4 ms·

"Involved" is a nice weasel word that was invented to imply 'caused' without having to prove it.

happytoexplain 4y ago
The first line of the article is "One out of every eight deaths in Americans ages 20 to 64 resulted from drinking too much alcohol, according to a U.S. population-based study." (emphasis mine) They certainly still have the burden of demonstrating that somehow, but exclusively focusing on the particular near-synonym they used in the title seems uncharitable if you have read the first line of the article.
bdcravens 4y ago
That feels like a "guns don't kill people" take.
- AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
- notch656a 4y ago
  If I crash with a gun in my waistband, is it a "gun-involved" crash? I mean I'm sure someone has crashed because they were fiddling with a gun in their waistband.
xapata 4y ago
You seem to use a very strict definition of "caused".
HelloMcFly 4y ago
Seems like a more colloquial way to say something is a likely "causal contributor".
MichaelCollins 4y ago
If you want to get really wormy, you can claim alcohol doesn't even cause DUI crashes; those are caused by the person who decided to drink and drive. The agency lies with the drunk person, not with the substance they consumed. But that's a meaningless distinction if you're concerned about the impact of DUI to the public. So "alcohol involved" is more accurate and gets to the meat of what we actually care about.
- deeblering4 4y ago
  This is similar to a favorite argument from defenders of a certain US amendment
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    To be clear, my argument is that "alcohol involved" is not a weasel term. Trying to make the conversation about "cause" is a rhetorical trap which will turn the discussion into a quagmire about free will and particularly the agency of inanimate objects or substances. If you simply say "alcohol involved", then you avoid all that philosophical mess entirely. By analogy to the gun debate which you're alluding to, saying "gun involved" deaths would neatly circumvent the "but guns don't shoot themselves" quagmire. However in the case of the gun debate, the "cause" language is used anyway despite asking for that quagmire, because it's more emotive.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Dispensing with causation is a very convenient approach indeed. In doing so I could say "higher concentrations of melanin pigmentation is involved with higher arrest rates in the US for homicide." If questioned I will be extra certain to make it clear I don't think being black makes you commit more crime, and totally didn't mean to imply anything close to that.

The first line of the article is "One out of every eight deaths in Americans ages 20 to 64 resulted from drinking too much alcohol, according to a U.S. population-based study." (emphasis mine) They certainly still have the burden of demonstrating that somehow, but exclusively focusing on the particular near-synonym they used in the title seems uncharitable if you have read the first line of the article.

bdcravens 4y ago

That feels like a "guns don't kill people" take.

AlgorithmicTime 4y ago
notch656a 4y ago
If I crash with a gun in my waistband, is it a "gun-involved" crash? I mean I'm sure someone has crashed because they were fiddling with a gun in their waistband.

xapata 4y ago

You seem to use a very strict definition of "caused".

HelloMcFly 4y ago

Seems like a more colloquial way to say something is a likely "causal contributor".

MichaelCollins 4y ago

If you want to get really wormy, you can claim alcohol doesn't even cause DUI crashes; those are caused by the person who decided to drink and drive. The agency lies with the drunk person, not with the substance they consumed. But that's a meaningless distinction if you're concerned about the impact of DUI to the public. So "alcohol involved" is more accurate and gets to the meat of what we actually care about.

deeblering4 4y ago
This is similar to a favorite argument from defenders of a certain US amendment
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  To be clear, my argument is that "alcohol involved" is not a weasel term. Trying to make the conversation about "cause" is a rhetorical trap which will turn the discussion into a quagmire about free will and particularly the agency of inanimate objects or substances. If you simply say "alcohol involved", then you avoid all that philosophical mess entirely. By analogy to the gun debate which you're alluding to, saying "gun involved" deaths would neatly circumvent the "but guns don't shoot themselves" quagmire. However in the case of the gun debate, the "cause" language is used anyway despite asking for that quagmire, because it's more emotive.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Dispensing with causation is a very convenient approach indeed. In doing so I could say "higher concentrations of melanin pigmentation is involved with higher arrest rates in the US for homicide." If questioned I will be extra certain to make it clear I don't think being black makes you commit more crime, and totally didn't mean to imply anything close to that.