@OmSigDAVID,
parados wrote:
Not at all.
They will usually be treated as a victim that was forced to defend themselves.
Quote:Dave replied: How many selves, Mr. Parados ?
You chide others for their lack of logic and you can't even figure out this simple sentence, Dave. Clearly, Parados knew exactly what he was talking about and he framed it using the grammar that we, that's all native speakers of English, sometimes use to describe such situations.
Every sentient English speaker, [even ESL/EFLs] knows that,
They will usually be treated as a victim that was forced to defend themselves.
means
Any person/A person will usually be treated as a victim if that person was forced to defend herself/himself.
Quote:U shud have used the pronoun that was numerically accurate.
This is just another of your nonsensical [you've repeated this more than once] prescription about the English language, Dave.
You stated, "The essence of liberalism is inconsistency".
You only have to look at
you singular using a plural verb and
you plural, both of them used, by you, all the time to see that you speak drivel.
Considering your sense of "consistency", it's apparent that you are being very inconsistent when you lapse into using 'you' as a singular and 'you' singular, with the plural verb 'are'.
Quote:It shows numerical inconsistency,
from singular to plural; that is illogical and ungrammatical, SLOPPY THINKing, which u defend.
Liberals r protectors of error.
First, it's not at all ungrammatical. That's an old canard, Dave. And we must note that it isn't even YOUR canard. You are merely repeating, plagiarizing, actually, the ideas of some other prescriptive idiots from times past.
Why don't you ever correct people who use singular 'you' with a plural verb?
Actually, I can explain that for you - you don't have the acumen to do it yourself.
As I have mentioned, you are merely repeating, stealing, if you will, this silly notion from someone else. You haven't thought it thru, hell, your comments indicate that you haven't thought about it at all.
Quote:I simply accept the old paradime
that use of the masculine pronoun subsumes all genders.
Now that really is the height of illogic, Dave. If the masculine pronoun subsumes all genders, ["all"? how many genders do you think exist?] then why do you ever use 'she/her/hers'?
Your inconsistency is showing, OmSig.
That really is another bad piece of prescriptive nonsense. And here you are, stealing ideas again, Om.
It makes no sense at all. It doesn't come anywhere close to what traditionally has been found in the English language. It represents attempts by some very conservative people to change what English had done for centuries.
You're beginning to resemble your own lie about liberals. You are a study in confusion. That is certainly a hallmark of conservatives and you exemplify this standard.
You accept this "paradime" because you read some BS in some book, or you were lectured in this BS and you lacked the brains to think it thru.
You accept this "paradime" because you think that it helps you defend an indefensible position.
Your [stolen] position has been refuted. Stop making claims to a sense of logic that you come nowhere close to owning, Dave.
