Israeli foreign ministry posts video of Thunberg’s arrest; vessels carrying about 500 activists intercepted about 75 miles off coast of war-torn territory
Israeli foreign ministry posts video of Thunberg’s arrest; vessels carrying about 500 activists intercepted about 75 miles off coast of war-torn territory
Language is always subject to change and evolution. I can’t predict the future and neither can you. I think explaining that context verbally is less harmful than implying it with weasel words.
And even if my desired change doesn’t happen, I think it’s valuable to challenge the assumptions built into these words to make people think about them and the way they are used instead of just blindly accepting “the criminal was arrested”.
Weasel words? Kidnapped and arrested literally both have implied meanings related to innocence. What is a non weasel word for that to you? I feel like you’re just arguing to argue at this point.
No, arrested implies guilt. Kidnapped implies the action wasn’t related to the victim’s behavior. If it was, then the context can be made clear.
It’s better to assume innocence than guilt because that means any violence committed requires justification. An arrest is automatically justified in the minds of most people and they won’t ever question it.
Yep. You’re arguing for the sake of arguing. You literally agree that both words have implied meanings related to state of innocence of the subject. But for some reason are writing your responses like you disagree.
Or, I think you’re just really bad with relationships of vocabulary. When I said “implied meanings related to innocence” I am talking both about how
arrest: implies that the subject may not be innocent or may be innocent. It is not conclusive and has room for doubt. It implies there is some reason to believe that evidence may exist for guilt. But it is by no means concluding anything solid. The SUBJECT of the sentence is where more meaning is derived. Saying the pedophile was arrested implies guilt. The person is being labeled conclusively as a criminal. It’s also indicating that the subject doing the action (arresting) is a valid authority. Saying Greta was arrested does not imply guilt so strongly. She is not being labeled with the adjective of a criminal. But it still indicates the subject doing the action of arrest has authority to do the arrest. Which in the case of Israel they do not.
Kidnapped: implies the subject is absolutely innocent. It’s a much stronger word to use and SHOULD have been used to describe the situation of the flotillas.
You for some reason want to default to using kidnapped for ALL situations? A very conclusive word that implies absolute innocence of the subject being acted on, and absolute guilt of the subject doing the action? Yeah, no, kidnapped is a very strong conclusive word. And it’s WHY it should be used to describe the flotilla kidnappings. Because it’s a very clear case of who is at fault and who is innocent.
But to use that in all situations is just absolutely stupid. You don’t understand the English language if you think that.
If you’re looking for a neutral word to describe the act. There is already a word for that. It’s took.
I have no idea what you mean by this. I’m arguing the same point I always was, that we should avoid the word arrest in favor of terms that do not imply the guilt of the victim and the legitimacy of the state. But we can stop if you like.
Reread my comment if you care. I edited it. But this is exhausting or a misunderstanding.
I could keep going but you seem to be expressing a desire to stop this debate. Why are you still arguing then?
Do you feel attacked? I’m attacking an idea, not you, to be clear. If you’re tired of defending this idea, then why not stop? This is truly a puzzling interaction.
Because I’m autistic enough to be bothered with how wrong you are.