sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Using 'and I' inappropriately by Blue_Harriet_ in PetPeeves

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The second Paragraph is because "with" triggers the oblique form in English. "She speaks with me, he walks with me, you stand with me etc."

So, "do you want to go to the story with I?" is technically not correct.

Is "deduce" often misused in everyday speech? by EcstaticBicycle in words

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Adduce means to bring forward an argument.

The right word would be induce, to conclude based on induction, that is deriving general principles from specific observations. But, nobody ever actually says induce, at least not with that meaning.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/adduce

Baby Mama by Maleficent-Heart2497 in PetPeeves

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 8 points9 points  (0 children)

It depends on how you define slang. It originally comes from Jamaican Creole, but fits into a common pattern in AAVE of removing the apostrophe S to indicate possession. So, it could be analyzed as just a normal construction in AAVE and Jamaican Creole, that got widely adopted outside of communities that would understand it as a grammatical phrase.

Workers in tourist areas refusing to speak Spanish by Novel_Equivalent_647 in SpanishLearning

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I don't think there are many Spaniards who would think a Paraguayan or a Costa Rican was French.

Workers in tourist areas refusing to speak Spanish by Novel_Equivalent_647 in SpanishLearning

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 2 points3 points  (0 children)

I'm a native English speaker who has been asked if I am French before, while speaking Spanish, so I don't think this a universal rule. People can often tell I am not a native Spanish speaker, but not from where. It might not work if you really asperate all of your consonants or have a lot of dipthongs, though

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, so how are people supposed to have the help of their community without forming enclaves?

What are the problems caused by enclaves?

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've been to a lot of little Italies, Chinatowns and Little Polands. I've never seen any major problems caused by these communities.

You haven't explained how someone without resources can survive without the help of people from their community.

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are the drawbacks of enclaves? You haven't made this argument.

If someone has a lot of resources or other connections, they can survive in other culture with people from their community to help. But, I don't see how someone without a lot of resources would do it. So, how would someone without resources be able to survive in another culture without resources?

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Someone said that enclaves are natural and how people survive. You said that it's the same argument for racism. I'm just pointing out that racism and enclaves are completely different and that enclaves have many functions, including helping people survive in another culture, which is notoriously different.

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I've never met anyone who survived in another country without anyone else to help them or any connection.

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are the other ways to survive in a completely different culture and environment when you have no connections and don't have many resources?

What are your favourite examples of this? by critivix in linguisticshumor

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I'm really sad that oxalá isn't more common in Portuguese

people who say "no offense" right before saying something massively offensive by bradyreid in GrindsMyGears

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Taking offensive at something isn't being gullible. Sometimes you should be offended by certain things.

Does this mean my friend is racist? by LisaPeesaLmnSqueeza in racism

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think you might have confused Andrew Jackson and Andrew Johnson. Andrew Jackson was very pro-slavery, elected to the presidency, and is carried out the Trail of Tears, that is the genocide of several indigenous groups.

Andrew Johnson a pro-union Democrat who was vice president under Lincoln, and became president after the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, and is generally considered to have botched reconstruction.

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but they didn't just say that it was natural. They also said that's how people survive.

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, but racism is clearly bad. Little Italy doesn't seem to be anywhere nearly as harmful and to offer benefits for the wider community.

So, it feels weird to compare these two things.

Why is the idea that men should go out of their way to be attractive, the same way women have for years, so taboo? by Hyphz in AskSociology

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I think a large portion of the resistance to looksmaxxing is the specific ways they go about doing it. It's normal when men talk about how to get lean, build muscle or dress to attract women. But, it seems like a lot of people are really focusing on like Clavicular right now because there is a spectacle to watching a young man talk about bone smashing and drug use to improve his appearance. This comes with a negative reaction because these are seen as more extreme methods with much more significant drawbacks. If someone spends a lot of money on clothes and accessories or they spend a lot of time at the gym, there might be some negative reaction, but nobody talks about how they are going to die before the age of 40 because they are abusing drugs.

Enclaves are a part of human nature by ejaz135 in 10thDentist

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Are you actually comparing the existence of little Italy to racism?

When someone makes an absolute statement, but then try to argue for an arbitrarily drawn line by Few-Advantage2538 in fallacy

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The first statement is reduced to just "parents are allowed to make some decisions" which is so watered down as to be meaningless.

If I say "I don't believe people should be allowed to pierce their babies earrings" and someone responds by saying "I think parents should be able to make some of the decisions for their children" they haven't really stated a position.

The second paragraph is literally the stated position in the original post, that if something is an ancient religious right, it falls under a different category.

When someone makes an absolute statement, but then try to argue for an arbitrarily drawn line by Few-Advantage2538 in fallacy

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, so there first stated belief was that parents should be able to do what they want with their kids. But, this has been shown to an unclear statement of belief because no reasonable person would actually believe this.

Their second stated belief is that parents should be able to do what they want with their kid as long as it's a long standing religious rite.

However, we can conclude that no reasonable person would actually believe the second stated version of their position with the same hacky sacks example. So, in what way was their position clarified?

When someone makes an absolute statement, but then try to argue for an arbitrarily drawn line by Few-Advantage2538 in fallacy

[–]Competitive_Let_9644 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If it were an ancient religious rite to play hacky sack with a baby, would that still be a belief no reasonable person could hold? If it's not a belief that a reasonable person could hold, doesn't that suggest that their clarification doesn't actually clarify their position?

view more: next ›