Grammar: the imperative mood

[AlbertCat]

" Imperatives are used principally for ordering, requesting or advising the listener to do (or not to do) something" (wiki)

If someone asked advice, and one replied " do this", what would you obviously think the imperative was used for?


(see http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1218&pid=148090) (that was a suggestion, not a demand)

4 votes, 0 passes | Time left: Unlimited
	Ordering (a demand)
	0 (0%)
	Requesting
	0 (0%)
	advising the listener to do (or not to do) something
	3 (75%)
	Pie
	0 (0%)
	Ice cream
	0 (0%)
	cake
	0 (0%)
	creme brûlée
	0 (0%)
	I'm on a diet
	1 (25%)
	0 DU members did not wish to select any of the options provided.
Show usernames Disclaimer: This is an Internet poll

[Tobin S.]

1. The whole uproar over Dawkins is insane.

If he were anyone else, no one would give a shit. Very few at all on a Democratic message board should be in opposition to the latest "controversial" statement. But put atheist in front of his name and now all of the sudden everything he says is deemed outrageous.

[Promethean]

2. It is the authoritarian mindset.

It boggles them that we can admire someone for one part of who they are and not care about the rest. To them he is an authority figure. Everything he does is representative of those he has authority over.

However it is my experience that atheists do not recognize anybody or anything as an absolute authority. Dawkins provides brilliant insight into biology but is prone to making social blunders. I can admire his biological knowledge without following his example of social interaction.

The real kicker is when we point out to them that they act the same way towards their authority figures. Just mention the pope to a certain catholic and he immediately flies into victim mode.

[defacto7]

5. Excellent response. n/t

[mr blur]

9. +1 (nt)

[AlbertCat]

7. but is prone to making social blunders.

Only if one is over sensitive and reads things into what he says that he didn't actually say.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Damn it, I have that person on ignore for a reason.

[Curmudgeoness]

4. For the life of me, I don't understand the obsession with Dawkins.

It is interesting that it is religious people who have that obsession.

I was an atheist for decades before I had ever heard of Dawkins. So it is apparent that he is not Satan who convinces people to become atheists. And no atheist has ever said that he is God, or that he speaks for all of us. I will never understand why his name is continually throw out there.

[defacto7]

6. Because they need someone to throw?

Beats me.

[AlbertCat]

8. He get's their goat

Because he does the ONE thing that is indefensible in their view: He gives religion and religious views zero authority.... especially over him. Boy does that piss religionists off!

He even gets other atheists to whine and clutch their pearls because he won't tip toe around the horrors and crimes and plain ridiculousness of religion and religious thinking.

He doesn't suffer fools.

Only the unhinged would think this frumpy, quiet-voiced, intelligent, logical British scientist is a radical atheist who hates women and demands abortions.

[mr blur]

10. The unhinged and the intellectually dishonest

or, indeed, the intellectually impoverished.