Jdsk wrote:If that's a quotation shouldn't it be "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!"?
I like what Sheldon said in 'The Big Bang Theory'.
'I have no problem believing it's not butter'.
Jdsk wrote:If that's a quotation shouldn't it be "I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter!"?
Jdsk wrote:That's an excellent point. But it's complicated.
In a thread on English usage we should decry devaluation of words. It removes precision and it polarises, and there's quite enough of that already.
But... there's a hardwired property of the human mind to pay too much attention to what's dramatic and rare. And that can mislead us into not paying enough to things that are important because we're familiar with them. Of course this can be compounded by disproportionate reporting. I'd put deaths and injuries on roads into the category of harm that doesn't get enough attention because it's thinly spread and we're sort of... used to it.
However... asserting that all/many motorists are terrorists/murderers simply gets in the way of decreasing those harms because it isn't true. The intention to harm is very rarely a cause of road traffic "accidents". Thoughtlessness, carelessness, inattention, negligence, alcohol consumption and bad design are. If we get the cause wrong we're not going to discover and implement interventions that work.
Jonathan
Pastychomper wrote:Jdsk wrote:In a thread on English usage we should decry devaluation of words. It removes precision and it polarises, and there's quite enough of that already.
But... there's a hardwired property of the human mind to pay too much attention to what's dramatic and rare. And that can mislead us into not paying enough to things that are important because we're familiar with them. Of course this can be compounded by disproportionate reporting. I'd put deaths and injuries on roads into the category of harm that doesn't get enough attention because it's thinly spread and we're sort of... used to it.
However... asserting that all/many motorists are terrorists/murderers simply gets in the way of decreasing those harms because it isn't true. The intention to harm is very rarely a cause of road traffic "accidents". Thoughtlessness, carelessness, inattention, negligence, alcohol consumption and bad design are. If we get the cause wrong we're not going to discover and implement interventions that work.
I agree with that and would rather reserve the word "terrorist" for one who at least threatens large-scale violent action. Sadly, the CPS seems to disagree, since their definition of terrorism is extremely broad.
Oldjohnw wrote:I wonder if, before we throw the charge of terrorists at motorists, we might pause to consider what has recently happened on Paris and Vienna as well as Kabul.