Norman Alexander
Penultimate Amazing
14-year-old Florida boy beaten for supporting Trump
- Thread starter William Parcher
- Start date
Flea market merchandise varies greatly. A seller selling used items from their own home can be right next to one selling new off-brand toys bulk-ordered from Chinese catalogs and making their living going from one flea market to the next. It's not uncommon to see, as new merchandise for sale, unauthorized knock-offs of brand name hats and t-shirts.
Authorized campaign merchandise is priced high because its purpose is to fund the campaign, so it makes sense there would be cheaper knock-offs, or sellers' own unauthorized designs, being sold at flea markets. In fact, that's more plausible than someone buying a campaign hat and then suddenly being eager to get rid of it before the campaign has even started.
Thermal
August Member
*Thermal sees Checkmite claims 'the dictionary says', but does not openly cite which dictionary used*
*Thermal rolls eyes and sighs. Link comes from American Heritage. Wonder how many pages Checkmite went through to find this definition that includes 'few'?*
*Types 'several definition' into unfiltered search engine*
*Not on page one...or two...or three...or four...wait, what was that on page one? Merriam-Webster's Usage of Couple v Few v Several! That should be helpful*
Merriam-Webster from search results page freaking One said:
Found Under 'What to Know', btw. Near the top. Wait, here's the link:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/couple-few-several-use
QED. But of course, you'll continue, I'd guess by citing thesaurus.com which lists 'a few' as a synonym for 'several', and I would counter that it also says 'a few' is synonymous with 'a lot', so context affects synonymity, but for the third time, can we commence with the chessboard shatting and drop this?
On second thought, you did work hard to find a definition. St Thermal bequeaths the win unto you. Congratulations, and may your stocking get truly stuffed with Holiday cheer.
Elvis666
Muse
Growing up in the South (Tennessee) 55 years ago, I got my ass beaten on a regular basis by a group of several guys a couple of grades above me, the membership of which was determined by who was available during recess that day to participate. The ass beating included getting me on the ground and literally kicking the **** out of me, all because I was taking piano lessons.
This fun group activity continued until I had a growth spurt one summer and, when they tried it again, I picked out the smallest in the group and pounded him good. I was ragged on by the group for weeks because I didn't fight fair but was never attacked again.
Well shut my mouth. I was going to argue that few is often used to describe a count much larger than several. Which it is...!
Few describes a small count, but it also subtly used to describe a small percentage: There's a few voters who mailed their ballets in late. That could reasonably mean thousands of ballets. But several always denotes a small count. Replace few with several, and I'm expecting 3 or 10 or 20.
Carry on.
Few describes a small count, but it also subtly used to describe a small percentage: There's a few voters who mailed their ballets in late. That could reasonably mean thousands of ballets. But several always denotes a small count. Replace few with several, and I'm expecting 3 or 10 or 20.
Carry on.
Thermal
August Member
Yeah, they are comparative and relative, contextually. Checkmite also used the pronoun definition (as in 'several of the workers') for his proof, but he had used it as an adjective ('several weeks'), and the adjective definition in his own citation didn't even use 'few' in their definition.
Lots of work to bob and weave around the hat question.
Btw, Checkmite...if you're out there...I read through your defintion three times, and didn't see the Hat mentioned. Coincidence...or something more?
Checkmite
Skepticifimisticalationist
I only provided a direct link for people to click on, so yeah obviously I was trying to hide something there. Golly, nothing gets by you.
LOL, really?
Oh, I'm so sorry - is the American Heritage Dictionary not an approved authoritative source or something? I look forward to your explanation of why, if you want to bother; but it's not necessary I suppose. It must be one of those things all dedicated pedants "just know" - I confess I'm not really in that loop.
Okay then, how about the Oxford Dictionary?
Let me guess, "everyone knows" that the Oxford is worth double eye-rolls; it only powers both Google's and Bing's definition services in addition to being...well, Oxford.
Meanwhile back in the real world, the fact that there's differing opinions on the matter from several/a few/some/a handful of authoritative sources is the reason why silly "aha, you used THIS word, not THAT word!" nitpicking like this which you so love to engage in is a pointless waste of time, and why it's disingenuous at the very least to claim that somebody's using one term versus the other must be a deliberate attempt to "subtly change facts".
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
Quite a few would gladly have him tortured until he renounced Trump. Despicable.
This didn't seem like school bullies picking on someone. The girl was filled with rage, there was a personal note in the attack. She wanted to hurt him, not scare him as a typical bully would.
Given that he seems to be colored and the boy comes from a fanatical Trump family and wore MAGA hats to school I have a pretty good idea where all the rage is coming from.
Not that I condone violence or anything. The information simply does not support the hypothesis this was a bully picking on a weaker kid. The reverse seems much more likely.
McHrozni
a) It wasn't a MAGA hat
b) So now you are saying the kid started it for wearing a Trump 2020 hat?
Geezes
Right, a KAGA hat. My bad.
Or was that AKAGI?
No. I'm saying there is a strong positive correlation between kids who wear Trump 2020 hats and kids who deliberately make life miserable to non-white kids.
Of course that doesn't mean every kid who wears a Trump 2020 hat to school is a racist bully, nor does wearing one make you a racist bully all by itself. The correlation may not be causal.
It's still there though - and rather strong.
McHrozni
Sideroxylon
Featherless biped
So why has this even been a story and gone to four pages here?
“Trump supporters are victims and libruls, despite their posturing, are actually bad people.”
Is that why we are discussing this?
“Trump supporters are victims and libruls, despite their posturing, are actually bad people.”
Is that why we are discussing this?
Right so now it isn't just the MAGA slogan that is deeply offensive now (Even though Bill Clinton used it), it is any piece of clothing with the word Trump on it?
People need to get a grip
You misunderstand.
Here, I hope this helps:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/correlation
McHrozni
I get the irrational argument bit that you say most US racists are Trump voters, so therefore it is likely the kid was a racist bully and the nutcase punching him multiple times was an innocent victim who finally struck the courage to stop the 2 times smaller than her nasty bully.
I was talking about the rationale for why wearing any political hat is bad that endorses a certain presidential candidate.
I say nothing of the sort. I merely point out most Trump voters are racists.
"Most dogs are covered in hair" is distinct from "most creatures are covered in hair are dogs". I'm sure this fallacy has a name, can someone help me with that?
McHrozni
It does have a name
It is called you using false dichotomy.
Edit: Actually might have that wrong.
False dilemma
Last edited: