If you mean someone who doesn't agree with you on everything, then...sure.
As are you.
If you are looking for a place where no-one disagrees with you , an internet message board probably isn't going to be a good experience for you.
ugh, pointless discussion at this point
Agree to disagree, i find the varied perspectives interesting in their own right, not so much the content of the original post.
Obviously the barrister wasn’t saying “It was an attack related to the Bible”, that wouldn’t make any sense.
Agreed, but the definition and modern day usage of the word biblical does bring the context of religious behaviour as a comparison point, specifically the type of religious behaviour in the bible.
They aren't saying "it's caused by the bible" as much as "This is the type and level of behaviour one would expect to find in the bible ( a religious text )"
Which is still religious, unless you don't consider the bible to have any religious significance.
When he said it was mediæval he didn’t mean it was related to 14th century history, he was characterising the attack.
The whole point of using a word whose definition is to evoke a relationship to a period or concept is to relate this meaning to the subject.
Otherwise you'd just describe the situation directly.
If you wish to argue that someone is using a word in a way that is explicitly ignoring the actual definition (and common usage) of the word, you're free to do so.
Seems an odd hill to die on, but i've my own equally strange hills.
So pencils and screwdrivers are also illegal in the UK?
Not generally, no.
The 'rules' are stated here
Who was the victim?
No-one it's a stealth tax on the poor.
If the 'fine' isn't based on the financial status of whoever is paying it then it's not a fine it's a tax.
Github is going in a a different, subjectively more harmful, way.
But it'll probably be a round for a long while yet.
When they say 'biblical' i'm assuming they are using the definition as defined in pretty much any dictionary
Unless you are arguing that the bible doesn't (or shouldn't) have anything to do with religion?
I mean it's a radical stance, but not one i am opposed to personally.
Arguing that the motive was religious is a stretch, sure, but arguing that the word 'biblical' isn't religious is significantly more of a stretch.
Pick One, possibly two.
There will of course be some who haven't considered this perspective and some who disagree.
I'd put money, however, on the vast majority arguing in favour of tolerating intolerance are the people this concept is talking about.
The actively intolerant using the tolerance of others to enact further intolerance.
Actually the shooting at gay night clubs in the states are usually not white Christians
citation ?
(legitimately, i've been looking for a useful resource for stats like this)
Are you suggesting that generation-specific vernacular is a sign of poor education?
Your missing the part in the middle where you spend 6 months telling them in no uncertain terms that the thing they are asking is stupid and will not work properly/safely.
Various back and forth emails, a completely "justified" performance review program because of your "falling standards" and several meetings with various managers at different levels of "importance".
Also the "You're absolutely correct, ENJOY" is written at the bottom of your resignation letter or told to them directly in your "redundancy" exit interview.
To me this reads as:
< preemptive justification for saying something controversial and/or indefensible >
< controversial statement with no justification or reasoning >
"Not going to explain because it's obvious"
Probably not how it was intended, but that's some weak sauce
Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.
That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.
The difference between:
Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's
vs
Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota's, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.
Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that's not necessarily bias.
Not until just now.
I'm more of an pondering my orb kind of person.
Not to discount your choice, you do you, is just not for me.