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

    • Thank you to everyone who has already shared their thoughts on this. Dawson Heights Estate in the 1980s, while not as infamous as some other estates, did have its share of anti-social behaviour and petty crime. My brother often used the estate as a shortcut when coming home from his girlfriend’s house, despite my parents warning him many times to avoid it. Policing during that era had a distinctly “tough on crime” approach. Teenagers, particularly those from working-class areas or minority communities, were routinely stopped, questioned, and in some cases, physically handled for minor infractions like loitering, skateboarding, or underage drinking. Respect for authority wasn’t just expected—it was demanded. Talking back to a police officer could escalate a situation very quickly, often with harsh consequences. This was a very different time. There were no body cameras, dash cams, or social media to hold anyone accountable or to provide a record of encounters. Policing was far more physical and immediate, with few technological safeguards to check officer behaviour. My brother wasn’t known to the police. He held a full-time job at the Army and Navy store in Lewisham and had recently been accepted into the army. Yet, on that night, he ran—not because he was guilty of anything—but because he knew exactly what would happen if he were caught on an estate late at night with a group of other boys. He was scared, and rightfully so.
    • I'm sure many people would look to see if someone needed help, and if so would do something about it, and at least phone the police if necessary if they didn't feel confident helping directly. At least I hope so. I'm sorry you don't feel safe, but surely ED isn't any less safe than most places. It's hardly a hotbed of crime, it's just that people don't post on here if nothing has happened! And before that, there were no highwaymen,  or any murders at all .... In what way exactly have we become "a soft apologetic society", whatever that means?
    • Unless you're 5 years old or have been living in a cave for several decades you can't be for real. I don't believe that you're genuinely confused by this, no one who has access to newspapers, the tv news, the internet would ask this. Either you're an infant, or have recently woken up from a coma after decades, or you're a supercilious tw*t
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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