3 ms·
The objection is that the phrasing of a doctor playing God is extremely culturally potent in America, and far less on whether you are technically correct on the
by threatofrain 7y ago
The objection is that the phrasing of a doctor playing God is extremely culturally potent in America, and far less on whether you are technically correct on the intersection of God and medicine.
And in public speech it's the public that determines meaning and not the speaker with their intentions. What the speaker gets to do is make predictions about how it will be received.
- bb88 7y agoAnd this is exactly the pedantry I was talking about. You're arguing about the "way" I mead the point. Not about the argument itself.
- threatofrain 7y agoAs a public speaker engaged in public speech, you are responsible for getting the results you want. It would be silly for JK Rowling to blame people for not correctly interpreting her novels. You are absolutely reaping your own fruits, but you are blaming others for your displeasing harvest.
- bb88 7y agoWow, all I did was use a phrase from popular culture, and now I feel I'm being speech shamed.
- threatofrain 7y agoSure, it's language used to discuss doctors in the context of abortion, euthanasia, and medical research relating to genetics. I wonder why people might focus on doctor playing God. Could some people actually be religious?
- notacoward 7y ago> in public speech it's the public that determines meaning and not the speaker False dichotomy. It's a shared responsibility. Nothing gives the reader or responder the right to project their own biases or guesses of intention onto someone else's words and argue as though they'd been in the original. Please stop doing that.