OnTheMoor wrote:Fallacy according to whom? You can't state "This is one of the biggest fallacies" when you have no numbers to back it up
"Fallacy" is like pregnancy or death--it's binary. An argument either is or isn't a fallacy.
Any comparison of magnitude is impossible.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
Actually that's "Fallacy according to who?", no need to objectify this statement.
Undisputed hair splitting champion
Whom is correct; this objection is not sustained.
~~
An easy test for "who" and "whom" is to substitute the parallel terms "he" and "him", which retain the old english case endings which who/whom is in the process of losing.
Using this method, we compare the possible phrases, "according to he" (nominative) and "according to him" (accusative). It's easy to see that the latter is the correct expression.
~~
Because modern english is in the process of collapsing the accusative case ending for the relative pronoun into a single form, identical with the nominative, "Who" is also correct.
Last edited by s1m0n on Sun Jul 24, 2005 6:28 pm, edited 2 times in total.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
Actually that's "Fallacy according to who?", no need to objectify this statement.
Undisputed hair splitting champion
Whom is correct; this objection is not sustained.
~~
An easy test for "who" and "whom" is to substitute the parallel terms "he" and "him", which retain the old english case endings which who/whom is in the process of losing.
Using this method, we compare the possible phrases, "according to he" (nominative) and "according to him" (accusative). It's easy to see that the latter is the correct expression.
~~
Because modern english is in the process of collapsing the accusative case ending for the relative pronoun into a single form, identical with the nominative, "Who" is also correct.
I disagree, in this context I believe the modern formality principle applies. This forum is hardly the cabinet office; also people here have a sense of knowing each other, which also makes whom too formal.
"Our scientific power has outrun our spiritual power. We have guided missiles and misguided men." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
perrins57 wrote:...no need to objectify this statement.
The preposition "to" always takes an abject. The argument is about whether the relative pronoun "who" still inflects for case.
The answer is that both are equally correct, and a knowlegable writer chooses for stylistic reasons.
And now there was no doubt that the trees were really moving - moving in and out through one another as if in a complicated country dance. ('And I suppose,' thought Lucy, 'when trees dance, it must be a very, very country dance indeed.')
The Weekenders wrote:"we" are not forcing "everybody". Besides, Iraq already had a democracy. Saddam received 100% of the vote in the last election, I think.
No, you're right, we aren't forcing them, because once we leave someplace that we shouldn't have been in the first place, it reverts back to a theocracy, or if not, a "democracy" in name only, that cannot provide for its citizens at all.
Tom
Don't forget you guys; Iran became a democracy against the wishes of the British and US governments in the early 50s. Britain approached the US and asked the US to overthrow Iran and reinstate the Shah as dictator.
Democracy is a possibility in the Middle East, but the US and British governments don't want it if it doesn't play by their rules. Their rules mean the democracy has to provide access for US and British corporations to the natural resources there. That access has to be satisfactory for the US and UK to be considered legitimate. What they installed in Iraq is a corporate friendly US sanctioned democracy. If the Iraqi people were left to come up with their own democracy it probably wouldn't be as advantageous for US and UK corporations -- and therefore unacceptable.
OH, I'm with you completely. I was just trying to point out that we install governments that we believe will be helpful to us, even if it isn't what the particularl country involved wants. Just look at our behavior in Central America during the actor's years.
The Weekenders wrote:Well, let's see. Jimmy Carter tried to be President on principle similar to what you say. It didn't work out all that well for him. He may have won undeserving (imo) accolades later in life, but it didn't help much in Iran.
I still don't think Livingstone should be mouthing off that way, but that's the last time I'll make the point.
I would love to hear what our Londoners here feel about it. Also, whether they feel his comments make them feel any safer or not.
Nope, I agree, it didn't work out well for him in that regard- another case in point. Thanks.
jGilder wrote:
Don't forget you guys; Iran became a democracy against the wishes of the British and US governments in the early 50s. Britain approached the US and asked the US to overthrow Iran and reinstate the Shah as dictator.
Democracy is a possibility in the Middle East, but the US and British governments don't want it if it doesn't play by their rules. Their rules mean the democracy has to provide access for US and British corporations to the natural resources there. That access has to be satisfactory for the US and UK to be considered legitimate. What they installed in Iraq is a corporate friendly US sanctioned democracy. If the Iraqi people were left to come up with their own democracy it probably wouldn't be as advantageous for US and UK corporations -- and therefore unacceptable.
Right, but very few people are aware of that, or even interested. It doesn't match what their revered leaders are telling them, so it must be false, or at least unimportant.
anniemcu
--- "You are what you do, not what you claim to believe." -Gene A. Statler
--- "Olé to you, none-the-less!" - Elizabeth Gilbert
--- http://www.sassafrassgrove.com
