Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Yes but....


I am incapable of understanding the notion of introducing an analogy or parallel analogy situation notion for the purposes of clarifying or examining a common underlying principle then it is clear you need to go bac to Introductory Logical Argument 101 examining of understanding the notion of introducing an analogy or parallel analogy situation. It is a common rhetorical rhetorical rhetorical rhetorical rhetorical tool for examining the logical structure of a position, i.e. if it was different but isomorphic, would the rhetorical principle being put forward still hold water if it was examined in a different water in the context of a different but isomorphic water situation.


I hope this finally makes it clears.



W**F


* what's up with people ?*

*Bob* Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Keef Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > Can I just jump in here, and ask people to STOP

> > quoting entire posts in order to supply a one

> line

> > comment. It is really annoying (much in keeping

> > with this thread I guess).

>

> ok



LOL.

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

>

> If you are incapable of understanding the notion

> of introducing an analogy or parallel situation

> for the purposes of clarifying or examining a

> common underlying principle then it is clear you

> need to go bac to Introductory Logical Argument

> 101. It is a common rhetorical tool for examining

> the logical structure of a position, i.e. would

> the principle being put forward still hold water

> if it was examined in the context of a different

> but isomorphic situation.


i said that you made a comparison, you said you didn't, are you now agreeing that you did?:


analogy noun [C or U]

a comparison between things which have similar features, often used to help explain a principle or idea:



Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary


edited for typo

Dom-----


Said


i said that you made a comparison, you said you didn't are you know agreeing that you did?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




I really don't now...err I mean know....err no....



However ,I really fancy a "Knorr cuppa soup" though know, that I do now!




W**F

Oh


I'm making it difficult, here let me simplify.


After the co-occurrence matrix is constructed for a corpus of text, we can apply

similarity metrics to the word vectors to assess the semantic similarity of one word to

another. Much research has demonstrated that words with more similar co-occurrence

vectors have more similar connotative meanings. The distance metrics in the analyses

below are computed using the summed Euclidean distances:

( )

∑ −

= 2

|

| i

i y

x

d


See that clears it up


W**F

Domitianus wrote



You're talking about parent & child parking spaces a bit closer to the entrance. Is that immoral? Illegal? Do you really feel your self discriminated against?


Did you just mention 'making a mountain out of a molehill?'




Tricky one. What's Station Manager Barrys take on that?

woofmarkthedog Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Dom-----

>

> Said

>

> i said that you made a comparison, you said you

> didn't are you know agreeing that you did?

>

> --------------------------------------------------

> --------------------------------------------------

>

>

>

>

> I really don't now...err I mean know....err

> no....

>

>

> However ,I really fancy a "Knorr cuppa soup"

> though know, that I do now!

>

>

>

> W**F



my typo to be fair, now edited

Muley Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Domitianus wrote

>

>

> You're talking about parent & child parking spaces

> a bit closer to the entrance. Is that immoral?

> Illegal? Do you really feel your self

> discriminated against?

>

> Did you just mention 'making a mountain out of a

> molehill?'

>

>

>

> Tricky one. What's Station Manager Barrys take on

> that?


Immoral? It is certainly discriminatory and many people would feel that any form of discrimination (no matter how insignificant) is immoral. If the positions were reversed, (as I have suggested and no one has commented on), and it was some other group that was being advantaged or disadvantaged (blacks, Asians, Chinese, gay/lesbians, women etc etc) would your attitude be so casual? Would you dismiss this matter as being trivial and unworthy of notice? I very much doubt it!


Illegal? Possibly, depending, as I said earlier, upon whether discrimination on grounds of marital/family status is unlawful. If it is, then yes the issue in question may well be illegal. Again whether or not it is a minor matter is irrelevant as to its illegality. Minor unlawful discrimination is still unlawful discrimination and again, if positions were reversed and it was some other group being discriminated against or advantaged (see earlier list for examples) I doubt that anyone would be impressed by the argument "Yes, it is unlawful discrimination but only on a very minor issue. Why are these pesky Jews/gypsies/blacks/Asians/women/gays getting so worked up?" On the contrary, I imagine a great many people on this forum would be signing petitions, organising boycotts and writing letters to their MPs to show how PC they are. I imagine the attitude of such parties is that if you are a member of a more 'priviledged' or 'advantaged' section of society, of course, it seems ok for you to be discriminated against from time to time as I guess you derserve it.


Do I feel myself discriminated against? If services are being provided to a group of Sainsbury's customers based solely upon criteria such as family/marital status then it is beyond question that others ARE being discriminated against. Discrimination by definition is the process of making disctinctions and offering different opportunity accordingly. This is not a matter for debate. I assume your question is - do I really give a s**t and is it harming my life. In answer to the second question - no as I don't drive in London anyway. In answer to the first - yes! As a matter of principle I do object to discrimination against any party even if they are perceived to be part of group that can 'take it' from time to time.


"Mountains out of molehills"? Let me quote you a couple of other colloquialisms - "thin end of the wedge". "Give an inch and they will take a mile". And I wonder, if it was any other ethnic or social groups who was being disadvantaged in this manner, whether you would consider things so trivial. I doubt it. Small acts of discrimination pave the way for further, more pervasive acts and any group that sits by and watches others discriminated against (no matter how trivially) may find that few voices will be raised in their support if they in turn are on the receiving end.


Could I also point out that it was not I who initiated this discussion or debate so I assume that you will be applying your comments equally to the numerous other contributors who seem to have fund this matter of significant enough importance to generate an extensive discussion.

"As a matter of principle I do object to discrimination against any party even if they are perceived to be part of group that can 'take it' from time to time"


Are you sure it's not just your irrational fear/hatred of children/parents/breast-feeding/spiral staircases?


Did you know that in Nazi Germany "the childless" were forced to wear special badges, just like Jews, gypsies etc., but instead of a star it was a small plaque with "I can go to the pub any time I want" written on it....no, my mistake, that's a load of old toss, just like your argument (again)

Domitianus Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> As a matter of principle I do object to

> discrimination against any party even if they are

> perceived to be part of group that can 'take it'

> from time to time.

>

so you disagree with disabled parking too then?

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The current wave of xenophobia is due to powerful/influential people stirring up hatred.  It;'s what happened in the past, think 1930s Germany.  It seems to be even easier now as so many get their information from social media, whether it is right or wrong.  The media seeking so called balance will bring some nutter on, they don't then bring a nutter on to counteract that. They now seem to turn to Reform at the first opportunity. So your life is 'shite', let;s blame someone else.  Whilst sounding a bit like a Tory, taking some ownership/personal responsibility would be a start.  There are some situations where that may be more challenging, in deindustrialised 'left behind' wasteland we can't all get on our bikes and find work.  But I loathe how it is now popular to blame those of us from relatively modest backgrounds, like me, who did see education and knowledge as a way to self improve. Now we are seen by some as smug liberals......  
    • Kwik Fit buggered up an A/C leak diagnosis for me (saying there wasn't one, when there was) and sold a regas. The vehicle had to be taken to an A/C specialist for condensor replacement and a further regas. Not impressed.
    • Yes, these are all good points. I agree with you, that division has led us down dangerous paths in the past. And I deplore any kind of racism (as I think you probably know).  But I feel that a lot of the current wave of xenophobia we're witnessing is actually more about a general malaise and discontent. I know non-white people around here who are surprisingly vocal about immigrants - legal or otherwise. I think this feeling transcends skin colour for a lot of people and isn't as simple as, say, the Jew hatred of the 1930s or the Irish and Black racism that we saw laterally. I think people feel ignored and looked down upon.  What you don't realise, Sephiroth, is that I actually agree with a lot of what you're saying. I just think that looking down on people because of their voting history and opinions is self-defeating. And that's where Labour's getting it wrong and Reform is reaping the rewards.   
    • @Sephiroth you made some interesting points on the economy, on the Lammy thread. Thought it worth broadening the discussion. Reeves (irrespective of her financial competence) clearly was too downbeat on things when Labour came into power. But could there have been more honesty on the liklihood of taxes going up (which they have done, and will do in any case due to the freezing of personal allowances).  It may have been a silly commitment not to do this, but were you damned if you do and damned if you don't?
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...