Stonehouse is a village in deepest Gloucestershire. Think they've not been on the natiional grid very long. Can't imagine that homosexuality has reached there yet.
Ha ha! You make it sound like a virus!
marks and spencer
- Thread starter lawrance
- Start date
Ha ha! You make it sound like a virus!
D
DiscoDancer
No! You may feel compelled to make assumptions. You've obviously made your assumptions to fit your view of the world.
Please don't assume that we all have the same view of the world, thus we all make those same or even any assumptions.
Some wait for the evidence, or at least more obvious indications before arriving at presumptions.
For the linguistic or grammatical purists amongst us, my apologies for the repeated use and derivations of "assume".
I really didn't want to use "presume" because of this:
"Assume and presume both mean to take something for granted as true. The difference is in the degree of certainty. A presumption is usually more authoritative than an assumption. To presume is to make an informed guess based on reasonable evidence, while to assume is to make a guess based on little or no evidence."
Save us from over-educated, lefty windbags. Why do they always want to patronise those who hold differing opinions? 
D
DiscoDancer
Perhaps, for the same reason that you want to criticise those who hold different views to your own.Save us from over-educated, lefty windbags. Why do they always want to patronise those who hold differing opinions?
Well I make my presumptions based on applying for and holding down jobs, knowledge of company policy and behaviour, and my knowledge of the agenda of some parts of the muslim community. This is all evidence, and it's reasonable to make some presumptions because it's not possible to have every single detail. Discussions normally proceed on the basis that assumptions are fair and reasonable or have proof to the contrary. You can either provide proof that MnS did plan all along to have a clumsy policy of swapping staff out at checkouts if pork came along the belt, or in the absence of proof to the contrary you can accept the reasonable presumption that it was an afterthought.
So I presume you take exception to Cajar's assumptions?
You've misused the word "presume". You should have used "assume" because you have no evidence on which to base your assumption.
I suggest you re-read the difference between "assume" and "presume".
On the contrary, having read DD's tome I feel I have sufficient evidence upon which to base my presumption.
D
DiscoDancer
Of course you arrive at your conclusions based on your life experiences. But we don't all share the same life experiences and most are very, very different to yours.
Also, remember that you (maybe not you specifically, but you, collectively.) criticise some for having jobs, then attempt to suggest that certain parts of our community are spongers and don't/won't work. You appear to want to rant in all and any circumstances. I haven't searched your particular posts to suggest that you personally fit this criteria. As I have stated, my accusation was pointed at you all, well most. Sorry if I offend anyone by including them in that collective.
(Sorry, I'll edit that further by saying that some have this attitude, not all, not most, just some.)
It's not evidence at all, for this subject under discussion, it's your life's experience. You have "decided" to commit to your memory in order for you to make sense of your world. I don't say that you/we have made a conscious decision to remember the details that you/we do remember but it's what makes our prejudices what they are.
Not all, it's not necessary to make any assumptions in such episodes, it's sensible to wait for further evidence to arrive at a fair and reasonable conclusion. If you feel the need to rush into an assumption, then so be it, but that's you.
If you make an assumption that such and such a thing is just so, unless there is proof to the contrary, then you must believe in God, unless there is proof to the contrary!
To all those who wish to explicitly lable others with terms such as "over-educated, patronising leftie", remember that you are also implicitly labeling yourselves as the opposite, hence, "poorly-educated, over-bearing fascist".
D
DiscoDancer
You both seemed to have mixed up the concepts of "objection to" and "disagree with".
Surely, similar to "assume" and "presume", "to object to" is a stronger emotion, such as denouncing, disliking or disapproving. whereas I simply disagree and do not share the idea that you propose.
Therefore, your presumptions were incorrect and merely assumptions, incorrect ones at that.
I'm not sure what is the purpose of your criticism in this case.
Whether anyone has assumed or presumed is irrelevant as we have been discussing the newspaper article as presented.
Following the logic of your argument the only reply to the original post can be that we should not discuss this until all the facts are known; presumably never.
Conversely, should the article prove to be incorrect in some detail or even
a total fabrication then we can have a few more pages on the failings of the press.
That people's views are based on their life experiences is also hardly surprising nor a reason for discounting their opinions. It is obvious.
Whether anyone commenting on this subject is a downright racist white person, a downright racist black person,a genius, an idiot or the check-out assistant herself does not matter.
Why should we believe in god because there is no proof to the contrary rather than not believe in god because there is no proof to the contrary?
We may believe some stories and not others with no proof for any of them based on the reason for and likelihood of them being invented.
It seems to me that it is you who makes rather a lot of assumptions.
Whether anyone has assumed or presumed is irrelevant as we have been discussing the newspaper article as presented.
Following the logic of your argument the only reply to the original post can be that we should not discuss this until all the facts are known; presumably never.
Conversely, should the article prove to be incorrect in some detail or even
a total fabrication then we can have a few more pages on the failings of the press.
That people's views are based on their life experiences is also hardly surprising nor a reason for discounting their opinions. It is obvious.
Whether anyone commenting on this subject is a downright racist white person, a downright racist black person,a genius, an idiot or the check-out assistant herself does not matter.
Why should we believe in god because there is no proof to the contrary rather than not believe in god because there is no proof to the contrary?
We may believe some stories and not others with no proof for any of them based on the reason for and likelihood of them being invented.
It seems to me that it is you who makes rather a lot of assumptions.
I'm not sure about the 'over-educated' bit. (It's 'label', not lable!)
Yes. I tend towards the latter, and I've yet to see any proof whatsoever.
Sorry, I'm straying off-topic a little here!
Similar threads
- cumbriahandyman
- General Discussion
- merlin50
- General Discussion
