"Conservatives"

[fpb]

http://www.lifesitenews.com/news/british-mp-urges-government-to-force-churches-into-same-sex-unions?utm_source=LifeSiteNews.com+Daily+Newsletter&utm_campaign=4aa5467bd0-LifeSiteNews_com_Intl_Headlines09_08_2011&utm_medium=email

What is breathtaking is that no British news medium seems to have given this any attention.

Comments

[fpb.livejournal.com]

Actually, I did not think that was insulting. I am sorry you felt insulted, but it was merely an (admittedly aggressive) attempt to draw out what your statement really said - whatever you wanted it to say. You said: "already" some bodies which claim a religious identity practice these things. That "already", in that position, only means one thing: that in a coming future, either all or a vast majority of the rest of religious bodies will follow them; in fact, that the fact that the rest of religious bodies will follow them is a predictable and "already" certain fact. That is the only meaning that "already" in that position can possibly have in English. When a sportscaster says that "three athletes have already crossed the line", s/he only ever means that the rest of the field will soon follow them; s/he does certainly not mean that a few more may, if they feel like it, and if they don't get distracted along the road by clumps of flowers or pretty girls. So what you said - I am making no inquiries into what you meant - is that the Catholic Church, among others, was certainly going to accept gay marriage. And the only way you could possibly be making such a risky prediction, and making it it in the "already" form, is if you were given prophetic knowledge of the future. Elisha became a prophet after Elijah passed away; who did the same for you? This is the reductio ad absurdum intended here, for, even though I don't intend to read your mind, I feel certain that you did not intend anything so arrogant or so ridiculous.

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

three athletes have already crossed the line", s/he only ever means that the rest of the field will soon follow them

Not necessarily; it might be followed by "and five others have dropped out, leaving six still to finish".

Indeed, if we take what I said: "It does with some religions already"... that actual sentence could finish "and it looks like three more religions are going that way as well, which might mean that Christianity became left as the only religion who could perform legal marriages".

Or, indeed "It does with some religions already; however, that may be subject to change in the near future".

Either of these are potential meanings, and neither end up with your version of events :) It suggests that things are subject to change - but it doesn't specifically make any predictions of the direction in which that change might happen.

ETA
Also, though - why be aggressive? If you acknowledge that it's an aggressive comment - why make it? The argument didn't need it.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

You did not add any such specification, however, which means that the meaning of the sentence remains as I constructed it.

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

Nonsense. If a commentator said "welcome to a game, and both sides have already scored" there would be no implication that there might be further scores. You made an assumption which you are now defending in linguistic terms... after telling me you're a terrible linguist.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

"both sides have already scored" is not the same kind of statement as "some religious bodies already have gay marriage". It is only comparable in that the goals already scored are final events, that cannot be revoked or altered. When you say that "some religious bodies have already accepted gay marriage", you mention only one thing that has already taken place, that is final, that cannot be altered; the one thing that you do not anticipate is that the score might in any way change against that particular decision.

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

If I have "already bought a television", it does not mean I have a television for eternity! The damn thing will break at some point and I may not buy a new one. Equally, the damn law may change and I may have different rights.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

That was not what you said.

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

Incidentally, I have come to the following conclusion:

If aggression is needed to defend your argument, you do not have a good argument.

If aggression is not needed but you use it anyway, you do not have a good arguer.

[fpb.livejournal.com]

And if I allow you to define me, I am indeed not a good arguer. Incidentally, you just said that Jesus, Demosthenes and Cicero were not good arguers.