3 ms·

Guess not. This must be why some organizations maintain warrant canaries. Of course Meta probably receives enough search warrants to make a canary useless, but

by branon 4y ago

Guess not. This must be why some organizations maintain warrant canaries. Of course Meta probably receives enough search warrants to make a canary useless, but it begs the question: if they had one, how many times per day would it need updated?

denton-scratch 4y ago
s/begs/raises/
- 93po 4y ago
  I've long given up on this fight - it seems to be that it's acceptable to say "begs the question" as long as it's followed up with the question that it's "begging". I think using "begs the question" without the follow-up question is still problematic though when they're not referring to the fallacy that "begs the question" originally meant.
  - denton-scratch 4y ago
    I apologise for shaking that hornet's nest. It's just that there's a right way of saying that something raises a question; it doesn't involve the use of the word "beg". If you want to really say that something "begs the question", then you could say what the question is supposed to be. For "begging the question", the question is one or other of the propositions in an argument, and "begging" it means assuming it's truth or falsehood. I find it pretentious to use terms like "beg the question" incorrectly. Instead of using these erudite-sounding formulations, one could just say what one means. Apart from anything else, I think simple, straight talk is more convincing. Especially if your audience might include people for whom English is a second language.
    - 93po 4y ago
      It annoys me in the same way the word "utilize" in place of "use" does and for the same reasons. And yes I agree on how it should be used. The only hill I'm willing to die on anymore is the now-accepted use of the word "literally" when the writer/speaker would be more accurate in saying "figuratively". People love the "language evolves!" argument, but my thought is that language evolutions shouldn't be accepted if they actively make communication more difficult or less clear.
      - denton-scratch 4y ago
        > The only hill I'm willing to die on anymore is the now-accepted use of the word "literally" Oh, $DEITY. That one really pisses me off; but that hill is almost a guaranteed death sentence. It's in Merriam Webster, saying it means one thing, as well as it's negation. I'm sure there are better hills to fight for. You can call me a deserter or a fugitive, if you like. I don't care. I won't die on the hill called "literally".

by branon 4y ago

denton-scratch 4y ago

s/begs/raises/

93po 4y ago
I've long given up on this fight - it seems to be that it's acceptable to say "begs the question" as long as it's followed up with the question that it's "begging". I think using "begs the question" without the follow-up question is still problematic though when they're not referring to the fallacy that "begs the question" originally meant.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  I apologise for shaking that hornet's nest. It's just that there's a right way of saying that something raises a question; it doesn't involve the use of the word "beg". If you want to really say that something "begs the question", then you could say what the question is supposed to be. For "begging the question", the question is one or other of the propositions in an argument, and "begging" it means assuming it's truth or falsehood. I find it pretentious to use terms like "beg the question" incorrectly. Instead of using these erudite-sounding formulations, one could just say what one means. Apart from anything else, I think simple, straight talk is more convincing. Especially if your audience might include people for whom English is a second language.
  - 93po 4y ago
    It annoys me in the same way the word "utilize" in place of "use" does and for the same reasons. And yes I agree on how it should be used. The only hill I'm willing to die on anymore is the now-accepted use of the word "literally" when the writer/speaker would be more accurate in saying "figuratively". People love the "language evolves!" argument, but my thought is that language evolutions shouldn't be accepted if they actively make communication more difficult or less clear.
    - denton-scratch 4y ago
      > The only hill I'm willing to die on anymore is the now-accepted use of the word "literally" Oh, $DEITY. That one really pisses me off; but that hill is almost a guaranteed death sentence. It's in Merriam Webster, saying it means one thing, as well as it's negation. I'm sure there are better hills to fight for. You can call me a deserter or a fugitive, if you like. I don't care. I won't die on the hill called "literally".