I think that dropping the issue would make sense, since it’s simply a semantic argument. However, the fact is that my initial interpretation of Cisco’s words was not unreasonable. If Cisco or dante wishes to continue debating the point, I am happy to accomodate them. Within my rules of course.
Heh.
I’m impressed that to this point, brazil84 has only fallen back on the “you have insulted my honor, sir!” thing once or twice. Of course nothing’s been achieved regardless…
I’m sorry, I’ve made my answer as clear as I’m able to make it. The fact that you don’t like it is your problem, not mine.
Please do not put words in my mouth or mischaracterize my statements.
It’s a simple, reasonable yes or no question. Not only that, but the answer is obvious. You would seem to have enough intelligence to answer it. My conclusion is that you are evading it because you do not want to answer.
I will repeat it again:
Do you agree that under at least one such definition [of the word "Hispanic], “Hispanic” includes Brazillians?
Let’s make it clear and explicit: I’m characterizing what I believe to be your state of mind. In other words, I am supplying an explanation for your evasion.
(I’m not claiming that you have explicitly admitted that you do not want to answer the question.)
I will repeat the question again:
Do you agree that under at least one such definition [of the word "Hispanic], “Hispanic” includes Brazillians?
By the way, the world is very unlikely to come to an end if you simply admit that the answer is “yes.”
For Christ’s sake, somebody just agree to let the other guy have the last word on this, whether you think he’s wrong or not.
Yes, because that’s exactly what I meant by using few moments of an interview I caught on Dr. Phil as one example, that is that they were a representative sample. Your claim was
bolding mine.
By all means ignore the fact that I also used BET, an actual movie reference where this attitude was stated, Hollywood, the media, and black comedians’ “white people are X” jokes etc as examples. Be real! Of course my post did not in any way state that the was the be all and end all of where I’ve seen this sort of thing. But yet that’s immediately where you went, and the extent of your argument?
The next few are complete nutbags, but add Louis Farrakhan (sp?), Rev. Wright, and Jesse Jackson to those fostering the attitude I described and as pretty solid proof that your claim that this attitude “…has absolutely never been said” is untrue.
To brazil and pals, I’m confused. Why exactly does it matter what the Exact Universally Perfect (ting!) definition of “hispanic” is?
It doesn’t matter at all for this argument, which is part of the reason I have repeatedly offered to accept the OP’s definition for purposes of this discussion.
For some reason, this is unacceptable to the OP. My charitable guess is that it’s similar to a person who is peeved at hearing the word “infer” used to mean “imply.”
That was AWESOME! Morgan is class!
No mention of Brazil or Brazilian in that cite.
I’m Hispanic so I will have to say that the dictionary that included “Latin America” in the definition of Hispanic was wrong. Many other related terms, like “Hispanoamerica” do exclude Brazil, Latin America can include Brazil, but “Hispanoamerica” does not include Brazil.
Then why you even have to get behind a Brazilian girl to keep your fortitude to keep this going? 
Drop it already.
Do you agree that “Latin America” includes Brazil?
I’m not sure why being Hispanic makes you an authority on English (or American English). To me, it’s just one more data point.
I’m happy to drop it. In fact, I’ve offered multiple times to stipulate for the sake of argument to the OP’s definition of “Hispanic.” And yet people keep on insisting on arguing, in effect, that the dictionary definition I quoted was somehow “wrong.”
So, if you want to debate an academic point, I’m happy to accomodate you. (as long as you follow my rules.)
Yes. but the dictionary was wrong to add it to the definition of Hispanic.
To me, what you say here, is just another data point on why no one should take you seriously. 
Being Hispanic does make me an authority regarding the origins of the word and the meaning of it. Hispanic comes from “Hispano”, Brazil is not included when mentioning Hispanic America. But on the US side, the US census reports that:
Yes, the definition was wrong.
Are you having the impression that there is even a good size academic group that agrees with you on this point? Where I have seen this before? 
Frankly I don’t think you even have any desire to continue to deal with the subject of the OP, but we’ll see.
I cannot get this to play. I get to the site but the little screen just sits there with the spinning asterisk thingie (technical term :D) and never plays.
Does anyone have an alternate site?
The dictionary simply reports how the language is being used. There is no Academie Anglaise.
Oh really? So is it your position that the origins of the word should control?
Simple question.
Ok, Mr. Authority on the English Language, I think you better look up the word “academic.”
Of course I do. For what seems like the tenth time, I am offering to stipulate for the sake of argument that the OP’s definition of “Hispanic” will control.
Let me get this straight. Another poster looks up the definition of a word in a dictionary and has the audacity to actually believe the definition as stated in said dictionary and THAT is what has been causing all of these pages of back and forths?
If I understand brazil correctly (and I apologize ahead of time, I’ve only now returned to posting regularly after a long absence, so brazil is not familiar to me and I could be completely off base). At any rate, based upon his posts, all he is saying is that “Dictionaries are accepted means of finding out what word “X” means. So, if a person can’t rely upon a commonly accepted source of definitions, where ARE they supposed to get the correct information? A random and anonymous person on a chat board is a more logical and accurate source than a dictionary?”
That’s not exactly my position. I’m not disputing that many (perhaps most?) definitions of the word “Hispanic” exclude Brazilians. I’m not insisting that the definition I posted is correct and other definitions are wrong.
My position is that it was not unreasonable for me to understand the word “Hispanic” to include Brazilians. And since the OP has indicated that he did not intend to include Brazilians when he referred to “Hispanic,” I’ve agreed to accept his definition.
That should end the matter, but other posters apparently wish to debate whether my original (mis)understanding was unreasonable.
I should warn you that I’m very unpopular on this message board. You should probably think twice before you do anything which could be seen as siding with me in a discussion.
That dictionary does make the emphasis in the “Spanish-speaking” part in related terms. It is clear that even there “Latin-America”, in their Hispanic definition, is referring to the “nations that speak Spanish”
Simple question.
[/quote]
It is the Etymology, so yes; and the US census agrees also on the US side.
Like if that would be important after it is clear that you are just a poser.
Here is your chance once again: Drop it then and continue with the subject of the OP.
Or are you so dense that you can not notice that you just broke your point here by the 11th time by the replies you just made here?
Thanks, but to be fair, and at the risk of further annoying everyone who is undoubtedly already sick of this subject, I’m just trying to simplify and understand exactly where the disagreement is. From both of your posts you and GIGO’s (and sorry I didn’t read all of them all of the way through, way too much), it appears as if you two are saying basically the same thing, only in slightly different ways.