>>77
No. What I'm blaming you for is going for this tangent of "debate", especially when you seemed to have initially understood what I meant in the first place. I'll explain:
"Revolutions consist of a political revolution and a social revolution, which are components of a revolution".
Here, you clearly understand what I meant. When I said "The revolution I'm referring to encompasses all definitions". It encompassed both components (or definitions) because when we think of revolution we think of these components in concert. Or at least, I believe we should. Secondly...
I merely pointed out the distinction between the 2. Since they are perfectly valid distinctions as backed up by the dictionary I cannot in any way be attempting to use "semantics" to derail your argument."
This would have been a perfectly good line of thought, had it not been clear that I understand that distinction. By your omission (the underlined quote above) you show that you understood what I meant. If you assumed that I meant "one kind of revolution" then that is a flaw of your judgement, not of my articulation. I wish we were done here, but unfortunately you made other mistakes...
"My argument is that while revolutions can succeed politically, they rarely achieve much socially."
I completely understand that. Now, the reason your argument is semantical is because you tried to make this point by (needlessly) backing up the distinctions of revolution with a dictionary and not by citing history. You do understand what a semantical argument is, don't you?
"Also attacking my person is a logical fallacy called "ad hominem" and it's boring, /b/ can insult me in 9001 more colourful ways than you."
That's good to know. Would you mind pointing out where attacked you? (Do you have me confused with another poster?) If you are referring to my statement about the methodology of those indoctrinated into certain thinking patterns regarding this subject, then I'm afraid that can't be helped. It is my belief and you fit the caste. Would it have been preferred if I removed pretenses and called you an inbred rape-baby suffering from downs?
As for the rest of your post...well, those are just opinions you have. Interpetations of history that favor your worldview. Did I ever say that the goal of revolution was democracy? I don't believe so. Or maybe you were just trying to frame the debate again? Or perhaps trivialize the concept of revolution as the fruits of some conspiracy engineered by "the small elite"?