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

    • Granted Shoreditch is still London, but given that the council & organisers main argument for the festival is that it is a local event, for local people (to use your metaphor), there's surprisingly little to back this up. As Blah Blah informatively points out, this is now just a commercial venture with no local connection. Our park is regarded by them as an asset that they've paid to use & abuse. There's never been any details provided of where the attendees are from, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's never been any details provided of any increase in sales for local businesses, but it's still trotted out as a benefit to the local community.  There's promises of "opportunities" for local people & traders to work at the festival, but, again, no figures to back this up. And lastly, the fee for the whole thing goes 100% to running the Events dept, and the dozens of free events that no-one seems able to identify, and, yes, you guessed it - no details provided for by the council. So again, no tangible benefit for the residents of the area.
    • I mean I hold no portfolio to defend Gala,  but I suspect that is their office.  I am a company director,  my home address is also not registered with Companies House. Also guys this is Peckham not Royston Vasey.  Shoreditch is a mere 20 mins away by train, it's not an offshore bolt hole in Luxembourg.
    • While it is good that GALA have withdrawn their application for a second weekend, local people and councillors will likely have the same fight on their hands for next year's event. In reading the consultation report, I noted the Council were putting the GALA event in the same light as all the other events that use the park, like the Circus, the Fair and even the FOPR fete. ALL of those events use the common, not the park, and cause nothing like the level of noise and/or disruption of the GALA event. Even the two day Irish Festival (for those that remember that one) was never as noisy as GALA. So there is some disingenuity and hypocrisy from the Council on this, something I wll point out in my response to the report. The other point to note was that in past years branches were cut back for the fencing. Last year the council promised no trees would be cut after pushback, but they seem to now be reverting to a position of 'only in agreement with the council's arbourist'. Is this more hypocrisy from 'green' Southwark who seem to once again be ok with defacing trees for a fence that is up for just days? The people who now own GALA don't live in this area. GALA as an event began in Brockwell Park. It then lost its place there to bigger events (that pesumably could pay Lambeth Council more). One of the then company directors lived on the Rye Hill Estate next to the park and that is likely how Peckham Rye came to be the new choice for the event. That person is no longer involved. Today's GALA company is not the same as the 'We Are the Fair' company that held that first event, not the same in scope, aim or culture. And therein lies the problem. It's not a local community led enterprise, but a commercial one, underwritten by a venture capital company. The same company co-run the Rally Event each year in Southwark Park, which btw is licensed as a one day event only. That does seem to be truer to the original 'We Are the Fair' vision, but how much of that is down to GALA as opoosed to 'Bird on the Wire' (the other group organising it) is hard to say.  For local people, it's three days of not being able to open windows, As someone said above, if a resident set up a PA in their back garden and subjected the neighbours to 10 hours of hard dance music every day for three days, the Council would take action. Do not underestimate how distressing that is for many local residents, many of whom are elderly, frail, young, vulnerable. They deserve more respect than is being shown by those who think it's no big deal. And just to be clear, GALA and the council do not consider there to be a breach of db level if the level is corrected within 15 minutes of the breach. In other words, while db levels are set as part of the noise management plan, there is an acknowledgement that a breach is ok if corrected within 15 minutes. That is just not good enough. Local councillors objected to the proposed extension. 75% of those that responded to the consultation locally did not want GALA 26 to take place at all. For me personally, any goodwill that had been built up through the various consultations over recent years was erased with that application for a second weekend, and especially given that when asked if there were plans for that in post 2025 event feedback meetings (following rumours), GALA lied and said there were no plans to expand. I have come to the conclusion that all the effort to appease on some things is merely an exercise in show, to get past the council's threshold for the events licence. They couldn't give a hoot in reality for local people, and people that genuinely care about parkland, don't litter it with noisy festivals either.   
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

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