The Grammar of Politics Thread
Now that I think about it, the "with your bullshit" part is actually always there when you tell a person to **** off. It's implied. No one ever gets told to **** off unless they just said some bullshit.
But the subject wouldn't be "you"-- "you" is the direct object. The speaker (in this case me), would be the subject. Since it's an imperative (e.g. a command), think of it as "[strike]I want you to[/strike] **** off [strike]with your bullshit
Well this brings me back to the horrors of grammar classes taught by Sister Martin. But the subject of an imperative sentence is always you. 😀
This may sound strange, but every single command has the same subject! Yikes! How is that even possible?
Well, since commands are always speaking to someone or something (you've got to address them if you're going to ask them to do something), the subject is always the word you.
You may have noticed that the word "you" is not even in a command. Because of this, the subject is actually called you understood, and it is written like this: (you)
This means that the subject is the word you, but since you is not written or spoken in the sentence, it is simply understood and is written in parentheses.
Here for the magic apples.
Please explain how it's impossible that "couldn't care less" doesn't mean that you care so much that it would be impossible to care less.
Use whatever means you want but preferably logic and semantics.
Is this a serious question? Are you asking us to use logic to demonstrate to you that for any number larger than zero there exists a smaller number?
OK, I'll bite. Let's assume the caring continuum runs from one to ten. "Caring so much" would be a 10. The following numbers are smaller than 10: 9,8,7,6,5,4,3,2,1 and 0.
Or are you trying to **** around with infinities here or something?
Is this a serious question? Are you asking us to use logic to demonstrate to you that for any number larger than zero there exists a smaller number?
I've already demonstrated with the bitcoin example that sometimes smaller numbers are impossible to obtain.'
You cannot sell your bitcoin because you can't access your wallet. But they are still your bitcoin.
Going back to your apples but instead lets use bitcoin since it's in the news.
Let's say you have 10 BTC currently valued at around 667K usd, you have a passphrase wallet and the code words are in a time lock safe that you won't be able to access for another 5 years (pretend like you set it up that way to safeguard your bitcoin in case you got drunk and wanted to cash it in for strippers and blow).
Someone asks you if you could have less bitc
I'll give you a response when you explain to me with specificity how it relates to the present discussion.
Anyway, both Chillrob and I have explained it to you in different ways in the last 2 posts. It is my fervent hope this concludes the matter and you stop being stubborn and take the L.
Going back to your apples but instead lets use bitcoin since it's in the news.
Let's say you have 10 BTC currently valued at around 667K usd, you have a passphrase wallet and the code words are in a time lock safe that you won't be able to access for another 5 years (pretend like you set it up that way to safeguard your bitcoin in case you got drunk and wanted to cash it in for strippers and blow).
Someone asks you if you could have less bitc
Yes, I could have less (fewer?) bitcoin if I give some away in the future (in 6 years or so).
It seems like you are focused on the possibilities at the current time, which could never be different (in either direction) if the count is accurate.
But the phrase, even when used incorrectly, refers to future possibilities.
I've already demonstrated with the bitcoin example that sometimes smaller numbers are impossible to obtain.'
You cannot sell your bitcoin because you can't access your wallet. But they are still your bitcoin.
Yes, apple analogies only go so far. Bitcoin analogies even less far. Take the L dude. Or not. I'm out.
I've already demonstrated with the bitcoin example that sometimes smaller numbers are impossible to obtain.'
You cannot sell your bitcoin because you can't access your wallet. But they are still your bitcoin.
On the real line smaller numbers are always possible to obtain, but this is getting into the realms of real analysis and completely irrelevant to the analogy. In the natural numbers, after 1 the next smallest number is 0, and there are no more smaller numbers. "Number" is ambiguous if you want to start getting technical like this, you need to specify naturals, integers, rationals, reals, complex, quaternions etc.
You still could have fewer gold bars. For example, you could give one to me.
The phrase "couldn't care less" doesn't refer to you a person being incorrect about how much they currently care. It refers to how much they could theoretically in the future.
For example, I currently care about the safety of the dog who lives in my household. However, I could care less about it (in the future), if she dies.
I currently do not care at all about the sa
You could die too, then you'd care less because you wouldn't care at all, you'd be dead. But I don't think those are serious objections.
My initial thought is "less" as bitcoin aren't discrete units. But I could be persuaded otherwise.
It's a bit of a funny one, but yes. You wouldn't really say "fewer dollars" unless the context was specifically limited to whole numbers of dollars, "e.g. I had fewer silver dollars than Bob" or something.
Yeah, I'm not an expert on bitcoin so am unsure. But I hate "less" being used when "fewer" is appropriate.
Dollars can be subdivided, but I would still say "I have fewer dollars than you".
You would never say that though, you'd say "I have less money/currency". Bitcoin in this context is interchangeable with "money", IMO.
You could die too, then you'd care less because you wouldn't care at all, you'd be dead. But I don't think those are serious objections.
No, I would still not care less about the safety of the dog down the street even if I died, because I already care zero units.
If you're going to argue that I don't know how much I currently care, then the whole phrase is meaningless to begin with, as it depends on the knowledge of how much care is given.
You would never say that though, you'd say "I have less money/currency". Bitcoin in this context is interchangeable with "money", IMO.
As I said, I don't know enough about how the word 'bitcoin' is used to be able to tell if it's more analogous with 'dollars' or 'money'.
Would you say "I own some bitcoin" or "I own 3 bitcoins". Either seems possible.
On the real line smaller numbers are always possible to obtain, but this is getting into the realms of real analysis and completely irrelevant to the analogy. In the natural numbers, after 1 the next smallest number is 0, and there are no more smaller numbers. "Number" is ambiguous if you want to start getting technical like this, you need to specify naturals, integers, rationals, reals, complex, quaternions etc.
Instead of numbers lets pretend it's love (which is a lot like caring).
Suppose your girlfriend asks you how much you love her and if it would be possible for you to love her less-- what is the response that she is looking to hear back from you? (pretend also that she's insecure).
-------
She wants to hear that it would be impossible for you to love her less because you already love her so much and that's never going to change-- that you could not love her less.
No, I would still not care less about the safety of the dog down the street even if I died, because I already care zero units.
If you're going to argue that I don't know how much I currently care, then the whole phrase is meaningless to begin with, as it depends on the knowledge of how much care is given.
I'm 99% sure he has to be trolling with this whole "a number so big nothing smaller exists" thing.
I'm 99% sure he has to be trolling with this whole "a number so big nothing smaller exists" thing.
I don't think that's what he means.
I think he means "something cannot be smaller than it [currently] is".
But that is misinterpreting the original phrase, which refers to theoretical/future possibilities.
Instead of numbers lets pretend it's love, which is a lot like caring.
Suppose your girlfriend asks you how much you love her and if it would be possible for you to love her less-- what is the response that she is looking to hear back from you? (pretend also that she's insecure).
-------
She wants to hear that it would impossible for you to love her less because you already love her so much and that's never going to change-- that you could not
I'm pretty sure she'd much rather hear that it'd be impossible for me to love her more. If I said it'd be impossible for me to love her less, she'd probably look confused and ask me to explain wtf I was talking about, in which case I'd have to explain your whole convoluted line of reasoning as to how this makes sense. Then she'd still look confused, because it doesn't, and ask me if this was my assholish way of breaking up with her.
Instead of numbers lets pretend it's love (which is a lot like caring).
Suppose your girlfriend asks you how much you love her and if it would be possible for you to love her less-- what is the response that she is looking to hear back from you? (pretend also that she's insecure).
-------
She wants to hear that it would be impossible for you to love her less because you already love her so much and that's never going to change-- that you could
Sure she may want to hear that, and you may even tell her that, but that doesn't make it true.
I once had a lover tell me that she would never leave me. Guess where she is now. I can only guess as well, as she's not with me!
As I said, I don't know enough about how the word 'bitcoin' is used to be able to tell if it's more analogous with 'dollars' or 'money'.
Would you say "I own some bitcoin" or "I own 3 bitcoins". Either seems possible.
I think that being a neologism, there is no consensus on this, but intuitively it seems to me that when I hear it used it is usually in the singular, as a collective noun. I think the only confusion is really that it ends in "coin" so pluralising it sounds a lot less stilted than, e.g. "I own 3 ethereums".
