>>67
This is exactly what I'm saying. By implying that social revolution never had anything to do with or any relation to the overthrow of tyrannical government because of the semantics of their dictionary definition (without citing history)- actually does what you're accusing me of. It makes the idea of revolution ambiguous and nebulous.
At the onset of this little debate, I knew exactly what I was talking about when I said "revolution" and I think you did too. A token behavior of those deeply indoctrinated (via various public institutions) by the current system, liberals and conservatives alike, is a need to frame and re-frame the argument whle offering up platitudes like "Yeah! Stick it to the man" in order to marginalize those outside of the status quo.
Listen, you don't believe that the French Revolution was related to the further social and cultural changes or that the American Revolution didn't cause social changes or that the American civil war and the "revolutions" that started it didn't cause social changes ("revolutions")....then that's your choice.
But so far, your behavior hasn't really even presented a logical point of view or argument that isn't rooted in the desperate need to obtusificate my statement, instead of refuting it with history and facts. If you think that arguing using dictionary.com was doing that, then you really just don't "get it" and this "debate" is rubbish. Then again, maybe you weren't being serious and I was just being trolled.