- Forum
- Lounge
- Bad words in English
- Page 2
Bad words in English
Pages: 12
Thank you, gms508, for illuminating us with that. Choice of words is more than just some first-amendment freedom of speech thing... it has everything to do with how we interact with the world around us -- how we perceive and are perceived.
We bind ourselves to the words we use and the context they convey by the habits we form, and those bindings have the power to control us and our surroundings.
Who is making false premises here?
A football stadium is both private property and a public place.
I don't wish to be rude, but this kind of thing is really starting to bother me with its alarming increase in frequency. Does anyone even bother to learn something about what they say before they blurt it out? Would a minimal google search hurt?
https://www.google.com/search?q=legal+definition+of+public+space
The terms used to describe public space/area/place vary with jurisdiction, and the term itself, like "window", is contextualized, but it is typically comprehensible to laymen.
Whether or not the location is privately owned is not the issue. Access to it is.
A private club is not a public place -- only members may come and go.
A football stadium is a public place -- anyone may come and go without any discrimination except for ability to pay -- and the ability to obey social norms expected of all people in a public place -- such as not yelling at people who pass by, or stealing, or fighting, brandishing weapons, smoking, etc.
BTW, Mats, don't take any of this as a personal attack. It isn't. I like you plenty and enjoy your contributions to the forum.
We bind ourselves to the words we use and the context they convey by the habits we form, and those bindings have the power to control us and our surroundings.
| Mats wrote: |
|---|
| Your football argument is based on false premises though. [To wit:] A football stadium is private property, not a public place. |
Who is making false premises here?
A football stadium is both private property and a public place.
I don't wish to be rude, but this kind of thing is really starting to bother me with its alarming increase in frequency. Does anyone even bother to learn something about what they say before they blurt it out? Would a minimal google search hurt?
https://www.google.com/search?q=legal+definition+of+public+space
The terms used to describe public space/area/place vary with jurisdiction, and the term itself, like "window", is contextualized, but it is typically comprehensible to laymen.
Whether or not the location is privately owned is not the issue. Access to it is.
A private club is not a public place -- only members may come and go.
A football stadium is a public place -- anyone may come and go without any discrimination except for ability to pay -- and the ability to obey social norms expected of all people in a public place -- such as not yelling at people who pass by, or stealing, or fighting, brandishing weapons, smoking, etc.
BTW, Mats, don't take any of this as a personal attack. It isn't. I like you plenty and enjoy your contributions to the forum.
To further illustrate Duoas private/public example. A lot of parks are privately owned and open to the public.
@Duoas - That lead to some interesting reading. I had no idea a space could be both public and private.
It is actually an ongoing issue in various forms.
Most recently there was the nasty business concerning the couple in Oregon who were uncomfortable making a wedding cake for a, shall we say, non-traditional marriage, but was ordered to either make it or close shop.
The injunction was based on the idea that his business was a public service, (again, IIRC), and hence they were not legally entitled to discriminate based upon their potential clients' sexual orientation.
I think this is an abuse of both law and reason... but whatever. Only some people get rights, it seems.
Most recently there was the nasty business concerning the couple in Oregon who were uncomfortable making a wedding cake for a, shall we say, non-traditional marriage, but was ordered to either make it or close shop.
The injunction was based on the idea that his business was a public service, (again, IIRC), and hence they were not legally entitled to discriminate based upon their potential clients' sexual orientation.
I think this is an abuse of both law and reason... but whatever. Only some people get rights, it seems.
Not really, there are business laws in place that make it illegal to discriminate. You start a business to supply cakes for a couple being married, with times changing, that no longer means a man and woman. If you can prove a company is discriminating you can basically sue them for emotional damages and the state can see how high it goes and ultimately shut them down. There are many forms of discriminating and if you recall Paula Deen almost lost her entire career because of her brother sexist and racist attitude and then admitting she used the 'N' word on top of it.
Topic archived. No new replies allowed.
Pages: 12