Yay for the gays in New York!

#101
#101
therealUT said:
From a philological standpoint, your post is inaccurate at best. A variety of great products from the Oxford University Press cover the use of "many".
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

adj. more (môr, m
omacr.gif
r), most (m
omacr.gif
st) 1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: 2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: n. (used with a pl. verb)

1. A large indefinite number: 2. The majority of the people; the masses: pron. (used with a pl. verb)

A large number of persons or things:

I'm not an arrogant person but I think I'm pretty well vetted here.

I also see how, as I stated in the second part of my post, that if someone's intent was to use "many" to imply some sort of majority (or even significant proportion) they could be rightly called out for it.
 
#102
#102
hndog609 said:
adj. more (môr, m
omacr.gif
r), most (m
omacr.gif
st) 1. Being one of a large indefinite number; numerous: 2. Amounting to or consisting of a large indefinite number: n. (used with a pl. verb)

1. A large indefinite number: 2. The majority of the people; the masses: pron. (used with a pl. verb)

A large number of persons or things:

I'm not an arrogant person but I think I'm pretty well vetted here.

I also see how, as I stated in the second part of my post, that if someone's intent was to use "many" to imply some sort of majority (or even significant proportion) they could be rightly called out for it.
Click to expand...

He doesn't understand the difference in saying many and most.
 
#104
#104
"Welcome to New York, there's nothing you cant do, these streets will inspire you, when you're in New York, New York."


Glad to be Texan.
 
#105
#105
The key term is "large" which is always relative. A one story building is large only if qualified as in comparison to a person; as a building, it is small. 50,000,000 things are large if the group they are qualified as being a part of is 100,000,000 to about 500,000,000. 10 is huge if we are speaking of the Richter Scale; 5 is huge when speaking of tornadoes and hurricanes.

Pick up the Oxford Blue Book of Grammar or sit through a philosohy of language course if you are interested in learning more.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#108
#108
I personally feel that the use of adjectives like "many" or "large number of" by those who want the "War on Terror" ultimately to be the "War on Islam" is intentional misuse of those terms and is specifically designed to fan the flames of ignorance and fear.

So, arguing with the folks that throw those terms around is pointless. They know what you mean. And they know what they are doing when they try to cast as broad a net as possible in their descriptions. They don't care.
 
#110
#110
lawgator1 said:
I personally feel that the use of adjectives like "many" or "large number of" by those who want the "War on Terror" ultimately to be the "War on Islam" is intentional misuse of those terms and is specifically designed to fan the flames of ignorance and fear.

So, arguing with the folks that throw those terms around is pointless. They know what you mean. And they know what they are doing when they try to cast as broad a net as possible in their descriptions. They don't care.
Click to expand...

VFJ's refusal to provide an estimated percentage proves your point, LG. He knows the percentage woul be well less than 5% and would only weaken his argument. Unfortunately, he does not realize that if specific and quantifiable facts weaken a premise, then the premise should be reexamined and, if it remains weak, dropped.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#112
#112
therealUT said:
VFJ's refusal to provide an estimated percentage proves your point, LG. He knows the percentage woul be well less than 5% and would only weaken his argument. Unfortunately, he does not realize that if specific and quantifiable facts weaken a premise, then the premise should be reexamined and, if it remains weak, dropped.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

The percentage does not matter. A few of you can't grasp that millions either commit acts, are ok with or refuse to condemn terrorism. You and a few others here don't and probably will never get it. I hope you enjoy living in a world where you stick your head in the sand just so you don't have to realize the truth. If it makes you feel safer not to realize there are millions around the world who would cut your head off in a second if they had the chance, then go right ahead.
 
#113
#113
volfanjustin said:
The percentage does not matter. A few of you can't grasp that millions either commit acts, are ok with or refuse to condemn terrorism. You and a few others here don't and probably will never get it. I hope you enjoy living in a world where you stick your head in the sand just so you don't have to realize the truth. If it makes you feel safer not to realize there are millions around the world who would cut your head off in a second if they had the chance, then go right ahead.
Click to expand...


I am perfectly willing to concede that there are millions of people around the world willing to commit acts of violence to make a political point. I am further willing to concede that some portion of them are Muslim.

But what that tells us, importantly, is that not all terrorists are Muslim. There are terrorists for innumerable other causes. It also tells us that not all Muslims are terrorists, only some are.

What you can glean from that is that it is factually wrong and illogical to conclude based purely on a person's religion whether they are a terrorist. And yet, that is exactly what some so-called Christians want us to do.
 
#114
#114
volfanjustin said:
The percentage does not matter. A few of you can't grasp that millions either commit acts, are ok with or refuse to condemn terrorism. You and a few others here don't and probably will never get it. I hope you enjoy living in a world where you stick your head in the sand just so you don't have to realize the truth. If it makes you feel safer not to realize there are millions around the world who would cut your head off in a second if they had the chance, then go right ahead.
Click to expand...

Percentage certainly matters. There are millions of Christians who commit violent atrocities in the name of their religion; I steer clear, unless I am proving a point to persons like you, of saying that many Christians are terroists and/or violent persons.

As for sticking my head in the sand to feel safe, I stuck my body in th sads of Iraq as an 11A Rifle Platoon Leader and CO, in order to try to brin safety and security to many Iraqi denizens and, by proxy, many Americans. I saw things firsthand that you will only read about or se on Frontline; I did this an.d was able to maintain an objective perspective on the Arab world and th world in general.

You are welcome.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#115
#115
therealUT said:
Percentage certainly matters. There are millions of Christians who commit violent atrocities in the name of their religion; I steer clear, unless I am proving a point to persons like you, of saying that many Christians are terroists and/or violent persons.

As for sticking my head in the sand to feel safe, I stuck my body in th sads of Iraq as an 11A Rifle Platoon Leader and CO, in order to try to brin safety and security to many Iraqi denizens and, by proxy, many Americans. I saw things firsthand that you will only read about or se on Frontline; I did this an.d was able to maintain an objective perspective on the Arab world and th world in general.

You are welcome.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...


Thank you for your service.

Were any of the Muslims nice to you or were they all terrorists?
 
#116
#116
lawgator1 said:
I am perfectly willing to concede that there are millions of people around the world willing to commit acts of violence to make a political point. I am further willing to concede that some portion of them are Muslim.

But what that tells us, importantly, is that not all terrorists are Muslim. There are terrorists for innumerable other causes. It also tells us that not all Muslims are terrorists, only some are.

What you can glean from that is that it is factually wrong and illogical to conclude based purely on a person's religion whether they are a terrorist. And yet, that is exactly what some so-called Christians want us to do.
Click to expand...

anyone seriously arguing they are all terrorists? come on.
 
#117
#117
therealUT said:
Percentage certainly matters. There are millions of Christians who commit violent atrocities in the name of their religion; I steer clear, unless I am proving a point to persons like you, of saying that many Christians are terroists and/or violent persons.

As for sticking my head in the sand to feel safe, I stuck my body in th sads of Iraq as an 11A Rifle Platoon Leader and CO, in order to try to brin safety and security to many Iraqi denizens and, by proxy, many Americans. I saw things firsthand that you will only read about or se on Frontline; I did this an.d was able to maintain an objective perspective on the Arab world and th world in general.

You are welcome.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

Congrats, so by serving you are now an expert on all things Islam. No point in arguing with you anymore, you have no clue. You know no bounds when it comes to sticking up for those who would love to destroy this country and kill every single one of us.
 
#118
#118
therealUT said:
The key term is "large" which is always relative. A one story building is large only if qualified as in comparison to a person; as a building, it is small. 50,000,000 things are large if the group they are qualified as being a part of is 100,000,000 to about 500,000,000. 10 is huge if we are speaking of the Richter Scale; 5 is huge when speaking of tornadoes and hurricanes.

Pick up the Oxford Blue Book of Grammar or sit through a philosohy of language course if you are interested in learning more.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

While I see what you are trying to say I think you're dodging a bit because we aren't talking about anything as abstract as you're making it.

Let's go back to the stars example again. There are billions of stars in the Milky Way alone so the number of stars visible from Earth with the naked eye is very, VERY small by comparison. That number (a few thousand tops under even ideal conditions) compared to the true number of total stars out there is laughably small. (the numbers get headache inducing)

None of the above does anything whatsoever to say it's somehow grammatically incorrect to assert;

"There are many stars visible on a clear desert night."

Another example might be winning $10 million dollars in a lottery. That other people have much more money or that such a sum is pretty damn trivial compared to, say, the national debt doesn't mean there aren't "many" dollars in $10 million.

I hope it's not the terrorism topic that's skewing your view on this, especially since I've gone out of my way to clearly caveat how the usage matters if trying to imply some kind of proportional aspect.

It's also hit me how slow things must be today if I'm this far into discussing the meaning(s) of "many".
 
#120
#120
droski said:
anyone seriously arguing they are all terrorists? come on.
Click to expand...

He know no one has said all Muslims are terrorists, but it gives him and therealut something more to agree on when talking about me and those who agree with my line of thinking.
 
#121
#121
hndog609 said:
While I see what you are trying to say I think you're dodging a bit because we aren't talking about anything as abstract as you're making it.

Let's go back to the stars example again. There are billions of stars in the Milky Way alone so the number of stars visible from Earth with the naked eye is very, VERY small by comparison. That number (a few thousand tops under even ideal conditions) compared to the true number of total stars out there is laughably small. (the numbers get headache inducing)

None of the above does anything whatsoever to say it's somehow grammatically incorrect to assert;

"There are many stars visible on a clear desert night."

Another example might be winning $10 million dollars in a lottery. That other people have much more money or that such a sum is pretty damn trivial compared to, say, the national debt doesn't mean there aren't "many" dollars in $10 million.

I hope it's not the terrorism topic that's skewing your view on this, especially since I've gone out of my way to clearly caveat how the usage matters if trying to imply some kind of proportional aspect.

It's also hit me how slow things must be today if I'm this far into discussing the meaning(s) of "many".
Click to expand...

My view is not skewed. Re: stars visible. The implication is that there are many stars visible on a clear night as compared to a cloudy night. If one grew up in the British Moors (not sure if I spelled that correctly) they would not think there were many stars visible on a clear night in Iowa.

Re: lottery. The implication is that there are many dollars as compared to the normative amount for Amerian individuals. I never thought of 2 lakh rupees (200,000 or $4,000) as "many", although 200,000 is a six-figure number.

Time to eat. Seriously, Blue Book is good reading.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
 
#122
#122
therealUT said:
My view is not skewed. Re: stars visible. The implication is that there are many stars visible on a clear night as compared to a cloudy night. If one grew up in the British Moors (not sure if I spelled that correctly) they would not think there were many stars visible on a clear night in Iowa.

Precisely what I'm talking about. Why must you add/subtract from the simple observation? There was no implication of context as to "clear vs cloudy" or how many stars a person might be used to seeing from previous observations due to geography. And even in your example someone from one locale that may allow for viewing "more" stars doesn't mean they couldn't describe the number of stars they did see (perhaps in Iowa) as "many". (and you did spell Moors correctly BTW) "A clear night (not a vs day or cloudy or pollution from ambient light observation...it IS a clear night) in the desert will reveal many stars in the sky." is an absolutely valid statement. I'm absolutely certain you are aware of this.

Let me guess..."Yeah, but if you were actually in a cave in the desert and your name was Stevie Wonder..." :)

Re: lottery. The implication is that there are many dollars as compared to the normative amount for Amerian individuals. I never thought of 2 lakh rupees (200,000 or $4,000) as "many", although 200,000 is a six-figure number.

And again, where did the rupees come from? Did I say rupees? I asserted $10 million to be a lot of (many) dollars. Even while conceding that to be a paltry sum compared to the national debt there's nothing been presented to change that assertion.

Time to eat. Seriously, Blue Book is good reading.
Posted via VolNation Mobile
Click to expand...

I'll have to check the BB but unless it controverts definitions I've looked up I don't know how it could change my view of "many". (at least in the contexts I've set forth) Doesn't mean it won't make for an interesting read though.

Have a good lunch. I just had blackened fish. A personal fave though leftovers.
 
#123
#123
Got a buddy who plays the lottery every week because "I've got a 50-50 chance."

"I either will or I won't."
 
#124
#124
lawgator1 said:
Got a buddy who plays the lottery every week because "I've got a 50-50 chance."

"I either will or I won't."
Click to expand...

When I buy a lottery ticket (sometimes for the hell of it while getting gas) I'm often asked if I only want one. I then ask the person how much they think my odds of winning go up with additional numbers. Responses vary from a laugh and "I see what you mean." to blank stares and wisps of smoke coming out of their ears.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top