William MacDonald wrote:Also, what is your aversion to paying? Perhaps you think it's more "moral" to preserve your "purity" and watch the puppies die than to compromise a little and save the puppies?
Nope, it's because I want to discourage such behavior in the future. Offering a financial incentive to a person drowning puppies will only encourage them to do so again.
William MacDonald wrote:
word wrote:"They're entirely within their rights to tell you to get the hell off their property and then take their anger out on the animal" is what you wrote. According to most accepted interpretations of English grammar, that means "they're entirely within their rights to tell you to get the hell off their property AND they're entirely within their rights to to then take their anger out on the animal." If that's not what you meant, then you really need to correct your sentence, sir.
Well, this is embarassing... for you. Do you not understand the function of the word, "then" when posing a hypothetical situation? It denotes a consequence. What's so amusing is that you just used it in the final sentence of your post. "And then", serves a similar function, and removes the need for me to use a comma (which in U.S. grammar seems to be optional).
Time for a basic English lesson, it seems.
Let's look at the second part of that sentence. "To take out their anger on the animal." Is that a complete sentence? Of course not. It's an infinitive, as is "To tell you to get the hell off their property." You still need a subject and a verb to make a complete sentence. Because you are a fluent English speaker, you provided the necessary components, the subject, "They," and the verb, "are." "They are..." what? "They are within their rights." (Here, "within their rights" functions as a prepositional phrase). They are within their rights to ...what? You provided us with two infinitives, "to tell you to get the hell off their property" and "to take their anger out on the animal." These infinitives share the word "to" in this case, but this is, of course, a completely acceptable way to use infinitives; for example, "I like to run and swim" generally means the same thing as "I like to run and to swim," it's just an easier way of saying it.
So, what you typed clearly indicated that you believed that a person was "within their rights" to "take out their anger on the animal," which, of course, was quite wrong. The fact that the situation was hypothetical doesn't matter. The fact that you were "denoting a consequence" is meaningless; I don't really know why you're bringing that up. Of course you were indicating a potential consequence; that wasn't the issue I had with what you said, it was that you were clearly, obviously claiming a person had a legal right to "take out their anger on the animal," and according to Japanese law
, he or she does not.
Let's take a simplified version of the sentence:
"He is happy to sing and dance." Clearly, this sentence indicates that he is happy to sing and he is happy to dance. Happy is an adjective, and the infinitives "to sing" and "to dance" function as qualifiers for "happy." He is not happy to stub his toe, so the infinitives offer clarity to the sentence. Let's knock it up a notch: "He is within his rights to sing and dance." We have replaced the adjective with a prepositional phrase which functions as an adjective. The infinitives "to sing" and "to dance" still function as qualifiers for "within his rights." He is not within his rights to stab a baby, so the infinitives offer clarity to the sentences. You claimed that a neighbor was within his rights to tell you to leave and to take out his anger on an animal.
If you had provided a second subject and verb for the second infinitive, you could've avoided claiming that a person was "within their rights to abuse an animal." For example, you could've said "They're well within their rights to tell you to get the hell off their property, and then they could possibly take their anger out on the animal." However, since you didn't offer a second subject and verb, the you forced the infinitives to share the first subject and verb. The sentence could be interpreted in no other manner other than "They are within their rights to take their anger out on the animal," a statement which is clearly untrue.
I strongly suspect you didn't mean to say this. No biggie; I make mistakes, too. We all do. I'm really confused as to why you're refusing to acknowledge and correct this mistake. I seriously hope it's not because you didn't actually understand the way you used those two infinitives.
William MacDonald wrote:Also, I've explained the meaning of this sentence several times and clarified the meaning for you, since you clearly found the grammar a little difficult.
As you can see above, I understood the grammar quite well. I worry that you did not. I would think that one would ensure one had used English appropriately BEFORE one mistakenly belittled another person for failure to use it properly.
William MacDonald wrote:Once again you reveal your complete ignorance of Japan. In Japan charges are bought by the alleged victim, and the police are then required to investigate under the legal assumption of "guilty until proven innocent" - in other words, if they can't find sufficient evidence to dismiss the charges then they have to have it over to prosecutor to decide whether to press charges.
Of course, which is why one should be very careful not to break the law. I'm a bit curious as to how far you would carry this, though. If you saw someone setting the school on fire, would you call the police? If you did, you run the risk of the perpetrator claiming that YOU started the fire, not he. According to your logic, it is "far more likely" that you will be arrested. Are you, then, encouraging people not to report crimes they witness?
William MacDonald wrote:As such the Japanese law enforcement officials are not corrupt, they're just following procedure. The corrupt ones are animal abusers who abuse the legal system to file malicious charges.
Ah, so who gets to decide what qualifies as "malicious charges"? You?
William MacDonald wrote:Do you even know the meaning of the word, "assumption"? It means, "A thing that is accepted as true or as certain to happen, without proof". I have plenty of evidence of your behaviour on these forums, and none of your behaviour in your community.
And that is why you should not be assuming things about my behavior in my community, because you have no proof that I am "certain" to act in a certain way within it.
William MacDonald wrote:Dealing with this issue in Japan requires a lot of finesse, finesse that you clearly lack.
Again with the assumptions. Le sigh.
Edited for clarity!