Judgment, decision, choice

[Charlie Bernstein]

Years ago when a couple (husband from America and wife from Britain) taught us the Bible, they said don't judge people. I asked, "If we don't judge people, how could we know whether or not it's safe to contact someone? We judge people just to be safe." (I meant to determine.)

They didn't mean judge that way. They meant you shouldn't condemn people, you shouldn't hold them in contempt, you shouldn't think you're better than they are.

The word has a moral connotation. For example, in the words of American songwriter Bob Dylan:

"Do not forsake your brother,
Live by no man's code,
And keep your judgement to yourself,
Lest you wind up on this road."

That's a good example of what they meant.

They told me it was wrong to say "judge."

I agree. You're not necessarily judging people when you're deciding whom you want to do business with. You're just looking for the best outcome.

It's correct to say make the right decision.

In the context you're talking about, that's better. It doesn't carry a moral judgement, just a practical course of action.

You can see what I was and am confused about.

Please help me review articles on the two websites:
https://www.crime-safety-security.com/about-michael.html

I only saw one article. I would have edited it differently, but there's nothing strange about it.

https://divisbyzero.com/2008/09/22/what-is-the-difference-between-a-theorem-a-lemma-and-a-corollary/
Both were written by native speakers. But the crime articles sound a bit weird to me.

I feel much more comfortable with the articles on divisbyzero, especially the comments made by Dorian Sabaz.

Old but not very. Most of the videos on Youtube aren't very long.

Why did you think the domestic abuse article was weird? The topic? The writing style? The language? The story?

 

[realEnglish]

None of those phrases really fit that situation.

Please share what you would say, maybe more than just one version so that I could understand more.

(By the way, which one is correct, "understand more" or "understand better"?)

 

[realEnglish]

I only saw one article. I would have edited it differently, but there's nothing strange about it.

Why did you think the domestic abuse article was weird? The topic? The writing style? The language? The story?

I believe you are right.

The differences I could see and feel are as follows,

1. The tone of the writings on the crime site sounds more subjective and pushy. The Author sounds like he's pushing his ideas, "If you don't listen, you are stupid." I feel like he's trying to scare me. But the articles on the math site sound more objective. It's like "You can test and see the results yourself." It provokes me to think. I naturally favor articles on the math site over those on the crime site.
2. The writing style on the math site seems to be more "disciplined" to me. The articles are carefully worded and the reasoning is more coherent. But the writing style on the crime site is more like advertisement. I read only because I want to learn the reality, not because I enjoy the writing.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

I believe you are right.

The differences I could see and feel are as follows,
The tone of the writings on the crime site sounds more subjective and pushy. The author sounds like he's pushing his ideas,

Most writers are.

"If you don't listen, you are stupid."

I didn't get that impression.

I feel like he's trying to scare me.

I didn't get that impression, either.

But the articles on the math site sound more objective.

You're right. It is. That's what the topic calls for.

It's like "You can test and see the results yourself." It provokes me to think. I naturally favor articles on the math site over those on the crime site.

The writing style on the math site seems to be more "disciplined" to me. The articles are carefully worded and the reasoning is more coherent. But the writing style on the crime site is more like advertisement. I read only because I want to learn the reality, not because I enjoy the writing.

We all have different tastes. That doesn't make one piece of writing better than the other.

To study English, it helps to read widely and with an open mind. And it's also good to focus on topics that interest you.

A math-and-science writer you might enjoy is Brian Greene.

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Please share what you would say, maybe more than just one version so that I could understand more.

(By the way, which one is correct, "understand more" or "understand better"?)

Both make sense, but better is more natural.

I wouldn't make too much of the fact that a boy made it across the street once. I might just say something like:

- I'm glad he was careful.
- He seems like a careful kid.
- He was cautious.
- It's good that he looked both ways first.

 

[Tarheel]

I would say something different if I was speaking directly to the child. (I think I already did. ;-) )

 

[realEnglish]

To study English, it helps to read widely and with an open mind. And it's also good to focus on topics that interest you.

A math-and-science writer you might enjoy is Brian Greene.

Thanks!
Those articles are a good source of knowledge, especially to the naive people.

 

[Rollercoaster1]

I have a question about post 2.

"Wait until you don't see any cars coming, and then cross the road".

Doesn't it mean 'Wait and see if there is any car(s) coming, then cross the road'? Also, would it make any difference if the word 'until' is replaced with 'till' in post 2?

 

[emsr2d2]

I have a question about post 2.

"Wait until you don't see any cars coming, and then cross the road".

1. Doesn't it mean 'Wait and see if there is any car(s) coming, then cross the road'?
2. Also, would it make any difference if the word 'until' is replaced with 'till' in post 2?

1. No!!!! That sounds like you're saying "When you see a car is coming, cross the road"! That's the exact opposite of safe advice. "Wait until you don't see any cars ..." means "Wait until there are no cars visible, then cross the road".
2. Unless you're writing a formal or academic piece, you can use "till" instead of "until". It's the same thing. Some people write "til" and some "'til" (note the apostrophe).

 

[Rollercoaster1]

1. No!!!! That sounds like you're saying "When you see a car is coming, cross the road"! That's the exact opposite of safe advice. "Wait until you don't see any cars ..." means "Wait until there are no cars visible, then cross the road".
2. Unless you're writing a formal or academic piece, you can use "till" instead of "until". It's the same thing. Some people write "til" and some "'til" (note the apostrophe).

Does 'Only cross the road when there is no car coming' sound OK?

 

[GoesStation]

Those articles are a good source of knowledge, especially to the naive people.

Which naive people are you referring to? (The definite article is wrong there.)

"Naive" is not the word you wanted. Please look it up in a dictionary and pay close attention to the usage examples.

 

[realEnglish]

Which naive people are you referring to? (The definite article is wrong there.)

"Naive" is not the word you wanted. Please look it up in a dictionary and pay close attention to the usage examples.

I only had two words to choose, gullible or naive. Are they wrong here?

From Collions:

If you describe someone as naive, you think they lack experience and so expect things to be easy or people to be honest or kind.

It's naive to think that teachers are always tolerant.

I must have been naive to think we would get my parents' blessing.

...naive idealists.

Their view was that he had been politically naive.

If you describe someone as gullible, you mean they are easily tricked because they are too trusting.

What point is there in admitting that the stories fed to the gullible public were false?

I'm so gullible I would have believed him.

Synonyms: trusting, innocent, naive, unsuspecting

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/gullible

What word would you use?

 

[emsr2d2]

Thanks!
Those articles are a good source of knowledge, especially to [STRIKE]the[/STRIKE] naive people.

I only had two words to choose from - gullible [STRIKE]or[/STRIKE] and naive.

From [STRIKE]Collions[/STRIKE] Collins:

...

What word would you use?

Note my corrections above.

I wouldn't use a single word. I'd say the articles are good for people who have no/little knowledge of the subjects.

 

[jutfrank]

Does 'Only cross the road when there is no car coming' sound OK?

It's okay, but not great, in my opinion. It would be much clearer to move the word only:

Cross the road only when there are no cars coming.

I've pluralised the noun phrase too, as I imagine a native speaker would more naturally do.

 

[realEnglish]

Note my corrections above.

I wouldn't use a single word. I'd say the articles are good for people who have no/little knowledge of the subjects.

Thanks!

I agree it sounds rude to call people naive. Some people may not be naive but simply lack the knowledge.

 

[GoesStation]

I agree it sounds rude to call people naive. Some people may not be naive but simply lack the knowledge.

It can be rude, but that wasn't the problem with your sentence. We just don't use "naive" as a synonym for "uninformed".

 

[Charlie Bernstein]

Does 'Only cross the road when there is no car coming' sound OK?

It works. I'd usually say one of these:

- Only cross the road if no car is coming.
- Only cross the road if there aren't any cars coming.

(Jutfrank absolutely is right that it's more logical to put the only after road. But the order I used is stronger and more natural for conversational American English, which is what I speak.)

 

[emsr2d2]

Does 'Only cross the road when there is no car coming' sound OK?

It's not wrong but most of us would use "when there are no cars coming" at the end.

 

[GoesStation]

Does 'Only cross the road when there is no car coming' sound OK?

It's a very poor way to communicate the warning. It's far too easy to misunderstand.

 

[Tarheel]

Does 'Only cross the road when there is no car coming' sound OK?

Did you read post #2? Do you disagree with my advice?