Michigan cops may soon be barred from having sex with prostitutes while undercover.

[Darththeo]

You clearly don't, as you missed the entire point of my comment. Pronouns have nothing to do with it.

Context ... matters or doesn't it ... you seem to want it both ways.

No, it's not. It's the result of not having a choice. If your company has an age in which you're required to retire by, you have no choice but to retire by that age. Thus, forced to retire.

That's not what that phrase means though. And don't correct me on this, I deal with that on a daily basis for my job. A person forced to retire is fired/laid off because they chose not to leave on their own ... it's the result of a choice. Even if your fucking example, people have the choice to retire earlier than that and chose not to ... it's a result of a fucking choice.

This doesn't even make sense. You could say someone was forced to give over their wallet lest they be shot, but saying they were forced to be shot because they refused to give over their wallet is stupid.

That's the point ... it was to show your stance to be stupid. good job, you can learn. It isn't because there is a lack of choice, but rather a lack of acceptable choices. There are always choices.

I asked you for an example. You using the dating example was a cop-out because I already addressed that scenario.

Excuse for moving goal post is a lame excuse. You can deny me the ability to use an example you gave because it shows you wrong.

What? You can't use a word "figuratively" and claim that's how it literally works. It simply doesn't work like that. Either you're using it figuratively (which is inherently wrong) or you're attempting to use it literally and doing it wrong. You literally cannot force someone to do something without either coercion or giving them no choice. Period.

It is literally how the word works in a figurative sense. It's literally acceptable with the definition ... again, this is you not liking word choice, not me being in any way wrong.

And I'm moving goal posts? You've been arguing [trolling] for days claiming that it literally means something it actually doesn't and now you're trying to claim you've been using it "figuratively" all this time. Pro move.

Projection now ... lol. Seriously, did you not pay attention to the fact I used physical before or not? Do you actual pay any attention at all? I am the troll ... no that's your pedantic little ass.

You're just "salty" because you're wrong.

By you own admission the word is acceptable but not accurate. So, how can I be wrong if it is acceptable?

You shouldn't take corrections/clarifications personally. Seriously, grow the fuck up.

Said the person who implied me to be a cunt ... seriously? You're a joke. Take you own advice, you fucking hypocrite. I am done with you, go take your smug little pedantic ass elsewhere ... It is clear you just wanted to troll.

[ro9ue]

Prostitution should be legal.

[Deathquoi]

What the heck? They do this?
Ah man. Only in the states.

No, it's not "in the states". It was only one state.

[Mellrod]

lmao if you think that is a valid counter argument.

First, what's to prove the prostitute knows you are a cop because you chose not to have sex with her? If you are worried abut that, ask her to do some stupid shit (other than sex).

To bad counter your bad counter ... have someone call the police on the prostitute before. Cops come, you run and escape (or get arrested and post "bail") ... seriously, you are overthinking this.

You guys both watch too many movies, it's obvious the prostitute would be an undercover cop from a different department. When she finds out you're on this case too, the two of you will compete to bust the gang first and probably both get caught when they call a third prostitute for the both of you to see if you're not cops.

[Evil Midnight Bomber]

What's to stop the prostitute from being on the payroll of the gang, and next thing you know, you get shot in the back? Would you be willing to bet your life on prostitute keeping quiet?

The bolded part

Undercover police officers in Michigan will no longer be able to have sex with prostitutes who they’re investigating

[Interim]

Good. Shocked that it wasn't already the case.

Yea cause consenting adults having sex should be regulated and criminalized. The world we live in folks. Same people who give two shits bill Clinton got his dick sucked.

[Mistame]

Context ... matters or doesn't it ... you seem to want it both ways.

English reads left to right. You don't put a context-defining factor at the end of a sentence.

That's not what that phrase means though. And don't correct me on this, I deal with that on a daily basis for my job. A person forced to retire is fired/laid off because they chose not to leave on their own ... it's the result of a choice. Even if your fucking example, people have the choice to retire earlier than that and chose not to ... it's a result of a fucking choice.

So, it's "lack of choice" you don't understand? I mean, further down you seem to get it. Make up your mind.

That's the point ... it was to show your stance to be stupid. good job, you can learn. It isn't because there is a lack of choice, but rather a lack of acceptable choices. There are always choices.

I specifically mentioned acceptable choice earlier. You set up your "stupid example" because you can't be bothered to see past the fact that someone "corrected" you.

You can deny me the ability to use an example you gave because it shows you wrong.

Except that it shows the opposite. In the context of both the OP and the dating example, "forced" carries an inherent connotation of coercion or lack of reasonable choice. I mean, next you'll say that a chic who's horny but not really into the guy was "forced" to have sex with him if chose to do so anyhow.

It is literally how the word works in a figurative sense. It's literally acceptable with the definition ...

No, it's not. There is no such thing as "literal figurative sense", as those two words are antonyms.

Projection now ... lol. Seriously, did you not pay attention to the fact I used physical before or not? Do you actual pay any attention at all? I am the troll ... no that's your pedantic little ass.

What does "physical" have to do with it?

By you own admission the word is acceptable but not accurate. So, how can I be wrong if it is acceptable?

If I order a burger with mustard and they put ketchup on it, I may eat it but it's still wrong.

Said the person who implied me to be a cunt ... seriously?

Getting pissy over something as simple as a clarification of your post is "cunty".

[Darththeo]

Getting pissy over something as simple as a clarification of your post is "cunty".

You really proved you're nothing but a troll ... goodbye. Maybe someday you'll learn you were wrong, but that day is not today or tomorrow. Seriously, you shown no knowledge of context, no rational argument and projecting your whiny ass onto me ... grow up.

[Mistame]

You really proved you're nothing but a troll ... goodbye. Maybe someday you'll learn you were wrong, but that day is not today or tomorrow. Seriously, you shown no knowledge of context, no rational argument and projecting your whiny ass onto me ... grow up.

Says the kid who threw a fit over a clarification.

/wave

[Darththeo]

Says the kid who threw a fit over a clarification.

/wave

No, I called you pedantic and dealt with your whining about being called out for your shit. And anyone who uses the word "cunt" is far more a kid than I am.

[Mistame]

No, I called you pedantic and dealt with your whining about being called out for your shit. And anyone who uses the word "cunt" is far more a kid than I am.

Whatever you say, son.

[Darththeo]

Whatever you say, son.

I'll leave you with a list of your errors:

1) Not understanding how pronouns work. You stated author, in a similar position I used the word I ... ergo, I is referring to myself who is an author.
2) Not understanding that context can follow. "He painted the wall his favorite color. The wall was red." By your logic, we cannot conclude that his favorite color was red, because it came after it. Because we read a certain way.
2.a) This means you essentially got to choose when context mattered and when it didn't.
3) Not understanding explain how words are used in language can describe when the word they are used figuratively. That would be literally how they are used. You do know I was literally talking about a figurative force ... seriously, the fact you didn't know that is said. I was literally using the word in a figurative sense.
4) Moving the goal post. First by saying you meant literal force and then by denying the ability to use an example you gave.
5) Literally arguing you weren't pedantic in the first place by describing exactly what you did.
6) Using the word that word.

Seriously, do you think you said anything rational at all since you came into this topic? You got mad because I told you not to be pedantic and then projected that on me. Seriously, grow up, kid. High school can't be that bad.

[Mistame]

1) Not understanding how pronouns work. You stated author, in a similar position I used the word I ... ergo, I is referring to myself who is an author.

This is not relevant to anything I said.

2) Not understanding that context can follow. "He painted the wall his favorite color. The wall was red." By your logic, we cannot conclude that his favorite color was red, because it came after it. Because we read a certain way.

If your sentence opens with "So if I say..." and end with "...how it's read", the context is the bold, not the underline. Even moderately adept readers speed-read so putting a contextual clause at the end of a sentence is bad form as it will probably be skipped.

3) Not understanding explain how words are used in language can describe when the word they are used figuratively. That would be literally how they are used. You do know I was literally talking about a figurative force ... seriously, the fact you didn't know that is said. I was literally using the word in a figurative sense.

All I was able to actually get from this is the last part. And again, your initial post had no indicator of either a literal or figurative context, hence my clarification.

4) Moving the goal post. First by saying you meant literal force and then by denying the ability to use an example you gave.

No. I explained both times in that example that what you claimed some people would call "force" (regardless of it being figurative or literal) was not, in fact, literal force. In those types of scenarios, you can't just use "figurative" versions of words that have seriously literal implications. Again, that's bad form. In the case of that example, figurative use implies that he literally forced (via coercion, etc) her on date, even if it's used figuratively. This is bad practice and leads to shit like people claiming cat calls are "rape".

5) Literally arguing you weren't pedantic in the first place by describing exactly what you did.

Again, wrong. I specifically stated pedantry was not the intent. Clarifying that there's red, yellow and green M & Ms after someone says, "M & Ms are blue", is not being pedantic. Pedantic would be arguing for 3+ pages over the difference between literal and figurative word usage, which we're both guilty of. Making sure that other readers of your post didn't assume that entrapment only applied if literal force was applied is not inherently pedantic.

[Darththeo]

This is not relevant to anything I said.

Still relevant to the discussion.

If your sentence opens with "So if I say..." and end with "...how it's read", the context is the bold, not the underline. Even moderately adept readers speed-read so putting a contextual clause at the end of a sentence is bad form as it will probably be skipped.

That's not how context works. You should have lease followed from your own post following pronoun rules. You mentioned author, ergo a pronoun following likely refers to an author. You apply context only went it suits you. that's why you are a hypocrite.

I was able to actually get from this is the last part. And again, your initial post had no indicator of either a literal or figurative context, hence my clarification.

Because such a clarification is not needed in a casual discussion.

No. I explained both times in that example that what you claimed some people would call "force" (regardless of it being figurative or literal) was not, in fact, literal force. In those types of scenarios, you can't just use "figurative" versions of words that have seriously literal implications. Again, that's bad form. In the case of that example, figurative use implies that he literally forced (via coercion, etc) her on date, even if it's used figuratively. This is bad practice and leads to shit like people claiming cat calls are "rape".

People literally do it all the time. And yes, you are right ... but that's not what you asked for. You ask for an example where force was used and there was no coercion or lack of choice ... I gave that to you. You then got mad because that's not what you meant.

Again, wrong. I specifically stated pedantry was not the intent. Clarifying that there's red, yellow and green M & Ms after someone says, "M & Ms are blue", is not being pedantic. Pedantic would be arguing for 3+ pages over the difference between literal and figurative word usage, which we're both guilty of. Making sure that other readers of your post didn't assume that entrapment only applied if literal force was applied is not inherently pedantic.

Take it up with the dictionary.

[Mistame]

Still relevant to the discussion.

No, it's actually not.

That's not how context works. You should have lease followed from your own post following pronoun rules. You mentioned author, ergo a pronoun following likely refers to an author. You apply context only went it suits you. that's why you are a hypocrite.

My issue wasn't with pronouns. It was with "read" being at the end, which most people will skip when speed-reading. Come on, I just said exactly that in the previous post. Stop going on about something I never mentioned and that has no relevance to anything.

Because such a clarification is not needed in a casual discussion.

When context is neither specified nor clear, the default context is literal. Clarification was necessary due to the lack of clear context. I understand that you disagree and that's fine.

People literally do it all the time. And yes, you are right ... but that's not what you asked for. You ask for an example where force was used and there was no coercion or lack of choice ... I gave that to you. You then got mad because that's not what you meant.

You argued against me when I said them "feeling forced" (which is clearly "figurative") is not literal force. This is why I asked for an example of literal force where there was no coercion or lack of acceptable choice.

Take it up with the dictionary.

I don't need to. I wasn't focusing on minor details, as the wrong connotation changes the context of your comment. Think about it. If you had meant literal force, that would mean it's only entrapment if the officer threatens them or gives them no other choice. Additionally, "pedantry" in and of itself implies intent, which I told you was not the case. If I were being pedantic, I would have said so, as I did later on about the rest of my comments. It's irrational to think I'd admit it for the latter posts and not the initial comment.

[Aggrophobic]

No, it's not "in the states". It was only one state.

Oh, I'm sure.
I was thinking more like, you can find anything in the states. Think of one crazy, messed up idea and you can be sure that someone over there has already tried that.
Thankfully it also seem to work for the good stuff as well.

[Darththeo]

No, it's actually not.

Well, you're wrong.

My issue wasn't with pronouns. It was with "read" being at the end, which most people will skip when speed-reading. Come on, I just said exactly that in the previous post. Stop going on about something I never mentioned and that has no relevance to anything.

Speed readings don't skip nouns and verbs.

When context is neither specified nor clear, the default context is literal. Clarification was necessary due to the lack of clear context. I understand that you disagree and that's fine.

It's not a disagreement, it is a fact there is no such thing as a "default context" especially when I am responding to someone who says something like "mega level entrapment" ... there is no such thing, ergo context wasn't literal. It's not a disagreement, it is a fact that you'll hold me responsible for people's assumption of my language, but not yourself with yours.

You argued against me when I said them "feeling forced" (which is clearly "figurative") is not literal force. This is why I asked for an example of literal force where there was no coercion or lack of acceptable choice.

Then you should have said that, you didn't. I even told you there is never not a choice and then you literally used a the result of failing to choose and claimed it was a "lack of choice." Seriously, you don't understand the concept you are talking but think you do.

I don't need to. I wasn't focusing on minor details, as the wrong connotation changes the context of your comment. Think about it. If you had meant literal force, that would mean it's only entrapment if the officer threatens them or gives them no other choice. Additionally, "pedantry" in and of itself implies intent, which I told you was not the case. If I were being pedantic, I would have said so, as I did later on about the rest of my comments. It's irrational to think I'd admit it for the latter posts and not the initial comment.

"or formalism"

You really don't know how definitions work do you?

[Therec]

I'll never understand why prostitution is illegal in the states. So much tax money wasted, you could easily fund a war with prostitution.

Old people with archaic views run the country.

[Therec]

But . . . taxes!

But...Christian nation... morals...slippery slope...

They just miss the days where saying "Nice tits sugar, come sit on papa's lap." to their secretary was considered a compliment.

[Mistame]

Well, you're wrong.

Wrong. You brought up pronoun usage as argument to something that wasn't even related to pronouns.

Speed readings don't skip nouns and verbs.

Clearly you don't understand how speed-reading works.

It's not a disagreement, it is a fact there is no such thing as a "default context" especially when I am responding to someone who says something like "mega level entrapment" ... there is no such thing, ergo context wasn't literal.

Yes, there is. And in fact, again, this statement, "Entrapment only applies if they force someone to do something they wouldn't have done on their own", literally means it's only entrapment if they're coerced or have no choice. No rational person can read that any other way.

It's not a disagreement, it is a fact that you'll hold me responsible for people's assumption of my language, but not yourself with yours.

Aside from "fact" not being a valid term here and that while you keep saying this, it has no actual relevance to anything, no one is "holding you responsible" for anything. This is some weird conspiracy theory shit or something.

Then you should have said that, you didn't. I even told you there is never not a choice and then you literally used a the result of failing to choose and claimed it was a "lack of choice." Seriously, you don't understand the concept you are talking but think you do.

We've gone over this. Not having an acceptable choice is a lack of choice. If your options are handing over your wallet or taking a bullet, in any legitimate context, you have no choice.

"or formalism"

You really don't know how definitions work do you?

It's a bit ironic you keep saying that when you're still calling the clarification of an ambiguous statement that very few, if any, people would actually read as you claim you intended it, "pedantry".