:
Predicatives are handy when they modify a specific aspect of someone rather than the person as a whole, e.g. “my diet is vegan”. That aspect doesn’t have to be stated, of course, because it’s obvious that when you say “I am a postman” that it purely refers to one’s occupation. In this instance, it is obvious that Patrick means to refer purely to his political beliefs.
Unfortunately, beliefs are not a discrete aspect of someone. A person can only have one diet, and a few occupations at most. There are an inordinate number of things to have beliefs about. While there are observable trends in an individual’s values, applying a term to encompass them all is generally counter productive, because you then have to list the anomalies (unless of course you’re conforming to a label instead of applying one). The tendancy, of course, is to conform, or else why would there be labels. I’m not exactly accusing Patrick of this, because he has successfully listed (a few) of the anomalies.
To wit: It’s not the case that Patrick is outraged because he’s a liberventionist, it’s that being outraged is part of what makes the term liberventionist applicable to his political beliefs.
|
Fair enough, and I do see the point that you're making, but I still think that there was absolutely no problem in him calling himself what he did.
If he simply made up a new term to call himself, fine. It's not something I would do, but if it helps him keep his beliefs straight, I see no problem with it. If he is using a more widely accepted term (which I'm still not quite sure if he is, seeing as no one here is really familiar with the term "psuedo-liberventionist") to label himself with, fine as well. Assuming his audience is familiar with the term (and how would Pat know in the first place?), then he would still save time listing a few anomalies instead of listing all of his beliefs out at once.