A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Context is more important than textbook definition though. Throwing dictionary in someones face is easy. You mean to say next time bus conductor asks me to get up from a seat reserved for senior citizen, I can sue him for age discrimination?
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
To discriminate is simply an English word (stemming from the Latin discriminare) which means to distinguish. It's not constricted to distinguishing in a bad manner (ie discriminating based on age or on race in job interviews). It's your lack of knowledge of the English language that has led you to believe this.
-
- Ninja
- Posts: 14364
- Joined: Mar 26, 2015
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Languages evolve and words can possess multiple definitions. That's common. Etymologies are nice but don't have the authority of a dictionary, and the dictionary does not have the authority of the people, and nothing is as relevant as something defined outright for and within its specific context.
Bunch of backwards debate here about nothing, really, to try to bolster the individuals' somethings of their deeper ethopolitical convictions as seen challenegd by or in opposition of the other, and so pro-retro-actively defending of oneself via. initial assault commences. Quickly the assailant v. assailed dynamic takes shape as gutted of all formalties, the former of which with an advantage in tempo, like the white pieces in chess. And so two frivolous pawns are maneuvered and poked and prodded and treated as a real point of honest tension, even though greater schematic purposes unfold elsewhere across two halves of an entire board. Look at the board.
Broken game, please patch Nintendo.
Bunch of backwards debate here about nothing, really, to try to bolster the individuals' somethings of their deeper ethopolitical convictions as seen challenegd by or in opposition of the other, and so pro-retro-actively defending of oneself via. initial assault commences. Quickly the assailant v. assailed dynamic takes shape as gutted of all formalties, the former of which with an advantage in tempo, like the white pieces in chess. And so two frivolous pawns are maneuvered and poked and prodded and treated as a real point of honest tension, even though greater schematic purposes unfold elsewhere across two halves of an entire board. Look at the board.
Broken game, please patch Nintendo.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
That's not correct either. Most people use "discrimination" as a synonym for treating sb unfairly based on race, gender, ethnicity, religion, etc. Please see the Oxford dictionary: https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries. ... scriminate. You cannot cover all meanings of a specific word if you only refer to its origins. Legally, you are definitly off-track: In legal terms discrimination never means "to distinguish (neutrally)", see UK Equality Act 2010, Sec. 10.RefluxSemantic wrote:To discriminate is simply an English word (stemming from the Latin discriminare) which means to distinguish. It's not constricted to distinguishing in a bad manner (ie discriminating based on age or on race in job interviews). It's your lack of knowledge of the English language that has led you to believe this.
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Did I say discrimination means "to distinguish" though? Because when I actually read my post, I don't see me saying that at all.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
You mean because you use the noun instead of the verb? Fabulous reasoning. Come on.
- fightinfrenchman
- Ninja
- Posts: 23506
- Joined: Oct 17, 2015
- Location: Pennsylvania
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Holy shit this is boring
Dromedary Scone Mix is not Alone Mix
-
- Gendarme
- Posts: 5996
- Joined: Jun 4, 2019
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
Yes. I don't see what's wrong with my reasoning, because my argument has been that "to discriminate" is not necessarily restricted to the meaning "distinguish based on race/gender/age". It indeed seems like pretty fabulous reasoning to me that I specifically use the definition of the word that I'm arguing has that definition, and that I don't use the definition of a different word.Theodore wrote:You mean because you use the noun instead of the verb? Fabulous reasoning. Come on.
- princeofcarthage
- Retired Contributor
- Posts: 8861
- Joined: Aug 28, 2015
- Location: Milky Way!
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I was mostly responding to chris. One thing I have learnt being for years on forum is that people are always ready to throw textbooks at people, little they know that theoretical knowledge doesn't apply in exact same way in practical life/applications. You are one of them, as such I am not going to entertain you on this topic unless you start arguing on practical basis rather than hypothetical.
Fine line to something great is a strange change.
Re: A poll on ESOC off topic controversial content
I think the reason this is quite hypothetical is because words have been and are interpreted in such vastly different ways on this topic, and so you have to go back to linguistics to explain what you mean by a word, before you can get anywhere meaningful in a practical discussion. Otherwise you end up talking past each other, where you both say the same thing but mean different things by those same words.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests