Lancashireman Dec 19, 2019:

Initial Caps For All To Show The Importance Of The Message

Ramey Rieger (X) Dec 17, 2019:

@Steffen Like everywhere else, these avenues are under construction. Cheers and happy detouring!

Steffen Walter Dec 17, 2019:

Thick skin? Doesn't look like it, Eric. This whole discussion reminds me of a tennis match, just endlessly hitting back and forth with no result. Can't we just leave it at that, breathe in and out calmly for a minute, and then move on to more constructive avenues again?

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

Of course it's personal. @Björn: If you think we're talking past each other, being rude is the last thing you want to do. Clarifying the problem is much more helpful. If you think I'm ignoring part of my own explanation, you could quote the relevant part and explain. But don't be intentionally insulting, defend being insulting, and then claim you were actually directing your comments at someone else.

It never ceases to amaze me when people take actions that will clearly result in enemies for absolutely no reason. Mind-boggling.

@Ramey: If one person is rude to another, and the person who is rude points that out, and a third party then says the person to whom the rude comments were directed is taking things too personally, what is that? If you don't think his comments were meant to be personal, you didn't read the thread very carefully.

It is entirely possible (and much more effective) to remain civil while insisting on clarity of speech.

Ramey Rieger (X) Dec 17, 2019:

@ Erik I'm not intending to confront you, only to explain. And I'm probably approaching you because Björn has driven me nuts more than once over the years and I've learned to respect his insistence and clarity of speech. Really, it's not personal, but maybe just a tiny bit pedantic sometimes :-).

Björn Vrooman Dec 17, 2019:

Eric You see what I did there? I said "...talk past each other...," since I assumed we were perhaps trying to address different aspects of the question. And, no, I honestly don't know how to respond after stating it's not about smaller shipments and you respond by telling me that's not what you said, even though it's part of your explanation.

Instead, I simply chose not to answer to avoid exactly this kind of situation, which doesn't help the asker one bit.

Also, yes, I did say this is "pure speculation," which it is, in my view, so I disagree. You responded by quoting something Gordon did not, I repeat not, ask, telling me that is what Germans think of when hearing this phrase.

Thus, I was, again, stumped what I'm supposed to reply to this.

None of this is "clearly personal"--aside from the fact that I'm trying to figure out how to best respond to such inquiries, which itself is not rude.

You're trying to create a problem where non exists. I'm sure this conversation would go differently in person. That's why I said "have a good evening"--not to be rude but to say let's just agree to disagree and I hope you enjoy your evening.

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

Clearly personal @Ramey

The comments were clearly personal -- go back and look. I think my favorite was "I think you need to create a different tagline".

I have a thick skin. I will also tell people if they are being unnecessarily rude.

I find it odd that you are confronting *me* on this altercation.

Ramey Rieger (X) Dec 17, 2019:

@ Erik Linguists are a rare and special breed and kudoz requires a thick skin. Since we are all propounding our distinct understandings of language, we can also get rather vehement sometimes. Still, I am pretty certain, that no one is getting personal, only personally convinced OF something.

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

Maybe because it was clear you were addressing me? "This is the second time after the Stückelung Q that I'm getting the distinct feeling we are talking past each other or something I gave up responding in that d-box because you claimed you weren't "talking about five smaller shipments," even though "divided up into five 100-g shipments" was part of your answer. How am I supposed to reply to this?"

BTW, the answer to your last question there: Civilly, perhaps? Honestly, perhaps? There is clear evidence that you are addressing me and none that you are addressing anyone else.

And if you disagree, you can just say "I disagree". No necessity to make it personal. But when you do make it personal, don't act like that's not what you have done.

Björn Vrooman Dec 17, 2019:

I'm discussing statements made by two contributors and you don't see Michael being offended by it.

Also note that the comment about human and dignity appeared in the last line of my post, preceded by "in any case." Michael: "I don't think you can take the human out of dignity." I don't agree with this(!).

Instead of asking what this has to do with your post (did you notice I didn't address you directly?), you're making assumptions that are akin to playing the victim card (this guy is rude!). How am I making this personal?

And you can't say that "misrepresenting" was a reference to that sentence because nowhere in the post in question did you mention this.

As last time, we will just have to agree to disagree. You said, and now I'll quote you: "My contention was that, since the reference is to Grundgesetz language, Grundgesetz language should be used." I don't agree. In this case, it's a matter of preposition. The reference you assume is there? Maybe others do, but I don't see it.

I posted the devp.org link, as it is a Christian org, AFAIK. Any reference to the GG is purely coincidental; the org doesn't say anything about it.

That's it. Have a good evening

Ramey Rieger (X) Dec 17, 2019:

@Erik But WHOSE constitution? These are Asian women.

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

Never was my contention @Ramey: It was never my contention that "dignity" cannot be understood without "human".

My contention was that, since the reference is to Grundgesetz language, Grundgesetz language should be used.

Ramey Rieger (X) Dec 17, 2019:

@ Erik Well, to be honest, it is. There is a large picture of human beings illustrating the header. It would be somewhat redundant, especially since human beings are not in the habit of granting dignity to animals, plants or stones.

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

And I quote ... "the assertion that dignity isn't going to be understood without human is rather odd."

And you're right, of course. Absolutely not other way of expressing your point of view without rudeness. Entirely justified.

Ramey Rieger (X) Dec 17, 2019:

@Björn and Steffen Yes, simply Dignity would do it, but preferably with an excalmation point, and perhaps even caps, it is a fundraiser:

DIGNITY!

Björn Vrooman Dec 17, 2019:

I'm not misrepresenting anything. I said there is no reference. Your explanation creates, at best, a strenuous link between both terms and I don't share your view.

As for unnecessarily rude, that's in the eye of the beholder. Gordon asked for "Würde für den Menschen"; Steffen and I responded accordingly. When I disagreed with your view, you started moving the goalposts by turning "für den" into "des" and, yes, this is something I can get aggravated about, probably because I read too much about US politics (where this kind of strategy is the norm).

Also, as we had already discussed, the photo makes clear that this is about "human" dignity; Gordon didn't say there were five women and three turtles in the picture and PETA wants to sue because the turtles aren't represented in large enough numbers.

In addition, Gordon chose the Marketing category. Human dignity--which, again, is not used exclusively by Germans, so even if it were a reference, it's irrelevant, IMO--means you're going to be drowned in links that have nothing to do with the campaign or the organization. You should make some slight alterations, so people associate your org with it.

I'll just leave it at that.

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

The *reference* will be lost You're misrepresenting my statement (not to mention being unnecessarily rude ... again).

I said that the *reference* would be missed if the language of the Grundgesetz is not used, not that it will be impossible to understand "dignity".

Of course the ideas predate the contexts for which they are best known. That in no way shows that usage is not an implicit reference to those contexts.

Steffen Walter Dec 17, 2019:

True, Björn "Dignity" on its own should suffice because of the photo, which depicts women.

Björn Vrooman Dec 17, 2019:

It says Würde für den Menschen, not Würde des Menschen and no, the organization doesn't seem to refer to the Grundgesetz; neither does every GNS think of it first. And the concept of dignity is much older than 1949: https://www.devp.org/en/blog/human-dignity-cornerstone-catho...

This is the second time after the Stückelung Q that I'm getting the distinct feeling we are talking past each other or something. I gave up responding in that d-box because you claimed you weren't "talking about five smaller shipments," even though "divided up into five 100-g shipments" was part of your answer. How am I supposed to reply to this?

Amnesty International has already had a Human Dignity campaign:
https://www.amnesty.org/en/documents/ACT35/003/2007/en/

And there used to be an A.I. campaign named Demand Dignity to stop violence against women: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_International_Australi...

I think you need to create a different tagline. In any case, the assertion that dignity isn't going to be understood without human is rather odd.

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

Of course it's an allusion to the Grundgesetz. If anyone mentions "die Würde des Menschen", Germans think automatically of Article 1 of the Grundgesetz. That is the intent of the allusion -- whether or not the person making the allusion generally has anything to do with the Grundgesetz or not.

Just like a reference to "the pursuit of happiness" would be an allusion to the Declaration of Independence in the U.S., no matter what the context or what the person speaking/writing otherwise generally references.

And "Human dignity" is quite a bit shorter than "Dignity for every human being".

Björn Vrooman Dec 17, 2019:

I'm sorry... ...but this is pure speculation. I know what organization uses these words as part of their campaign and they have little to do with the Grundgesetz (which would be odd anyways for an international org and a religious one at that).

Besides, that's not going to shorten it.

Eric Zink Dec 17, 2019:

Reference to Grundgesetz Since it's a clear reference to the Grundgesetz, whose English translation (https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/englisch_gg/englisch_gg.h... does include the word "human", I would keep it and go with Steffen's suggestion: "Human dignity".

Björn Vrooman Dec 17, 2019:

PS I'm currently unsure whether adding a preposition would work, say, for/toward(s) a life in dignity or dignity through compassion, or even something with "the road to dignity." Or a change in verb, as in "help return their dignity," though that's kind of long =(

[PS] My personal favorite: Everyone deserves a little dignity. But that's really too long in this context.

Steffen Walter Dec 17, 2019:

Good thinking, Björn ... ... particularly because it's some sort of photo caption.

Björn Vrooman Dec 17, 2019:

Since it's a photo... ...human isn't needed, I'd say.

A life in dignity
A chance for dignity
Deserving of dignity
Dignity and compassion (the latter to address donors)
Give them dignity (and hope)

HTH

Steffen Walter Dec 17, 2019:

How about ... ... just putting "human dignity"?