|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 28, 2022 21:15:33 GMT
Actually 'tend' means 'to be disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to do something'
So for See2 to accuse all muslims of being disposed or inclined in action, operation, or effect to not take any notice of opposition. Was broad brush condemning. Depends where you look some say "regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic:" He did not however say all, you are reading all as the meaning and have put that in. There is a difference in saying all dogs can be trained and dogs can be trained. He did not say 'all' he used a form of words that means 'all or the default case' |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 28, 2022 21:21:08 GMT
Depends where you look some say "regularly or frequently behave in a particular way or have a certain characteristic:" He did not however say all, you are reading all as the meaning and have put that in. There is a difference in saying all dogs can be trained and dogs can be trained. He did not say 'all' he used a form of words that means 'all or the default case' That is my point as there is a difference between all dogs can be trained and dogs can be trained. It is not necessarily a default to all it has a certain nuance on occasion. Context plays a part as well. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 28, 2022 21:25:48 GMT
So in your book it's OK to say 'BNP supporters are sexual perverts'?
It's not but hopefully you now get the point. Use a generic form of wording and you mean 'all or the default case' IE broad brush.
Google 'zero article'
|
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 29, 2022 10:27:24 GMT
"don't tend to" is subtlety different to 'tend not to'. tend not to / don't tend to | UsingEnglish.com ESL Forum There is a subtle difference, although that is only important if the writer/speaker intended the difference. I believe that the careful way in which my post was put together clearly indicates the reason I chose the words I used. At best V poor English. If you meant some muslims tend to then you should have said so. Hard not to suspect your omission of the word 'some' was deliberate. No, you are pointing out your tendency to see comments about Muslims in the worst possible light. Everything in that post was posted in a reasonable way. You found a few words that you could, if you tried, interpret in a way that was totally out of context with the rest of the post. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 29, 2022 12:41:44 GMT
When someone broad brush decries ANY identifiable group I will point it out for the shallow hate speech it is
|
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Dec 29, 2022 14:06:13 GMT
So in your book it's OK to say 'BNP supporters are sexual perverts'? It's not but hopefully you now get the point. Use a generic form of wording and you mean 'all or the default case' IE broad brush. Google 'zero article' Which is why I referred you to context as well as that is part of the process of understanding what is not just said but meant. I ask again can you see the difference between all dogs can be trained and dogs can be trained. If you think they mean the identical thing there is a problem. Cars were driving down the road does not mean all cars. People tend to stand on street corners, does not mean all people just as all dogs can be trained to be guide dogs is nothing like the same as dogs can be trained to be guide dogs. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 29, 2022 15:47:52 GMT
When someone broad brush decries ANY identifiable group I will point it out for the shallow hate speech it is I can understand that, Just as long as YOU DO NOT INCLUDE ME amongst those using shallow hate speech. |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 29, 2022 20:01:28 GMT
When someone broad brush decries ANY identifiable group I will point it out for the shallow hate speech it is I can understand that, Just as long as YOU DO NOT INCLUDE ME amongst those using shallow hate speech. Well don't do it and I won't |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Dec 29, 2022 22:13:44 GMT
I can understand that, Just as long as YOU DO NOT INCLUDE ME amongst those using shallow hate speech. Well don't do it and I won't &X&XX+&F --- STEVE I DIDN'T DO IT AND I SHOWED YOU THE PROOF THAT I DIDN'T DO IT. ----- So what is your problem?? ?? ?? |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Dec 29, 2022 22:18:59 GMT
"Hate speech".
Christ, what a pair of peurile imbeciles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 30, 2022 11:01:58 GMT
Well don't do it and I won't &X&XX+&F --- STEVE I DIDN'T DO IT AND I SHOWED YOU THE PROOF THAT I DIDN'T DO IT. ----- So what is your problem?? ?? ?? Well one problem is I detest seeing broad brush decrying of people for no fault of most of them. |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Dec 30, 2022 15:11:33 GMT
Would anyone like a legal opinion on this matter? This guy is a barrister and had done some provisional research on the law. He believes the bail condition is very likely to be unlawful, and possibly the order itself where it mentions praying. To disentangle this one needs to look at the possible defences from interfering with the right of freedom of thought, the right of public assembly and a right of freedom of expression. To interfere with those rights one has to prove it interferes with the rights of others, is a threat to public health, morals or security. There is a section 66 appeal to the High Court for interested parties or a judicial review for non-interested parties. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5FT-4Kx7E |
|
|
|
Post by Steve on Dec 30, 2022 15:53:11 GMT
Would anyone like a legal opinion on this matter? This guy is a barrister and had done some provisional research on the law. He believes the bail condition is very likely to be unlawful, and possibly the order itself where it mentions praying. To disentangle this one needs to look at the possible defences from interfering with the right of freedom of thought, the right of public assembly and a right of freedom of expression. To interfere with those rights one has to prove it interferes with the rights of others, is a threat to public health, morals or security. There is a section 66 appeal to the High Court for interested parties or a judicial review for non-interested parties. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5FT-4Kx7EComes over as more barista than barrister |
|
|
|
Post by Baron von Lotsov on Jan 3, 2023 17:20:42 GMT
Would anyone like a legal opinion on this matter? This guy is a barrister and had done some provisional research on the law. He believes the bail condition is very likely to be unlawful, and possibly the order itself where it mentions praying. To disentangle this one needs to look at the possible defences from interfering with the right of freedom of thought, the right of public assembly and a right of freedom of expression. To interfere with those rights one has to prove it interferes with the rights of others, is a threat to public health, morals or security. There is a section 66 appeal to the High Court for interested parties or a judicial review for non-interested parties. www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5FT-4Kx7EComes over as more barista than barrister This sounds like a completely dumb comment to a post that I had thought would offer some help in understanding the law. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jan 4, 2023 11:38:48 GMT
&X&XX+&F --- STEVE I DIDN'T DO IT AND I SHOWED YOU THE PROOF THAT I DIDN'T DO IT. ----- So what is your problem?? ?? ?? Well one problem is I detest seeing broad brush decrying of people for no fault of most of them. So do I. |
|
