> > Perhaps. You will have to give me a more convincing explanation as to
> >why I should recognise the relevance of such a distinction.
>
>Why should I when you give no hint as to what criteria of assent or
>confirmation on your part would suffice to show that you were conflating
>definition and explanation.
OK you play word games then. Using wanker words like "conflating" (my dictionary denies the existence of any such word) doesn't make word games any less silly you know. Speak plainly for Christs sake.
> Love=Power=Democracy is even sillier than
>the standard taxonomic distinction that commonly starts off discussions
>of power.
Are you implying that I suggested that love equals power equals democracy? What is a "standard taxonomic distinction" when its at home anyhow?
Power: (in this context) The possession of control or command over others. - Macquarie dictionary`
Simple. It is unnecessary to construct incomprehensible sentences in order to grasp the meaning of this simple word, we all know the meaning of the word, so shut up about that and stick to the point.
Clearly, when we say that love is power, any numbskull can see that we don't mean the definition of love is the same as the definition of power. We are saying that love confers power. Confers it on the object of the love. Being loved gives you power over the person who loves you. Have you got it yet? Now you can wank on about "conflating" this and "standard taxonomic distinction" that, until you are black in the face, but it completely misses the point.
If you have some point to make about why the observation that love is power might be mistaken, just say it simply, without all the tortured sentences and imaginary words. I'm pretty sure you don't have anything intelligent to say though.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas