On 8/17/07, Udhay Shankar N <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thaths wrote: [ on 10:21 PM 8/17/2007 ] > > > Or Noam Chomsky, for that matter. > >Explain how. > Very simple - if you have control of how an issue is framed, then the > mechanics of the discussion are relatively unimportant, as any of the > various outcomes will be more or less to your liking. Chomsky is > doing so, just as much as the mechanisms he points out -- perhaps > even self-consciously. > > Some related reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sapir-whorf
Wow! Quoting Sapir-Whorf against Chomsky in a non-linguistics debate. I caution you Also see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Lakoff and his "strict father"/"nurturing parent" frames. Would you posit that any argument is, by definition, framed in a manner certain to lead towards desired conclusions? S. -- Homer: He has all the money in the world, but there's one thing he can't buy. Marge: What's that? Homer: (pause) A dinosaur. -- Homer J. Simpson Sudhakar Chandra Slacker Without Borders
