The Democrats often seem like the Not Republican Party, no more and no less.
Conservatives define themselves in terms of what they oppose.
The only and one way to say what abstract art or art-as-art is, is to say what it is not.
As I’ve said, I’ve never believed in God, which technically makes me an atheist (since the prefix “a” means “not” or “without”). But I have problems with the word “atheism.” It defines what someone is not rather than what someone is. It would be like calling me an a-instrumentalist for Bad Religion rather than the band’s singer. Defining yourself as against something says very little about what you are for.
He defined himself almost wholly in the negative: It was not who he was, it was who he was not.
I think that when I started singing, I didn't know what I wanted to do; I only knew what I didn't want to do.
It is easy enough to define what the Commonwealth is not. Indeed this is quite a popular pastime.
I don't think anybody deserves to be defined totally by his enemies.
We went through a long phase where we defined ourselves in opposition to other people and other countries.
Liberalism can only be defined negatively. It is a mere critique, not a living idea.
It's easier for me to say what God is not, and then what God is.
The highest religion has been defined by a negative word: ahimsa.
So when you see a regulation against lead, because lead is a bad in a regulators mind, what does that mean? You are not telling us what is good, you are just tell us what you don't want, not what you do want.
I am against the word 'anti' because it's a little bit like 'atheist,' as compared to 'believer.' And an atheist is just as much of a religious man as the believer is.
The American uppermiddle-class citizen is a composite of negatives. He is largely delineated by what he is not.
I'm really picky about stuff like videos or even pictures of the band, but at the same time, I don't really know what it is I want; I just know what I don't want.
