4 ms·
That’s a wilfully unsophisticated view of language though.
by Luc 5y ago
That’s a wilfully unsophisticated view of language though.
- ALittleLight 5y agoIn what way? I'm considering the qualities of a hero from the given definition and arguing that they don't apply to bomb defusing rats and it's therefore wrong to call them heroes. I can't imagine how that's unsophisticated.
- BoorishBears 5y agoYou failed to heed the meaning of the term "or" (!) Doesn't that alone disqualify your rebuttal?
- ALittleLight 5y agoWait... I "failed to heed" the word "or", but you get to ignore the word "person"?
- BoorishBears 5y agoWhen 2/3rds of an argument is countered by not ignoring the term "or" I tend ask you fix that first? Especially when that remaining 1/3rd is just you taking an unsophisticated approach to the concept of anthropomorphization...
- ALittleLight 5y agoI think it's pretty clear the given definition doesn't apply here. While I do enjoy debating semantics, I don't see that you actually have any argument here, so I'm just going to leave it at that.
- herodoturtle 5y agoThis chain of comments right here is one of the reasons I do so love HN. A technical debate on the semantics of heroic rats. Plus it actually helped improve my English! Cheers :-)
- codyb 5y agoCan’t you just go with Merriam Webster’s fourth definition under hero “an object of extreme devotion or admiration”. Although the synonyms section cracked me up cause it definitely took me a second Synonyms “Cuban sandwich, grinder, hoagie (also hoagy), Italian sandwich, po’boy, …”
- ALittleLight 5y agoI don't see any evidence that the rats are the object of extreme devotion or admiration. The featured rat did its job well for five years and is now retiring with a modest celebration. If there were some evidence of extreme devotion or admiration, for example maybe the locals celebrate this rat, know its name, call this one for especially challenging fields, erect statues to it, etc - then I'd agree that a specific rat could be heroic by this definition. As is, the rats seem to be doing a not particularly challenging or dangerous job in exchange for payment. One rat is retiring after a successful career - which is laudable, but not so much so that it qualifies for extreme devotion or admiration. In general, I like to push back on cheapening words like "hero" so that we can use them for better effect when they actually fit. I also don't think teachers, hospital workers, police, soldiers, etc are heroes though some people sometimes call them such. Individuals in those professions might be, but the general classes are not, nor are bomb defusing rats.
- codyb 5y agoHmm. I’m not sure. I bet in the areas these rats perform their duties there’s a fair bit more admiration than from thousands of miles away. Anyways, it’s all good by me!
- BoorishBears 5y agoBeing wrong with great conviction doesn't make you right... Your "argument" was torn down piece by piece. You were wrong by not understanding the concept of an "or", and you were wrong by not understanding that in this context the rats are being anthropomorphized. I think most of us have just been mocking the absurdity of this by replying succinctly enough to watch you flounder a bit more at this point, you would have been best served leaving it at heroic rats...
- ALittleLight 5y agoI found a good night's rest has restored my appetite for discussing this subject. Sorry if I was a bit cranky earlier, it was past my bedtime. Let's look at it in a different way. Are these rats doctors? Well, definition 4 of "Doctor" from Merriam Webster's says ": a person who restores, repairs, or fine-tunes things." These rats are certainly restoring the fields by identifying the mines for removal. We can just anthropomorphize the rats to get by the "person" part of that definition and conclude that the rats are, in fact, doctors. Are the rats lawyers? Again, from the same dictionary the first definition for "lawyer" says "one whose profession is to conduct lawsuits for clients or to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters". That definition is of the form "X or Y" and Y would be "profession to advise as to legal rights and obligations in other matters." The rats, of course, aren't removing the mines themselves. They simply locate the mines and inform their human employers who then defuse and remove the mines. We could say the rats are advising the humans. If the humans running this operation come to know about a mine they clearly have an obligation to remove or designate the mine for removal - knowingly leaving a land mine in a field is liability. So, these rats, in their professional capacity, are advising the humans with regards to their legal obligations. The rats are lawyers! Are the rats scientists? Merriam-Webster tells us that scientists include "scientific investigators". The rats are clearly investigators. Are they scientific? The definition for "scientific" includes "practicing or using thorough or systematic methods". Well, the rats search an entire field. The article tells us that the rats scour fields so thoroughly that the human operators are willing to play soccer on the fields afterwards. That sounds pretty thorough to me, so we can call the rats scientific investigators, or scientists too. I hope you get my point. Using this "sophisticated" conception of language, where you look at dictionary definitions and suggest that one interpretation of some clause of a definition could technically apply so therefore a word is apt to describe something leads to absurd conclusions. Not only are our rats heroic, they are heroic lawyer scientist doctor rats! And more! The truth is that dictionary definitions are guides to help us understand language. An articulate person will strive to find words that fit well, not words that, by some torturous and philosophical contortion could technically, arguably, maybe not be entirely wrong if you ignore a couple words. "Hero" fits these rats the same way doctor, lawyer, scientist, engineer, and so on fits the rats - which is to say, not well.