4 ms·

> The point is domestic isn't qualifying violence, it's referring to a particular category of threat. But that is the way TiredOfLife presented it. He says tha

> The point is domestic isn't qualifying violence, it's referring to a particular category of threat. But that is the way TiredOfLife presented it. He says that people who are illegally present don't fall into that category. You respond that he shouldn't be talking about wife beaters. Where did that come from? (Also, of course, "domestic" is qualifying "violence". It's just doing it in Merriam-Webster's sense 2 rather than sense 3.)

JumpCrisscross 1y ago
> He says that people who are illegally present don't fall into that category The term domestic violence cannot be decomposed into domestic and violence. It's a term of art referring to "[i]nsurrection or unlawful force fomented from within a country." > of course, "domestic" is qualifying "violence" No, it's not. It would be like arguing that a law that talks about the United States of America doesn't apply if the states aren't united at the time of its application. (It's even stupider, since this is not only a term of art, but an archaic one as well. Decomposing it is akin to using the modern definition for domestic violence to interpret that text.)