|
let's see. The idjits will call everything a flipflop, perhaps because of a limited vocabulary, because they intend to decieve by classing different kinds of contrary statements under one rubric, and they intend to economize on smears--actually, their cheapness may be their undoing, but we'll see.
A. Flipflops that aren't flipflops because things change. For instance, if I said the sky is blue, and later I said the sky is full of stars, that isn't really a flipflop, although the statements are contrary. Budget battles can be that way. Saying you support a dividend tax cat when you have record revenues and a budget surplus is not the same as supporting a dividend tax cut in the face of record deficits, irresponsible expenditures, and record taxcode largess for the wealthy. So even though "I support a dividend tax cut" is contrary to "I don't support a dividend tax cut" the positions may not be a flipflop--at least not on the part of the person saying these things. An honest person with clear vision will be able to say that the sky is blue during the day and the sky is inky dark during the night. If we accuse them of flipflopping, rather than acknowledging that the ground they stand upon has rotated, the term would lose all meaning, and we would be the dishonest abusers of language willing to say anything to denigrate our opponents--reason and reality be damned.
B. Some things are composite in nature. You know the allegory of the three blind men and the elephant. You could probably get a wise person to agree that this part is *like* a snake, and that part is *like* a rope, but that the whole thing *is* an elephant. Well you could slap the flipflopper label on your sage's forehead, but that wouldn't say much for your ability to see the truth.
C. Sequences. Do you agree that in the series 1, 4, 9 that the next number is 16? Okay, let's agree on a process, 1, 4, 9, 16, and further let's agree that getting to 16 is a desirable goal, Now, if we agree on that, and you go off like 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17, have complaints to lodge. 1, okay. 3, 5, and 7 do not belong. You missed 4. 9 belongs, but you got it out of sequence. 11, 13, 15, 17--hey, we never agreed on that, and you missed the target completely.
So what, you're going to come back at me like I'm a flipflopper because we both fully agreed upon 1, and we both thought 9 was a good idea, and the rest is just quibbling?
That's not flipflopping. That's like two sequences have similar starting points, and sharing one or two points along the way, but otherwise not being alike and not leading to the same results. If you started at 1, yeah, they're the same I guess--you can't know until the other pieces fall into place. If you start off saying 1, 4, 9, 16, and say, that's a sequence, then the fact that some of those numbers appear in other sequences does not mean that all sequences are the same, and you would be wrong to say that 1, 4, 9, 16 and 1, 3, 5, 7.... were equivalent, politically or otherwise.
***
I'll pick this up later. It's a good topic.
|