Re: Excellent news
Why - does your grammar get upset easily? Tell her to breath deeply for a few moments.
The hacking group Anonymous led a real world protest last night in support of a young woman at the centre of a rape case that was re-opened just three days ago after the online activists ran a campaign publicising its dismissal. Hundreds of people gathered in Maryville town square to demand "justice for Daisy Coleman", who …
Sit isn't a stative verb. It's active.
Look isn't stative in the context that you give. It's active.
Stative verbs take place in the moment or refer to a state that one is in; active ones continue, or refer to something that one is actively doing.
Technically, McDonald's "lovin' it" campaign could argue that because they love their burgers throughout the whole of when they eat them, then during that period they are "loving" them. The phrase is as dirty as their product to me though.
But isn't "sit" a stative verb?
It's irrelevant. There's no reason why you can't conjugate these supposedly stative1 verbs in the progressive in English. The syntax of the language permits it, it's not particularly awkward, and the usage is common. More importantly, it makes semantic sense and expresses at least two useful distinctions: emphasis ("I'm particularly fond of X" or "it's important that you not be standing") and engagement ("at this moment I am particularly conscious of this state").
Making a shibboleth out of stative verbs in the progressive is the same sort of crass elevation that gave us the "split infinitive" bugbear. Anyone who inveighs against this sort of thing is unlikely to have anything useful to say on the subjects of English usage and style.
But this thread is loaded with false pedantry and vulgar prescriptivism ("proper grammar"? please!).
1Even describing English verbs as "stative" is suspect - it's ascribing a grammatical attribute which is not firmly established in the structure of the language, either semantically or (in particular) syntactically. It's like declaring that the phrase "were it so" has the copula in the subjunctive; there's so little syntactic evidence of a subjunctive mood in English that the construction could equally well be considered simply idiomatic.
"Anonymous, despite their less-than-stellar reputation, are rather caring people. They just tend to like the lulz a bit too much."
Or they're a disparate group of people who do things independently of one another. I've no doubt that amongst these supportive Anons there are others who are trolling the comments sections of various outlets reporting on this story.
Though I will admit Anonymous when viewed in general does seem to have mellowed a bit in recent years. 2004-08 Anonymous would probably be hounding that poor and her family right now hoping for some sort of emotional outburst or even suicide. They used to do a lot of sick shit 'for teh lulz'.
"love is a stative verb"
I'm not sure we can say that English grammar has the concept of stative verbs. The distinction between stative and dynamic verbs is just a matter of semantics and logic. They conjugate in the same way. This is probably why we have verbs that can have both a stative and dynamic sense. For example, "I have a plate." and "I'm having a plate of chips."
"I'm loving the discussion." seems more economic than "I'm enjoying the discussion so much that I have stained my underpants." McDonalds apparently came to the same conclusion.
Here's an interview with a lawyer defending the charges being dropped on Fox:
I'm uncertain at which point "a 13 year old sneaking out and drinking" becomes justification for not having to face trial or justice for having sex (consensually or otherwise) with a 13 year old and dumping her on her parents door step.
Justice should at least be seen to be done or is the truth to ugly to show the public?
Considering how many anti-fox people there are on this site I am surprised I don't see 100 down votes. A lot of us listen to fox because we are more likely to get information instead of bombast.
The commentaries on the youtube link are definitely are definitely more intelligent than the comments about grammar that have been posted here. Not that they make any sense since the original post was deleted by a moderator.
There was a similar case in Steuben Ohio that anonymous also got involved in. The local pop stations use nationally syndicated hosts for the morning shows. It was interesting how many teenage girls called in and supported the guys. There is an error in the story below. They were not convicted of Rape. They were found to be delinquent and sentenced to the youth facility.
No wonder the US gets a black eye in education and social issues.
This is referencing a sexual assault of a 14 year old and the first 10 posts argue grammar?
In other articles I read, one of the boys is a relative of the prosecutor, judge or policeman, don't remember just this minute. While the youths are juveniles, the action is very serious. Do they deserve incarceration? If guilty YES, but maybe over the summer in a wilderness program, not prison. And lots of community service, plus register as a juvy sex offender that would be expunged upon graduating High School. This will send a clear message to others that may think getting a 13 yr old drunk and taking advantage while passed out is OK. If the boys were 18, they could spend years in prison. The family of the boys should also be made to pay for any counseling the girl requires and pain and suffering.
Personally, I don't understand how anyone would WANT sex with someone that is not awake.
There is a phrase that everyone need to know.
The idea of enthusiastic consent is quite simple. In a nutshell, it advocates for enthusiastic agreement to sexual activity, rather than passive agreement..
Follow this and you can't ever go wrong. A drunk girl cannot give enthusiastic consent, therefore don't do it.
"A drunk girl cannot give enthusiastic consent"
Then the young lady who was rubbing herself against me at that party wasn't drunk? Could have fooled me.
Alchohol can lower inhibitions resulting in MORE enthusiasm, up to a point. Past that point they're also past being merely 'drunk', and into 'oblivious'.
Sobre consent is best.
If it was your daughter what would you have a guy do.
That's easy - marry her first :) No more skating anywhere near rape because no-one has any lines drawn.
I know this is a pretty old-fashioned concept, and if you mention marriage then the first thing that pops into people's heads is probably either, "boring" or "husbands abusing their wives" due to the constant circulation of those assertions in popular culture, and they are dangers, but at least if you grow up, fall in love and get married then you're less likely to be raped by some random guy while passed out at another party.*
This sort of article makes me dread ever having a daughter. If I ever do I hope she's a geek and doesn't get a boyfriend for a long time :)
* one for the "I can't take things at face value and must read every negative thing I've ever heard about your subject into what you're saying because I'm not good at comprehension" crowd: no, of course she didn't deserve what happened; it's probably totally the guy's fault etc etc. Normal stuff. This isn't about people getting crazy drunk at parties and deserving anything; to me it's more like walking through a bad neighbourhood: you should be able to, but it's not wise.
I'm starting to feel there's more wisdom baked into the ideas around marriage than we give it credit for, and when we argue against marriage, we don't even consider the positives it can bring. Dunno.
"Personally, I don't understand how anyone would WANT sex with someone that is not awake."
Jimmy Saville would have been creaming his pants - 13yo and unconcious - he could imagine he was in the morgue.
"In a forest, does a falling tree make a sound if no one is there to hear it - now then now then now then"
lunatik95 wrote :- "This is referencing a sexual assault of a 14 year old and the first 10 posts argue grammar?"
My thought exactly. Yet apparently the grammar shit started with a comment that the moderator deleted, so we cannot even understand what the shit was about. The moderator might has well have deleted all of it. It wasted my time scrolling down to where the real discussion started
Perhaps we need a permanent "Off Topic" area into which such stuff can be moved, then the Americans can't complain about infringing their nth (whatever it is) amendment (but they would anyway).
As for the case, the girls were stupid, but the perps should be banged up, preferably with their equipment cut off.
One of the pleasures of this site is the entertaining and informative byways that discussions here often wander down but I can't help thinking that, in this case, there is a certain amount of, no doubt unconscious, derailing is going on. This is an utterly horrible case, and I can understand people wanting to look away, but maybe the best way to do that would be to keep quiet and leave the thread to people who are prepared to treat the subject with the seriousness it deserves.
Personally, I reckon once a moderator pulls a posting, the replies to that posting should be either collapsed or deleted too as the original context for the wit is left and gone away (not that proper use of grammar arguments have much entertainment in them to start with) rendering the whole the veriest gibberish.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019