aliceBB Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I My suggestion doesn't suggest all children unless my suggestion was taken as literal and all children are about to be euthanised by the Belgian state. If you didn't MEAN 'all children', why did you SAY 'all children'? It makes a big difference to the meaning of your title. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Ffs. The default option in terms of taking pragmatic meaning from internet forum thread titles about current events is that they will be taken literally. Who are these people that are taking this current title completely literally? Are you one of them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Who are these people that are taking this current title completely literally? Are you one of them? Don't shoot the messenger. Thread titles on a general forum are by their nature de-contextualised. So unless the reader is already familiar with the story (which most would not have been in this case since OP posted it virtually as soon as it was reported in the press), the only context we can use to derive meaning from it is a literal one based on semantics (the meanings of the words used). How else are we supposed to know what it means? Most children learn by the age of about 7 or 8 that just because they know/understand something, it doesn't mean that everyone else necessarily does. (Before that age - when are in what's called the 'egocentric' stage of child development - they tend to think everyone has the same things as they do in their head). That egocentric stage kind of thinking seems to be endemic in this thread. In adults, however, not using the best words in the best order just suggests sloppy thinking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Don't shoot the messenger. Thread titles on a general forum are by their nature de-contextualised. So unless the reader is already familiar with the story (which most would not have been in this case since OP posted it virtually as soon as it was reported in the press), the only context we can can use to derive meaning from it is a literal one based on semantics (the meanings of the words used). How else are we supposed to know what it means? Not using the best words in the best order reflects sloppy thinking. I know exactly where you're coming from, I just think it is extremely nit picky with this particular title. Do you honestly believe that there will be many, if any, people on here that will read the title and think that all the children of Belgium are allowed to be killed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aliceBB Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I know exactly where you're coming from, I just think it is extremely nit picky with this particular title. Do you honestly believe that there will be many, if any, people on here that will read the title and think that all the children of Belgium are allowed to be killed... Who knows what people will think when the title is to all intents and purposes meaningless? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Can anyone confirm that upon reading the thread title, they thought that all children in Belgium would/could access euthanasia? Your inability to understand the issue says it all. If you are going to say something then be clear about it. By using ALL it makes it look like a general right and ignores the real emphasis is that it might be allowed in very limited circumstances is terminal and in massive pain that drugs cannot help. Why not be a bit more constructive and tell us why you are against it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Epic Fail Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 Your inability to understand the issue says it all. If you are going to say something then be clear about it. By using ALL it makes it look like a general right and ignores the real emphasis is that it might be allowed in very limited circumstances is terminal and in massive pain that drugs cannot help. Why not be a bit more constructive and tell us why you are against it? I'm not against it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 I do not moan (not in serious threads, at any rate); I expose flaws in arguments, and I explain the effect of causes. The aptly named Mr Clowning is frustrated by the lack of response to his chosen topic and I told him why it was the case. Others agree with my analysis, it seems. Firstly what is that supposed to mean ? Secondly I don't care if people have responded or not to the topic you idiot. What does Frustrate me as you say is when people come on and spend 3 pages of discussing a title when they obviously don't have a view on the content of discussion. Had you made any other contribution then I could understand it but just like topics you start yourself you don't actually seem to have an opinion. The title was changed to this because someone put that this would be a better title, I had it changed and still someone is moaning. I would have kept the original title myself, but I tried to satisfy posters only to dissatisfy others. Well I don't care anymore about the title, there's a link there for you to know what its about. You, on the other hand, merely contradict. Your point about the content becoming clear once you open the thread is a weak one. The whole point of a thread title (or news headline) is that it should draw readers in - but not dishonestly or sensationalistically, and above all it should communicate clearly. Language is power Are you a want to be editor or something ? I'm sorry if the story isn't posted to your standard, but as I'm not in your employment I don't really care, if its not bringing people in then WHAT ARE YOU DOING HERE ??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
999tigger Posted February 17, 2014 Share Posted February 17, 2014 I really do not think I could bare to live myself if I did. So what would you do Mr Clowning? there you are you have a choice to make. Are you saying you would let the child suffer in agonising pain? Alternatively are you saying you'd give permission and then top yourself? Do you approve or dissaprove of what they have passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Clowning Posted February 17, 2014 Author Share Posted February 17, 2014 I really do not think I could bare to live myself if I did. So what would you do Mr Clowning? there you are you have a choice to make. Are you saying you would let the child suffer in agonising pain? Alternatively are you saying you'd give permission and then top yourself? Do you approve or dissaprove of what they have passed? I think I would have to leave it up to medical opinion and go with that, but I would most certainly feel like topping myself I imagine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.