Qualifiers.

[SalixIncendium]

Well...I'm not sure I'd describe truisms as dangerous in a direct and literal sense.

Hey! I qualified that truism!

 

[Justanatheist]

It's a truism. Religious people can be dangerous. Also, non-religious people can be dangerous.

My mother-in-law driving a car is pretty damn dangerous these days regardless of her thoughts on the Holy Trinity.

So it's fair to say drivers can be dangerous. Or mothers-in law can be dangerous.

Or insufferable bores such as myself posting more truisms on a message forum can be dangerous.

Or truisms used to demean others can be dangerous.

People can I kindly ask you take such debates to the other thread, I have edited the original post, I have not responded to any posts about the other thread, can we please just let it drop and talk about qualifiers.

 

[exchemist]

So it's fair to say drivers can be dangerous. Or mothers-in law can be dangerous.

Or insufferable bores such as myself posting more truisms on a message forum can be dangerous.

Or truisms used to demean others can be dangerous.

This is all good knockabout stuff but, as I recall the original thread, the point actually being made was that some people can be dangerous on account of their religious beliefs. This may not have been stated in so many words but I think it was fairly clearly implied. So it was not quite as obvious - and by implication stupid - as you are making out.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

People can I kindly ask you take such debates to the other thread, I have edited the original post, I have not responded to any posts about the other thread, can we please just let it drop and talk about qualifiers.

So we won't talk about true, because that is not in the OP.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Across the many debates I have had on this forum it appears to me that a lot of people do not understand what a qualifier is in a sentence.

Qualifiers and intensifiers are words or phrases that are added to another word to modify its meaning, either by limiting it (He was somewhat busy) or by enhancing it (The dog was very cute). Qualifiers can play an important role in your writing, giving your reader clues about how confident you feel about the information you’re presenting. In fact, “hedging” (as it is sometimes called) is an important feature of academic writing, because academic writers need to clearly indicate whether they think claims are certain, likely, unlikely, or just false.

It’s also very important to distinguish between absolute or universal claims (in which you are asserting that something is true always and everywhere) and more particular claims (in which you are asserting something but recognizing that your claim has limits).
Qualifiers – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

So if I write, Danish people can be blond I am not saying all Danish people are blond.. Simples.
Maybe if people understood the use of a qualifier in a sentence we might have even more reasonable debate around here.
Or maybe some people understand qualifiers anyway and they just want to mis represent what the other is saying and strawman the argument.

Your thoughts?

Ps, mods I was very unsure of where to actually put this debate.
Edit
I have edited my original statement to make it less contentious it was not meant to be the subject of the debate but just an example.
Another Edit
I have edited it again to make it even less contentious, please be aware I am not having a go at Danish people or blond whether natural or not.

I'm not connecting how correct use in qualifiers relate to debates. Could you give us an example of how people use qualifiers wrong as a pattern in RF debates?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not connecting how correct use in qualifiers relate to debates. Could you give us an example of how people use qualifiers wrong as a pattern in RF debates?

Here is how I understand it. It is apparently not true that all religious people are dangerous, but true that some religious people are dangerous.
As all we must focus on is all versus some and the rest we can't question.

 

[Justanatheist]

I'm not connecting how correct use in qualifiers relate to debates. Could you give us an example of how people use qualifiers wrong as a pattern in RF debates?

I think people understand a qualifier wrong not that they use them wrong. I am not prepared to use an example from the forum because we will just end up with someone wanting to discuss another thread all over again. Sorry.

Here is very paraphrased version I have seen a few times.

There are some atheists who believe in Evolution.
That gets translated into All atheists believe in evolution, you are an atheist, therefore you must believe in evolution.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I think people understand a qualifier wrong not that they use them wrong. I am not prepared to use an example from the forum because we will just end up with someone wanting to discuss another thread all over again. Sorry.

Okay.
So let us forget the other thread and concentrate on true as per the OP. Or do you want to edit, so you can please the white haired Danish people present.

 

[Justanatheist]

Okay.
So let us forget the other thread and concentrate on true as per the OP. Or do you want to edit, so you can please the white haired Danish people present.

Lets not.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Across the many debates I have had on this forum it appears to me that a lot of people do not understand what a qualifier is in a sentence.

Qualifiers and intensifiers are words or phrases that are added to another word to modify its meaning, either by limiting it (He was somewhat busy) or by enhancing it (The dog was very cute). Qualifiers can play an important role in your writing, giving your reader clues about how confident you feel about the information you’re presenting. In fact, “hedging” (as it is sometimes called) is an important feature of academic writing, because academic writers need to clearly indicate whether they think claims are certain, likely, unlikely, or just false.

It’s also very important to distinguish between absolute or universal claims (in which you are asserting that something is true always and everywhere) and more particular claims (in which you are asserting something but recognizing that your claim has limits).
Qualifiers – The Writing Center • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

So if I write, Danish people can be blond I am not saying all Danish people are blond.. Simples.
Maybe if people understood the use of a qualifier in a sentence we might have even more reasonable debate around here.
Or maybe some people understand qualifiers anyway and they just want to mis represent what the other is saying and strawman the argument.

Your thoughts?

Ps, mods I was very unsure of where to actually put this debate.
Edit
I have edited my original statement to make it less contentious it was not meant to be the subject of the debate but just an example.
Another Edit
I have edited it again to make it even less contentious, please be aware I am not having a go at Danish people or blond whether natural or not.

Just in before another edit as from an academic source:
Error - Cookies Turned Off.

So which version of true are we playing now?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Lets not.

Then edit true out to please this Dane, do some academic analysis of truth or what ever. Stand tall and debate truth.

 

[Justanatheist]

Then edit true out to please this Dane, do some academic analysis of truth or what ever. Stand tall and debate truth.

Bored with editing, why not start a thread on truth, how is that for an out of the box idea, you appear interested in truth.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I think people understand a qualifier wrong not that they use them wrong. I am not prepared to use an example from the forum because we will just end up with someone wanting to discuss another thread all over again. Sorry.

Here is very paraphrased version I have seen a few times.

There are some atheists who believe in Evolution.
That gets translated into All atheists believe in evolution, you are an atheist, therefore you must believe in evolution.

Oh. Yeah. It happens a lot when I notice people don't want to be put into one box when using the word "all" or even just "atheists do X, Y, and Z." Some, almost, a few, and words like that (even polls that say "other or the like") gives people freedom, I guess, to say what they want to say. Qualifiers are often used as clauses not to leave people out. In most cases, I don't believe they are needed all/some if people reading the OP knows if it's the person's belief and the context in which the thread is set.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Bored with editing, why not start a thread on truth, how is that for an out of the box idea, you appear interested in truth.

No, run away or stand your ground. You used true as a positive claim. Now do the work, admit that you can't or what ever.

 

[Justanatheist]

No, run away or stand your ground. You used true as a positive claim. Now do the work, admit that you can't or what ever.

This is a debate forum on the internet, learn it, live with it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

This is a debate forum on the internet, learn it, live with it.

Then stop using academics or live up to it.

 

[Justanatheist]

Then stop using academics or live up to it.

Look I find it really funny that you have chased me across several threads because you have a point you want to make, that is fine, but I really do not find you interesting or debate with you productive. Sorry about that, keep trying to goad me into a debate, I worked the door for thirty years and never fell for being goaded into a fight, it won't work. Live with it.

 

[exchemist]

Look I find it really funny that you have chased me across several threads because you have a point you want to make, that is fine, but I really do not find you interesting or debate with you productive. Sorry about that, keep trying to goad me into a debate, I worked the door for thirty years and never fell for being goaded into a fight, it won't work. Live with it.

One thing that might be useful for you to know is that Mikkel is, by his own admission, on the spectrum. I have found him a bit less exasperating since I knew that.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Look I find it really funny that you have chased me across several threads because you have a point you want to make, that is fine, but I really do not find you interesting or debate with you productive. Sorry about that, keep trying to goad me into a debate, I worked the door for thirty years and never fell for being goaded into a fight, it won't work. Live with it.

Okay, so here it is.
For a limited, yet not insignificant set of cases for all humans with access to the Internet, it can be dangerous to go see a doctor for questions about mental health. Further doctors as medical doctors are not the only one who deal with mental health and seeing one doctor or only doctors might not be enough.
There are further considerations to make and I am willing to go into them. So since you are authoritative on mental health and can do it over the Internet, please explain as true and with certainty your position.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

One thing that might be useful for you to know is that Mikkel is, by his own admission, on the spectrum. I have found him a bit less exasperating since I knew that.

Du bist ein Mensch.