More or Less
"More or Less" language confuses more than it helps and when it helps it helps little.
When gazing at the stars at night one could conjecture there are hundreds of stars "more or less." A child would see such a number as significantly large, whereas a knowledgeable astronomer might raise the number of stars to millions "more or less." In other words, there a whole bunch of stars in the sky, too many to exactly know for sure. Similar suppositions could be offered for the number of gallons of water in the ocean, the number of grains of sand on the seashore, or even the number of beans in a jar. All guesses would be just that -- guesses. Perhaps educated guesses, but guesses nevertheless.
At the other end of the spectrum of "more or less" would be clearly quantifiable numbers. Should someone use "more or less" language in these circumstances would result in such person looking silly. For example, to state one has three children more or less, or to posit one's prescription medicines or safety deposit boxes, or to ask for a check at dinner out and be told by the server the bill will be $17 more or less, to say you have one living parent more or less, amounts to a person who is clueless about matters that can be determined with accuracy.
The first category (stars, water, sand, and beans) allows permission to use "more or less" language. The latter category (children, medicines, money, and parents) requires precision. What's interesting is the in-between stuff. For instance, to be informed that 30,000 Iraqis "more or less" have died so far in the war is statistical garbage to people who do not care. However, to the grieving survivors of 30,000 people (men, women and children, many civilian) such death casualities are disturbing, to say the least. Closer to home, when told "we" have "lost" "about" 2,130 troops a different group of people are brought into the equation.
How repulsive to relegate the death of humans to being "worth it," and boldly admitting to have no end in sight, should be cause for alarm for all of us. The "loss" of human life is atrocious language. Strategic war nomenclature conveniently permits both sides to diminish what is actually happening (targeting people for death) as euphemistically "lost." The dead were never lost. Factually, they were killed by someone. "Friendly fire?" Please. Euphemisms run amok.
This post will probably get a million comments, more or less. I will read every one of them, more or less, because everyone, more or less, deserves utmost attention.
When gazing at the stars at night one could conjecture there are hundreds of stars "more or less." A child would see such a number as significantly large, whereas a knowledgeable astronomer might raise the number of stars to millions "more or less." In other words, there a whole bunch of stars in the sky, too many to exactly know for sure. Similar suppositions could be offered for the number of gallons of water in the ocean, the number of grains of sand on the seashore, or even the number of beans in a jar. All guesses would be just that -- guesses. Perhaps educated guesses, but guesses nevertheless.
At the other end of the spectrum of "more or less" would be clearly quantifiable numbers. Should someone use "more or less" language in these circumstances would result in such person looking silly. For example, to state one has three children more or less, or to posit one's prescription medicines or safety deposit boxes, or to ask for a check at dinner out and be told by the server the bill will be $17 more or less, to say you have one living parent more or less, amounts to a person who is clueless about matters that can be determined with accuracy.
The first category (stars, water, sand, and beans) allows permission to use "more or less" language. The latter category (children, medicines, money, and parents) requires precision. What's interesting is the in-between stuff. For instance, to be informed that 30,000 Iraqis "more or less" have died so far in the war is statistical garbage to people who do not care. However, to the grieving survivors of 30,000 people (men, women and children, many civilian) such death casualities are disturbing, to say the least. Closer to home, when told "we" have "lost" "about" 2,130 troops a different group of people are brought into the equation.
How repulsive to relegate the death of humans to being "worth it," and boldly admitting to have no end in sight, should be cause for alarm for all of us. The "loss" of human life is atrocious language. Strategic war nomenclature conveniently permits both sides to diminish what is actually happening (targeting people for death) as euphemistically "lost." The dead were never lost. Factually, they were killed by someone. "Friendly fire?" Please. Euphemisms run amok.
This post will probably get a million comments, more or less. I will read every one of them, more or less, because everyone, more or less, deserves utmost attention.
posted by Joe Marek | 6:43 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home