Help, Language Police! Suspected double negative!1!
Draft Declaration on Freedom of Thought and Expression, World Humanism Congress (meeting in London next month):
There is no right not to be offended, or not to hear contrary opinions. Respect for people’s freedom of belief does not imply respect for those beliefs. The expression of opposition to any beliefs, including in the form of satire, ridicule or condemnation in all media and forms is vital to critical discourse and any restraint that is exercised in this expression must be self-restraint alone. The best response to the expression of a view we disagree with is to reply to it. Violence and censorship are never legitimate responses. All laws that criminalise language on grounds of ‘blasphemy’ or of offence to beliefs and values impede human freedom and should be abolished.
= new reply since forum marked as read
In the classic case the negation applies to the same object as in "you don't have no right". In this case there are two objects being negated: rights and the state of being offended.
"There is no right to x". Is a valid statement. "Y will not be offended." Is equally valid. Combining and connecting these statements as "There is no right to not be offended" is a perfectly fine statement, despite containing two negations.
Misconception: Using double negatives is always bad English. Patricia O'Conner includes this in a list of "bogus or worn-out rules".[27][28] She advises readers to avoid certain uses (such as "I didn't do nothing"
but not to completely remove the double negative from our English toolboxes when constructing prose.[29] Acceptable examples given are "It's not inconceivable. She's not unappealing."[30] Whether the double negative is a positive constitutes a major difference between the acceptable and unacceptable examples. Many prescriptive English speakers consider this the criterion for whether a double negative is acceptable.[31] But it was only in 1762 that this trend of making English agree with formal logic was introduced, so some linguists still advise against using double negatives altogether.[31] Paul Brians, who affirms that "It is not true, as some assert, that double negatives are always wrong," provides the following humorous example:
One of the funniest uses of the literary double negative is Douglas Adams' description of a machine dispensing "a substance almost, but not quite, entirely unlike tea."[32]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_English_usage_misconceptions
Just because some theist thought they had a brilliant point doesn't mean they did. Eventually the doh! moment struck and the theist admitted defeat.
Though I think Fran Liebowitz said it best:
"Being offended is the natural consequence of leaving one's home."
You're welcome. And here's more from Fran Liebowitz.
rocktivity
Last edited Thu Jul 2, 2015, 04:27 PM - Edit history (1)
before there were such things as the Internet, texting, and news cycles. So let's update it:
"Being offended is the natural consequence of being awake."
rocktivity