intr.v. dis·sent·ed, dis·sent·ing, dis·sents
1. To differ in opinion or feeling; disagree.
2. To withhold assent or approval. n.
1. Difference of opinion or feeling; disagreement.
2. The refusal to conform to the authority or doctrine of an established church; nonconformity.
3. Law A justice’s refusal to concur with the opinion of a majority, as on a higher court. Also called dissenting opinion.
Etymology
Middle English dissenten, from Latin dissentire : dis-, dis- + sentire, to feel.
Usage: In my book, modern democracy implies the opportunity (right?) to dissent with the opinion of the majority, without the need to justify my opinions all the time. Some people confuse dissent with treason or with anti-patriotism. I associate dissent with independent thinking. In these times of new holy wars, when religious extremism and political ultraconservatism aim to gain our support, I think that dissent is basic for the survival of a healthy democracy.
A Google search for democracy and dissent shows 372,000 results.
So many links, so little time.
[quote author=El_Viejo_Feo link=board=wordsuggest;num=1068079707;start=0#5 date=11/07/03 at 00:18:38]
"Because I’m an Alpha Hotel", I replied. One of her entourage then whispered to her, "What’s an Alpha Hotel". She turned to him and said, "it means __ __"
(she told him what it means).
[quote author=Tim Ward link=board=wordsuggest;num=1068079707;start=0#9 date=11/07/03 at 14:23:34]Stickler: Imagine what the initials A and H might be used for… A** H***...
I have always found risible the difference between Democrats and Republicans in the USA. From the outside they just look so similar, that the use of labels like liberals and conservative are funny. It seems to be a very narrow political spectrum.
I agree that in their final result extreme left and extreme right are quite similar. What I can’t see at all is the use of the word socialist and socialism to refer to the Democrats. It seems to be a really wide interpretation of the terms, because they do not have a social or economic agenda that looks anything like a tradicional definition of socialism (not that there are many of those still standing).
As I see it from the outside, politics appears to be completely dominated by two parties, and it is almost impossible to put forward alternative views outside the mainstream parties. This can be a sign of political maturity, but at the same time makes political discussions quite boring
By the way, doesn’t the new governor of California supports, or at least accepts, abortion? Sort of a liberal Republican?
Viejo, thanks for the explanation. It is always good to receive a first hand view.
What I can’t see at all is the use of the word socialist and socialism to refer to the Democrats.
Viejo is using the term in an American sense, which is quite different from the way the rest of the world understands it.
I agree with most of what Viejo says, especially about what the dreadful Hillary is planning for 2008.
I think that part of the problem is that issues are different in America. The whole question of states’ rights is massive and really has no equivalent in Europe or in South America.
The dreaded abortion issue is not strictly a Dem-Rep one. As uncronopio correctly notes, the Governor elect of California is somewhat pro-choice, despite his otherwise Republican sympathies.
It’s not indecipherable, but it’s complex. But lack of simplicity is one of the things that makes democracy so great. Simple enough to have some king, dictator, Imam or Ayatollah tell you what’s right and what’s wrong.
[quote author=El_Viejo_Feo link=board=wordsuggest;num=1068079707;start=15#23 date=11/09/03 at 02:43:42]The Terminator does support abortion in most cases
The recent bombings have destroyed the vague willingness of some to sympathize when the attacks were on Western targets. The recent attacks were on targets in Saudi Arabia, and killed Muslims. The terrorists are clearly only terrorists.
And so the chickens come home to roost. Only terrorists, after all. <insert ironic frownie here>
Unfortunately, the pessimist in me can’t help but see that this is how corrupted the terrorists feel that Saudi Arabia has become, under the auspices of the Western infidels!
I’m sure that, to the purists, attacking any outpost in Saudi Arabia is nothing short of attacking the West. So, in their eyes, this was strictly legitimate!
