Qualifiers.

[SalixIncendium]

Just because one tosses in a qualifier doesn't mean it's their intent to suggest something isn't absolute or definitive fact. I've seen it used here as a means to being passive aggressive or circumventing the rules. I'm not saying this is the case with your implication, and I feel it's best to ask for clarification before drawing a conclusion.

With regard to your comments in the thread you struggle to move on from, practically anything, even a teaspoon of water, can be dangerous when not used for its intended purpose. Making the statement, "religious people can be dangerous" is essentially meaningless and useless, aside from offending a substantial group of people and inciting drama. If that was the intent, it was a glaring success.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

See second edit, maybe I should start a thread on here to explain why an example is not necessarily the subject of the conversation.

How true/false is that?

 

[Justanatheist]

Just because one tosses in a qualifier doesn't mean it's their intent to suggest something isn't absolute or definitive fact. I've seen it used here as a means to being passive aggressive or circumventing the rules. I'm not saying this is the case with your implication, and I feel it's best to ask for clarification before drawing a conclusion.

With regard to your comments in the thread you struggle to move on from, practically anything, even a teaspoon of water, can be dangerous when not used for its intended purpose. Making the statement, "religious people can be dangerous" is essentially useless, aside from offending a substantial group of people and inciting drama. If that was the intent, it was a glaring success.

See edits, you can apologise if you wish.

 

[SalixIncendium]

See edits, you can apologise if you wish.

I'm sorry you feel another needs to apologize for your failure to be impeccable with your word.

 

[Justanatheist]

I'm sorry you feel another needs to apologize for your failure to be impeccable with your word.

No I just thought that your inability to of moved on when I clearly have might make you think, it is fine by me if you do not want to. I clearly stated why I started this thread, it happens a lot on this forum. You chose to make an issue of the other thread. That I have edited the thread shows my intentions.

 

[SalixIncendium]

No I just thought that your inability to of moved on when I clearly have might make you think, it is fine by me if you do not want to. I clearly stated why I started this thread, it happens a lot on this forum. You chose to make an issue of the other thread. That I have edited the thread shows my intentions.

If you have moved past the other thread, this one would likely not exist, and most certainly wouldn't have existed in its original copy.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No I just thought that your inability to of moved on when I clearly have might make you think, it is fine by me if you do not want to. I clearly stated why I started this thread, it happens a lot on this forum. You chose to make an issue of the other thread. That I have edited the thread shows my intentions.

So please expand on what follows from that some religious are dangerous?

 

[firedragon]

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 have never studied English grammar after school. Thus, sometimes I find it difficult to explain a particular construction of a sentence to some one in English. Thinking about that, I suppose any kind of information of this nature is welcome.

 

[Justanatheist]

If you have moved past the other thread, this one would likely not exist, and most certainly wouldn't have existed in its original copy.

No I think not understanding a qualifier is a block to some debates, and I used the last example of it as an example, which is not surprising. You appear to be looking for motive where there is none and the fact I have not engaged with the previous debate but removed any mention of it shows that. You accuse based on your own feelings, get over it.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

No I think not understanding a qualifier is a block to some debates, and I used the last example of it as an example, which is not surprising. You appear to be looking for motive where there is none and the fact I have not engaged with the previous debate but removed any mention of it shows that. You accuse based on your own feelings, get over it.

So to understand what a qualifier is, is important. Now I what to understand what truth is to you, since you used that word.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Rubbish!

Perhaps you'd like to qualify that statement?

 

[Justanatheist]

Just because one tosses in a qualifier doesn't mean it's their intent to suggest something isn't absolute or definitive fact. I've seen it used here as a means to being passive aggressive or circumventing the rules. I'm not saying this is the case with your implication, and I feel it's best to ask for clarification before drawing a conclusion.

That is interesting, did you read the article to the link I posted, do you have any examples of where a qualifier is used in the way you suggest.

 

[Secret Chief]

Perhaps you'd like to qualify that statement?

May involve an unknown level of rubbish, yet to be determined with any real confidence.

 

[SalixIncendium]

That is interesting, did you read the article to the link I posted, do you have any examples of where a qualifier is used in the way you suggest.

Yes and yes.

 

[RestlessSoul]

May involve an unknown level of rubbish, yet to be determined with any real confidence.

A load of it, perhaps? And probably not new...

 

[Justanatheist]

Nuance seems to be [note the qualifier] an alien concept to some of the people here.

Black-and-white, for-or-against propositions are far easier to handle, especially when you can make something tribal out of taking sides over it. This appears to have been the story of N American cultural discourse for the last couple of decades, and the resulting coarsening of thinking seems to have infected almost everything.

But @Secret Chief also makes an excellent point about contributors for whom English may not be their mother tongue.

Yes I certainly agree about nuance and it was something I was going to start a thread on later, you have made some excellent points, I did not get involved in the NA debate for exactly the reasons you described. It is like being a referee in a war!

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Just because one tosses in a qualifier doesn't mean it's their intent to suggest something isn't absolute or definitive fact. I've seen it used here as a means to being passive aggressive or circumventing the rules. I'm not saying this is the case with your implication, and I feel it's best to ask for clarification before drawing a conclusion.

With regard to your comments in the thread you struggle to move on from, practically anything, even a teaspoon of water, can be dangerous when not used for its intended purpose. Making the statement, "religious people can be dangerous" is essentially meaningless and useless, aside from offending a substantial group of people and inciting drama. If that was the intent, it was a glaring success.

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.

 

[Justanatheist]

Yes and yes.

Then you would of seen that no where is a qualifier though to imply a passive aggressive intent, perhaps you might want to think about intent and whether you recognise it.

Here is an excellent post from this thread.

I think people could also use their common sense a bit more and give the benefit of the doubt to the poster and assume the sentence was implicitly qualified (unless clear from context that it wasn't).

I see people getting worked up when it's quite obvious the poster was referring to 'some' of a group rather than all.

Reading with good faith to understand the point is better than reading with intent to malign their view or quibble some grammatical imperfection.

 

[SalixIncendium]

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.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

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

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

Or truisms used to demean others can be dangerous.

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

Honestly, all those umbrella statements you see here about 'theists' or 'atheists' could just have the word 'people' substituted in and be just as true/false, and just as useless.