3 ms·
Your definition would seem to insist that a nuclear warhead is not a "lethal" weapon, since no one has died to one in three quarters of a century. I guess "rea
by newacct583 6y ago
Your definition would seem to insist that a nuclear warhead is not a "lethal" weapon, since no one has died to one in three quarters of a century. I guess "reasonable" is an opinion thing, but I think it's pretty clear that the usage in that headline is conventional and correct.
- sokoloff 6y agoIt does not insist on that, but it does mean that “saturated fats more lethal than firearms” would be plausibly correct and “saturated fats more lethal than nuclear weapons” being almost surely correct.
- newacct583 6y ago> “saturated fats more lethal than firearms” would be plausibly correct Then I don't know which dialect you speak, but that's an outrageously weird interpretation. It's certainly not the way the word "lethal" is defined or interpreted in common usage among the folks I've known.