instead of Democratic because it clarifies that he's referring to the political party rather than the form of government?

I agree, Seraph. This is my take on it, as well. I have always heard the two parties referred to as Democrat & Republican. I have never even heard the Democrats refer to themselves as the "Democratic" party.

RickD wrote:

Seraph wrote:Maybe he said Democrat instead of Democratic because it clarifies that he's referring to the political party rather than the form of government?

I agree, Seraph. This is my take on it, as well. I have always heard the two parties referred to as Democrat & Republican. I have never even heard the Democrats refer to themselves as the "Democratic" party.

Nor did I ever hear that 'Democrat' is somehow a derogatory term even when referring to the party itself and not just individuals (it's perfectly fine to refer to a politician as a democrat or a republican), until this thread that is. It's just a silly argument that took way too much time and space in this thread.

vendace20 wrote:

DannyM wrote:Not the issue. All your vague talk of the “unconscious” is what prompted me to call your ramblings gobbledegook. And I stand by that until you can present some substance to the ramblings.

Well, I think my point about democRAT party doesn't have to be explained since it's pretty obvious. I think I was being fairly clear about my other point as well, but let me try to put it simpler. Democratic party (unconscious connection)--> Democracy. Democracy = good. Democrat party (no unconscious positive connection), or DemocRAT (unconscious connection)---> Rats. Rats =/= good.

What’s clear is you are being vague! Please explain the mechanics of this unconscious activity. Do you understand how the conscious mind works? The conscious mind itself is largely a mystery. Therefore, how can something which does not fully understand itself begin to interpret what the unconscious mind produces? Please explain for me how you arrive at “no unconscious positive connection”… Have you ‘factored in’ an indifference in the unconscious?

vendace20 wrote:[I believe this is also known as loaded wording. Obvious examples are pro-choice ---> anti-life, expert ---> elitist, drug user ---> junkie, homosexual ---> queer, polytheism ---> paganism, etc.

Okay, then please explain how “pro-choice” necessarily implies “anti-life” in your unconscious? Please just substantiate this lot. Show me how this is all unconscious activity and how you arrive here. I want to know how you have arrived from conscious activity to unconscious activity. How do you validate this so-called unconscious activity?

So what? You just admitted you have NO EVIDENCE. Never mind what you think it is “practically always used” for.

vendace20 wrote:I'd like to correct myself, it's actually used 100% of the time by conservatives as a slur towards the Democratic Party.

Evidence please.

vendace20 wrote:It isn't a part of proper English language (i.e. it's about the same if a called Republicans Pubics), it's not used by the general public, and always has a negative sound to it.

‘Cockney’ isn’t a part of any proper English. The fact is people do use the term ‘Democrat’ and place it prior to government, and I can assure you that I have heard American friends use this term: “We have Democrat government”, and if I know these people as well as I do, then they have not meant any offence by this use. Notice I’m telling you about things that I know about these people. I know that these dear friends would not consciously indulge in minor ridicule or taunting. So please tell me how you, a stranger to these dear friends of mine, who cannot know anything about the conscious activity of these people, presume to tell me about their “unconscious” activity.

DannyM wrote:No it’s not an obvious rhetorical question. To make the accusation you have you must know something of his intentions. Vague Freudian ramblings of the “unconscious" doesn’t cut the mustard.

vendace20 wrote:You're basically asking me whether or not I can read another's thoughts. Since no human can accomplish this, it's obviously just a rhetorical tool that you can utilize to make me say "No, I can't read his thoughts." However, the fact that I can't perform supernatural tasks doesn't mean everything I say is hence wrong.

Certainly, that would be true if you had something of worth to say.

vendace20 wrote:My argument goes like this:

1: The words Democrat party and Democrat (adj.) are loaded language.
2: They are always used as such, since there is no other reason to use them.
3: Hence, it's reasonable to assume that someone who uses the word is using it for a negative purpose.

I know this is your argument. And it is not necessarily loaded language. We have technically ungrammatical constructions that are not necessarily loaded. Your whole argument is built on false premises. It is built on a house of cards. And you are left playing 52 card pickup.

DannyM wrote:Irrelevant. You need to show the “probability” here, and not with vague ramblings about the unconscious.

vendace20 wrote:Look above. And I still stand by my belief that my "ramblings" weren't vague.

Look above for what? You’ve offered nothing but vague ideas about an unconscious.

What does consciousness consist of? What does it contain?

*I'll leave the drugs debate for now*

DannyM wrote:What’s clear is you are being vague! Please explain the mechanics of this unconscious activity.[1] Do you understand how the conscious mind works?[2] The conscious mind itself is largely a mystery.[3] Therefore, how can something which does not fully understand itself begin to interpret what the unconscious mind produces?[4] Please explain for me how you arrive at “no unconscious positive connection”[4]… Have you ‘factored in’ an indifference in the unconscious?[5]

1: I'll try to be as simple and oversimplify as much as possible.
"Democratic" sounds like "democracy". Democracy is a strongly positive word. Also, the word "democratic" in itself "sounds good" and has a positive meaning. Have you understood everything I've said so far? Yes [] No []
Now that we've established that the word "Democratic" is a good word, when it's replaced by a word like "Democrat", the hearer instead thinks instinctively about just a political party with no deeper meaning. The positive meaning of democratic (and democracy) is lost. Have you understood eveything I've said so far? Yes [] No []
Also, it can't be pure luck that the word conservatives have invented and used as a loaded phrase towards their opposition is democRAT Have you understood everything I've said so far? Yes [] No []
[2]Well, there are several schools of thought that have different answers to how the psyche works. I really don't want to turn this into a discussion on psychology, but I will say that neurological research has shown a lot about the nature of the mind.
[3]Depends on your definition of the conscious mind and mystery. Through centuries of research, we actually know quite a lot about the human psyche but this discussion is getting really off-topic.
[4]So you're point is that unconscious processes don't exist since the mind doesn't understand itself. But using this logic (X doesn't understand itself, hence it can't do Y) one could prove anything about living organisms. As an example, dogs don't understand how their digestion works, hence they can't eat food. If you want to make the case that these arguments are in any way different, please do so.

vendace20 wrote:Okay, then please explain how “pro-choice” necessarily implies “anti-life” in your unconscious?[1] Please just substantiate this lot. Show me how this is all unconscious activity and how you arrive here. I want to know how you have arrived from conscious activity to unconscious activity.[2] How do you validate this so-called unconscious activity?[3]

[1]It doesn't. I gave this as an example of loaded language used by some. I don't associate being pro-choice with being anti-life (that's ridiculous in my opinion) in any way, but unfortunately I've heard this phrase (anti-life) used way too often by people who think otherwise.
[2]I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, or what it has to do with loaded language/phrases.
[3]I don't understand what this has to do with loaded phrases. Are you trying to argue that the unconscious doesn't exist? Or if it does it has absolutely no function whatsoever? That's the only thing I can infer.

Evidence please.

To quote myself:
1: The words Democrat party and Democrat (adj.) are loaded language.
2: They are always used as such, since there is no other reason to use them.
3: Hence, it's reasonable to assume that someone who uses the word is using it for a negative purpose.

vendace20 wrote:It isn't a part of proper English language (i.e. it's about the same if a called Republicans Pubics), it's not used by the general public, and always has a negative sound to it.

‘Cockney’ isn’t a part of any proper English.[1] The fact is people do use the term ‘Democrat’ and place it prior to government, and I can assure you that I have heard American friends use this term: “We have Democrat government”, and if I know these people as well as I do, then they have not meant any offence by this use.[2] Notice I’m telling you about things that I know about these people. I know that these dear friends would not consciously indulge in minor ridicule or taunting.[3] So please tell me how you, a stranger to these dear friends of mine, who cannot know anything about the conscious activity of these people, presume to tell me about their “unconscious” activity.[4]

[1]This is actually pretty ironic, seeing as "Cockney" is more proper grammatically than "Democrat (adj.) or Democrat party"! Many dictionaries list it in their vocabulary, like this one. However, try searching "Democrat party" or "Democrat" (adj.) on the same site. I'll stop indulging on the irony and move on.
[2]Wait, are you talking about people you know in real life or about people on this forum? I also find it interesting that you are able to read thoughts and I'm not. Strange. However, even if you have psychic powers and are 100% correct, they might not be doing it consciously to insult Democrats, but I will bet you almost anything they are conservatives since the word is always used by conservatives. How many times have you heard a Democrat say "the Democrat party"?

DannyM wrote:

vendace20 wrote:You're basically asking me whether or not I can read another's thoughts. Since no human can accomplish this, it's obviously just a rhetorical tool that you can utilize to make me say "No, I can't read his thoughts." However, the fact that I can't perform supernatural tasks doesn't mean everything I say is hence wrong.

Certainly, that would be true if you had something of worth to say.

This dismissal of everything I've said without any justification might seem unjust to the viewer, but keep in mind that he needed a way to bounce back from his failed rhetorical question and in this case going on the attack is far more effective than playing defense.

vendace20 wrote:I know this is your argument. And it is not necessarily loaded language. We have technically ungrammatical constructions that are not necessarily loaded. Your whole argument is built on false premises.[3] It is built on a house of cards. And you are left playing 52 card pickup.

[1]So, you're admitting that my argument is valid and that if I can just prove that "Democrat (adj.)" or "Democrat party" are loaded language, it is sound as well and therefore proves my point right.

Bush used it as loaded language.
Democrats hate it. It has a long history of use with Conservatives.
Example of a generic Republican using it. Backlash from Democrats.

I could go on and on and on, but all this copy-pasting is starting to numb me. You get the point. Democrats hate it and never use it, it's used only by Republicans and coservatives.

However, to return to my point on it being loaded language, how can democRAT not be? The inventor of the phrase said himself he used it because the leaders of the Democratic party weren't democratic in his mind. The word is obviously aimed at taking away the positive sound of Democratic and/or making it have a bad sound (RAT).

DannyM wrote:Look above for what? You’ve offered nothing but vague ideas about an unconscious.

I don't think deductive arguments and psychology are vague at all.

What does consciousness consist of? What does it contain?

Well, according to neurological and neuropsychological research, the mind is the result of chemical and electrical events in the brain. As of now, no one knows conclusively what consciousness consists of or how it formed. It contains things like conscious memories, as an example.

I think this discussion has gotten way out of hand, going from discussion of 2012 presidential candidates to psychology, drug legalization and the phrase "Democrat party". I'll end the discussion here before we go more off-topic, if that's alright with you, and thank you for the company

vendace20 wrote: 1: The words Democrat party and Democrat (adj.) are loaded language.
2: They are always used as such, since there is no other reason to use them.
3: Hence, it's reasonable to assume that someone who uses the word is using it for a negative purpose.

Is it a loaded language when used as a noun to describe a person, as in: are you a republican or a democrat?

Yeah I've never heard a Democrat descibe themself as "Democratic". I think pretty much all Americans are democratic in that they believe in democracy. In the same way, if August were to say that we've had a "democratic government", it would be confusing because people would think "well yeah, we've had a democracy for a long time now". I highly doubt August was intentionally trying to put a negative spin on the word by democrat rather than democratic.

Anyway, we shouldn't be beating each other up about semantics. We should be beating each other up over political differences in opinion!

So the conclusion I draw from all of this is that:

1. There is no basis to consider 'democrat' as a derogatory term when used as an adjective and not consider it as such when used as a noun, and all evidence points that its usage as a noun is widespread among all;, and

2. It cannot be discounted on grammatical grounds since nouns modifying nouns has become part of the modern lexicon (e.g. Iraq war instead of Iraqi war).

In other words this is just a silly argument and democRATS (sorry, must've hit the caps lock by accident) need to suck it up and move on.

I think this discussion has gotten way out of hand, going from discussion of 2012 presidential candidates to psychology, drug legalization and the phrase "Democrat party". I'll end the discussion here before we go more off-topic, if that's alright with you, and thank you for the company.

Well, I dropped the ‘drugs’ bit so we could stay somewhat on topic here. I don’t see how you can write such a response and then claim to be leaving the discussion. But I’ll answer it all the same.

Democratic" sounds like "democracy". Democracy is a strongly positive word. Also, the word "democratic" in itself "sounds good" and has a positive meaning. Have you understood everything I've said so far? Yes [] No []

LOL. Yeah, I understand you. Democracy is a great word. Democrat isn’t a bad word either. I’m a democrat at heart. Not a capital D democrat, of course. But a democrat nonetheless.

Now that we've established that the word "Democratic" is a good word, when it's replaced by a word like "Democrat", the hearer instead thinks instinctively about just a political party with no deeper meaning. The positive meaning of democratic (and democracy) is lost. Have you understood everything I've said so far? Yes [] No []

Okay. Now please expand on how you know the hearer’s instincts. How do you know that “Democrat” necessarily loses all deeper meaning? Democrat itself means an advocate or supporter of democracy, for crying out loud. I’m just waiting to see the negative connotations here. I know you mentioned something about the Conservatives in America using it to get RAT in there, but I’m yet to see you demonstrate that “100%” of Conservatives who use this word are doing so to emphasise the RAT in Democrat. Forgive me if I don’t just take your word for it.

Also, it can't be pure luck that the word conservatives have invented and used as a loaded phrase towards their opposition is democRAT Have you understood everything I've said so far? Yes [] No []

This word may well be used in a derogatory manner by some Conservatives.

Well, there are several schools of thought that have different answers to how the psyche works. I really don't want to turn this into a discussion on psychology, but I will say that neurological research has shown a lot about the nature of the mind.

I agree.

Depends on your definition of the conscious mind and mystery. Through centuries of research, we actually know quite a lot about the human psyche but this discussion is getting really off-topic.

Yes, and I believe the conscious and sub-conscious mind can be probed, and with some obvious success.

So you're point is that unconscious processes don't exist since the mind doesn't understand itself. But using this logic (X doesn't understand itself, hence it can't do Y) one could prove anything about living organisms. As an example, dogs don't understand how their digestion works, hence they can't eat food. If you want to make the case that these arguments are in any way different, please do so.

Nope. I’m not saying an unconscious process does not exist. It might well exist, but to claim to know the workings of 100% of American Conservatives who use this term is just strange. It is much more than flamboyant . It is outlandish You’ll have to do a lot better here if you are going to convince me of your sweeping claims. I want to know the studies that were conducted in this area, how big they were and how widely spread they were.

Your little X--Y is pretty pointless here since we are talking about something completely different. We are talking about you making sweeping claims on the unconscious when we have a hard enough time understanding the sub-conscious and consciousness itself. I mean, you can give me your little ideas on negative connotations and what have you, but it seems to me that you are, quite frankly, just making do with spelling the words out and saying, effectively, “There, good connotation, bad connotation,” and I’m supposed to be wooed here into thinking, “Wow, that’s some deep psychoanalysis there … I stand corrected.” Sorry if you think I’m being difficult, but I’m just not convinced you have provided anything at all here.

It doesn't. I gave this as an example of loaded language used by some. I don't associate being pro-choice with being anti-life (that's ridiculous in my opinion) in any way, but unfortunately I've heard this phrase (anti-life) used way too often by people who think otherwise.

Okay. More vagueness then? Nothing concrete here?

I honestly don't understand what you're trying to say, or what it has to do with loaded language/phrases.

What I’m trying to get out of you here are the remarkable findings that show “100%” of Conservatives who use the word “Democrat” prior to the word “government” are doing so in a derogatory manner.

I don't understand what this has to do with loaded phrases. Are you trying to argue that the unconscious doesn't exist? Or if it does it has absolutely no function whatsoever? That's the only thing I can infer.

I’m not arguing that. Although it is a debatable topic. You may infer that I’m asking that you justify your position.

I'd like to correct myself, it's actually used 100% of the time by conservatives as a slur towards the Democratic Party.

Evidence please.

To quote myself:
1: The words Democrat party and Democrat (adj.) are loaded language.
2: They are always used as such, since there is no other reason to use them.
3: Hence, it's reasonable to assume that someone who uses the word is using it for a negative purpose.

LOL. Do you think this is evidence? Please. This is an idea you or somebody had. #1 and #2 are patently false. Do you understand that I just won’t take that claim as empirical? Do you understand why I cannot do that?

This is actually pretty ironic, seeing as "Cockney" is more proper grammatically than "Democrat”

Cockney rhyming slang is what I meant. At its very best it is a grammatical mess. I mean, you and me take a walk down the old frog, into the German cruiser for a pig’s ear and then a ball of chalk back down the old frog to a nightclub and we’ll crack on with a few treacles, see if we can’t ‘ave it away…oh, but if it offs then we’ll more likely be ‘aving it away on our toes…

Wait, are you talking about people you know in real life or about people on this forum? I also find it interesting that you are able to read thoughts and I'm not. Strange.

Personal friends. I can’t read their thoughts. But I know them, I know their kind nature and deeply religious outlook. These people won’t even utter what you and I would call a borderline swear word. But no, ultimately I cannot read their thoughts. What would there be to read? If it is unconscious, how can it even be a thought?

However, even if you have psychic powers and are 100% correct, they might not be doing it consciously to insult Democrats, but I will bet you almost anything they are conservatives since the word is always used by conservatives. How many times have you heard a Democrat say "the Democrat party"?

Right. So you accept they are not doing so on any conscious level. Now do you accept that I know the nature of these people? That I know that they wouldn’t even talk bad to a dog?

This dismissal of everything I've said without any justification might seem unjust to the viewer, but keep in mind that he needed a way to bounce back from his failed rhetorical question and in this case going on the attack is far more effective than playing defense.

What failed rhetorical question? Is this where you claimed to know a poster’s unconscious ‘intentions’? I had every right to ask if you knew his intentions. The burden is also on the one making the claim. And you have thus far failed.

So, you're admitting that my argument is valid and that if I can just prove that "Democrat (adj.)" or "Democrat party" are loaded language, it is sound as well and therefore proves my point right.

No it does not “prove” your point right. What an absurd thing to say.

Article 1 spoke about Bush using the term Democrat. Okay. Where’s the findings to support you?
Article 2 tells me about how the liberal bloggers of this world picked up on this ‘conspiracy’. Where’s the findings?
Article 3 was not even an article. Dare I ask: Where’s the findings?

I could go on and on and on, but all this copy-pasting is starting to numb me. You get the point. Democrats hate it and never use it, it's used only by Republicans and conservatives.

I’m sure you could go on. But it would be fruitless.

However, to return to my point on it being loaded language, how can democRAT not be? The inventor of the phrase said himself he used it because the leaders of the Democratic party weren't democratic in his mind. The word is obviously aimed at taking away the positive sound of Democratic and/or making it have a bad sound (RAT).

The inventor? It is YOU spelling this “democRAT”. What’s the inventor’s name? He admitted he used “Democrat” because he didn’t think the Democratic Party was very democratic? Did he say anything about this RAT business?

Republican is a negative word because it hints that all members of this party enjoy licking pubs.
What with all the people that frequent pubs, I imagine it's very dirty!

Republican.
Republican.

Re-pub-li-CAN!

Yes we can! Yes we can!

It's so overwhelmingly positive that I just can't help but turn into one!

maybe I should move to switzerland, Seems like everything is chill over there.