Re: thinking about writing a book your thoughs
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Target07</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Fighthard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
H&K weapons, so dependable that when you load the magazines backwards, they are still better than anything else.
Accuracy, Reliability - No Compromise LOL
</div></div>
I know, I know...I am out of retirement....couldn't help myself but "for all intensive purposes" that weapon could backfire but for all "intents & purposes" it wouldn't due to the lack of the firing pin being capable of striking the rounds.... </div></div>
Nope sorry
Basically what you've said is
"For all purposes that is rigorous and extreme that weapon may backfire(but might be ok with non rigorous or normal duty????) but in all practical sense it shouldn't due to the rounds being loaded backwards"
That just doesn't make sense.
If you had said.
"For all intents and purposes that weapon is inoperable with that backwards loaded mag"
Unless of course you meant to imply that it should work just fine with that magazine loaded backwards unless subjected to rigorous and extreme purposes.
Now for some fun cut and paste
-------------------------------
To start out, it is a mispronunciation of “For all intents and purposes”, which, in short means “in every practical sense”.
An example might be in the case of one commenting on a house being sold and a potential buyer wanting to buy it, despite its being removed from the marketplace…
“For all intents and purposes, the house is off the marketplace.”
Replacing it with a phrase with an identical meaning such as “In every practical sense”, also works…
“In every practical sense, the house is off the marketplace.”
This means that the house cannot be bought. It cannot be rented. It cannot be lived in by anyone else besides the owner or other parties as authorized by the latter. It cannot be examined. Offers cannot be made on it.
In “every practical sense”, the house is off the marketplace, for *ahem*, all intents and purposes (all the mentioned things would be considered intents or purposes).
So where’s the fallacy?
The fallacy is in how it is pronounced.
“For all intensive purposes” IS NOT SYNONYMOUS with “For all intents and purposes”
If you break down the words of the phrase, you will realize that the word “intensive” when used as an adjective describing the word “purposes” is *ahem* for all intents and purposes, a non-sequitur.
So let’s break this down, shall we?
“For all”
These words are highly versatile and commonly used together properly. They refer collectively to something. If Billy, Bob, Jack and Mike are members of a book club, then addressing them as a whole can be done as “For all members of the book club…”, rather than “Billy, Bob, Jack, and Mike”.
In the case where addressing such a group might be exclusive of one of its parties (I.e. the person making the address wishes to only address Billy, Bob and Jack), they may address the desired parties by saying “For all members of the book club except Mike” so as to exclude Mike as necessary.
Of course, that would cause Mike to start asking questions as to why he was specifically excluded. In such an instance as this, “For all” might not be an appropriate term to use to address the desired parties. If the select three individuals as stated in the last paragraph were to be addressed, a more suitable way might be to say “Billy, Bob and Jack…” so as to avoid anything being brought to Mike’s attention, as the whole point of the exclusion is to ensure that Mike is not in on all of this.
That covers “for all”. For the phrase “For all intents and purposes”, all possible intents and purposes are being referred to. There is no fallacy in the use of the words “for all” to precede “intents and purposes”.
Now onto the fallacy…
“Intensive”
This is quite clearly a product of mishearing the words “intents and”.
Had the phrase been re-written by reversing the places of “intents” and “purposes”, so it would read “for all purposes and intents”, such a fallacy would never have taken place to begin with!
Unfortunately, as the word “intents” comes before “purposes” I am stuck having to make this webpage and pay $0.89 per year to keep it online (and yes, that’s me telling you to make me a donation by clicking the “donate” button below).
When read as “intensive purposes” the sequence of words goes “(adjective) (noun)”, while in “for all intents and purposes”, the sequence of words goes “(noun) and (noun)”.
Being an adjective with a noun to follow, the former describe the latter.
In the case of “intensive purposes”, this implies that the purposes are intensive.
Per Dictionary.com’s definition, “Intensive” has a root word of “Intense”, which (I’ve got to stop using this pun), for all intents and purposes, carries the meaning of “existing or occurring in a high or extreme degree”, where an example of where the word “Intense” might be used is “Intense heat”.
This is certainly possible, as it is by no means uncommon for heat to exist in an extreme degree.
By using the suffix “-ive”, it characterizes the word “purposes” as being intense.
The fallacy lies in the fact that a purpose cannot be intense.
One may do something intense purposefully.
I.e. “Did that heat have to be so intense?” “Yes. I did it on purpose.”
A purpose may be executed in an intense manner.
“My purpose of doing this job is to ensure that the walls are painted properly and I am paying intense intention to ensure that it was done right.”
However, a purpose on its own, cannot be “intense”.
Repeat it to yourself a few times, to make sure you get it right.
For all intents and purposes
For all intents and purposes
For all intents and purposes
For all intents and purposes
For all intents and purposes
