Yes, that’s a pretty standard function of the English language.
It doesn’t imply that the question is unimportant, but it does imply that the question would have a different answer if applied to a different country. And, of course, it is often the case that the economic needs of one country at a particular time are different from the economic needs of a different country.
So, yeah, when you ask, “Is any American ‘a waste?’” there’s a definite implication that, even if the answer is “no” for Americans, you’re leaving the door open on the answer being “Yes” for non-Americans.
Having received so much feedback on this, I would agree with you - and several others - Miller, in the sense that it’s legitimate to interpret the question as possibly leaving the door open for the answer to be yes for non-Americans.
But I would stipulate only* possible*. . . . and that yes, it’s possible vs. no, it’s really not implied here, depends on the context of the remark.
I now realize that those who hold the former view had no context to work with. Partly because I’m a newcomer, and they don’t know me, and partly because this remark just came out of the box as the first post in a new thread.
Tricky stuff.
Please be assured that the view on my part is that every human person is of immense worth and dignity in and of himself or herself, whatever his or her nationality, color, creed, condition, etc.
Before I was married, I was a regular volunteer with the organization that the late Mitch Snyder ran. Many of these folks were Latinos. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitch_Snyder
*Y mi cunado y mis sobrinas son Latino. * (And the n in cunado should have a tilde over it, but I couldn’t find how to insert that character.)
And the misunderstanding here is really, really interesting, and very much about what I hoped this thread would show to us. How we misunderstand each other. How we talk past each other. How we may impute attitudes and motives incorrectly . . . sometimes, when the speaker doesn’t consider their message very well, perhaps for some other good reason. Can we in a divided America really talk to and listen to each other? And can we see our fellow countrymen and countrywomen who may be our political and cultural adversaries, as nevertheless possibly good friends, good family, good neighbors? Or do we have to be polarized and grid-locked? (I live not far from “inside the Beltway,” and see a lot of polarized and grid-locked.)
The term is often used in the Catechism of the Catholic Church and in many papal publications. I agree the term is clumsy.
I think the term implies that the user wants to refer to what used to be called mankind - homo sapiens sapiens, adults and juveniles, male and female, while
being careful to avoid using sexist and ageist language.
But using the two terms together implies modifiers–if you have a human person, that means that there must be persons who aren’t human or humans that aren’t people, in the same way that saying “black cat” implies that there are either cats that aren’t black, black things that aren’t cats, or both. Excepting the possibility of non-human persons or non-person humans, either “human” or “person” are perfectly adequate for describing mankind and “human person” is therefore redundant. Allow this to be # 1,876,293 on the list of things that I look down my nose at the Catholic Church about.
Thanks for asking. Here’s an executive summary of the topic:
America seems polarized - different cultural, political backgrounds - all American countrymen and women, who seem to annoy each other and to view their adversaries, not as people who bring something of value to the table in spite of their differences, but, instead, as “the enemy” who must never gain *an inch *of ground!
Can people from different positions, backgrounds, parties, perspectives hold productive conversations?
Is it possible for Americans of different political / cultural persuasions to read others’ comments, paying careful attention to the substance of others’ comments, considering thoughtfully what others are saying?
And can Americans think about what they’ve read before formulating an answer to those whose opinions differ from their own?
The short answer is, yes… sometimes. However, more often than not, substantive ideas and comments are few and far between. So much of what we see in social media starts out stupid and goes downhill from there.
Well, that can be true much of the time . . . indeed.
But, also, it seems to me that questions touching on why it is that Americans have become so polarized include: can we not try to be patient with one another? And what does it take to be unfailingly and resolutely courteous toward one another?
I honestly don’t recall a time in my lifetime when this wasn’t the case. We’re certainly talking more about the polarized state of affairs, but I’m not sure people are any more polarized with respect to values and ideas. Can you point to a time and place when things were more gentile?
Perhaps, but now you are asking “how can we be less polarized”, which is a rather different question to “why are we so polarized”. The approach to solving the first question rises out of answering the second. If you answer to the second question is off the mark, you will never reach a viable solution to the first.
Over the last 30 years or so, op-ed articles and television talk shows (“McLaughlin Group;” “To the Contrary;” “McNeill / Lehrer,” etc.) have alluded from time to time to one side or the other of the Progressive / Conservative divide as “demonizing” the other side, particularly around what are called “hot-button” issues - immigration, the economy, entitlement programs, U.S. involvement in foreign affairs, many domestic cultural and social issues.
It’s possible to watch a lampooning of this phenomenon from a 1979 SNL skit.
Obviously, this is way over-the-top, and meant to be funny. However, the “point / counter-point” really does capture the “demonizing” spirit on the part of each side.
From listening to my elders, my impression is that much before the 1960s, it wasn’t usual for people to demonize and criticize each other publicly and across-the-board in this way.
Not that this happens every day everywhere today, either. But it seems to me it’s much more common and typical today.
For example, watch this, . . . (and let the observer take cover, as well! Be especially vigilant about shrapnel, projectiles, and flying glass)
I am a traditional and pro-life Catholic, who assents to everything the Church believes and teaches. And I’ve done volunteer outreach to the homeless and to immigrants.
My first wife was one of those and did neither of those things. My present wife walked away from the catholic church about 50 years ago and is the most giving person I’ve ever met. People who believe in religion and god don’t have a monopoly on charity and understanding.
It’s ironic that someone who is ostensibly so concerned with civility and understanding of opposing views comes across as being petulant and passive aggressive.
Maybe it’s just me, but I’m not feeling the “Love, Euphrosyne”.