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

    • Pretty much, Sue, yeah. It's the perennial, knotty problem of imposing a tax and balancing that with the cost of collecting it.  The famous one was the dog licence - I think it was 37 1/2 pence when it was abolished, but the revenue didn't' come close to covering the administration costs. As much I'd love to have a Stasi patrolling the South Bank, looking for mullet haircuts, unshaven armpits, overly expressive hand movements and red Kicker shoes, I'm afraid your modern Continental is almost indistinguishable from your modern Londoner. That's Schengen for you. So you couldn't justify it from an ROI point of view, really. This scheme seems a pretty good idea, overall. It's not perfect, but it's cheap to implement and takes some tax burden off Southwark residents.   'The Man' has got wise to this. It's got bad juju now. If you're looking to rinse medium to large amounts of small denomination notes, there are far better ways. Please drop me a direct message if you'd like to discuss this matter further.   Kind Regards  Dave
    • "What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???" Why is it perceived, Reeves is responsible for doubling the "black hole" to £20b through the public sector pay increases. You can't live beyond your means and when you try you go bankrupt pdq. In 4 yrs time if this Govt survives that long and the country doesn't go bust before then, in 2029 I dread to think the state the country will be in.  At least Sunak and co had inflation back to 2% with unemployment being stable and not rising.   
    • He seemed to me to be fully immersed in the Jeremy Corbyn ethos of the Labour Party. I dint think that (and self describing as a Marxist) would have helped much when Labour was changed under Starmer. There was a purge of people as far left as him that he was lucky to survive once in my opinion.   Stuff like this heavy endorsement of Momentum and Corbyn. It doesn't wash with a party that is in actual government.   https://labourlist.org/2020/04/forward-momentum-weve-launched-to-change-it-from-the-bottom-up/
    • I perceive the problem.simply as spending too much without first shoring up the economy.  If the government had reduced borrowing,  and as much as most hate the idea, reduced government deiartment spending (so called austerity) and not bowed to union pressures for pay rises, then encouraged businesses to grow, extra cash would have entered the coffers and at a later stage when the economy was in a stronger position rises in NI or taxes would have a lesser impact, but instead Reeves turned that on its head by increasing ni which has killed growth, increased prices and shimmied the economy.  What's worse is that the perceived 20 billion black hole has increased to 30 billion in a year. Is there a risk that after 5 years it could be as high as 70 billion ???     
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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