nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 208:
Line 208: + + + + + + + +
User talk:HelpJazz (view source)
Revision as of 10:22, September 23, 2008
, 10:22, September 23, 2008→Capitalisation of 'intelligent design': new section
:Also I should point out, since you used this example in the essay, that many liberals don't support the legalization of drugs since they are dangerous and everyone should live in a bubble so that they don't die earlier. These same liberals want to ban [[trans fats]] and [[high fructose corn syrup]]. It's definitely more of an issue with libertarians and advocacy groups (such as LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
:Also I should point out, since you used this example in the essay, that many liberals don't support the legalization of drugs since they are dangerous and everyone should live in a bubble so that they don't die earlier. These same liberals want to ban [[trans fats]] and [[high fructose corn syrup]]. It's definitely more of an issue with libertarians and advocacy groups (such as LEAP: Law Enforcement Against Prohibition).
:Oh which reminded me of a whole bunch more reasons against the WoD Jeffrey, but I won't bore you with them :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
:Oh which reminded me of a whole bunch more reasons against the WoD Jeffrey, but I won't bore you with them :) [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:14, 22 September 2008 (EDT)
== Capitalisation of 'intelligent design' ==
I see that you've been changing "Intelligent Design" to "intelligent design". I'm not sure that this is necessarily the best thing to do, but then I don't know what ''is'' the best thing to do. Granted "intelligent design" is not a proper noun, but it is the name of a concept and movement, so leaving it as just two ordinary words doesn't seem right either. There is difference between saying that "a plant exhibits characteristics of intelligent design" and "Dembski is a proponent of intelligent design". The former is fine. The latter makes it sound like Dembski favours things being intelligently designed, rather than what it really means, that he favours the ''idea'' that living things ''have been intelligently designed''. As I see it, there's three possible ways to distinguish the different uses of the term. One is to capitalise it, as the "name" of a concept and movement. Two is to italicise it, as a special use of the words. Three is to put it in quotes, also as a special use of the words. The quotes option, to me, seems a bit too close to "scare quotes". Italicising it to me seems to be stressing or emphasising it, which is not the desire either. Also, its use is quite common in many places, which means that italicising it or putting it in quotes on the basis of it being a ''special'' use of the words hardly seems appropriate. Which leaves capitalisation, which is the one that I've tended to go for, although I'm not totally comfortable with that either, probably simply because it's ''not'' a proper noun. Perhaps there's some other approach that I've not thought of?
Comments?
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 06:22, 23 September 2008 (EDT)