Bp1 and D: A hearty laugh to end my day!!! Thanks guys!

The MISS AMERICA BEAUTY PAGEANT was recently dropped by the network which has carried it for several years, leaving it without a T.V. home. The president of the pageant said something like, "This is a great day for a great American institution and provides us with a great opportunity for us to branch out and grow via cable T.V. coverage. The possibilities are endless."

I'll never forget when the last space shuttle blew up, a person at ground control said, "major malfunction" as the shuttle was flying thru the air in two seperate balls of flame.

choice: abortion
capital punishment: death
detainee: prisoner of war
suicide bomber, martyr: murderer

Detainee: This one was all right.
Choice: I was not used to this one; Ive seen it sometimes, but not frequently enough to consider it a true euphemism.
Capital Punishment: it's not a euphemism for death, but rather the intentional killing of a person by another (usually state-sponsored). Hence I think this one is 100% incorrect as a euphemism.
Suicide bomber, martyr: 1) the two are not the same. 2) A suicide bomber may kill himslef without killing others, thus not making him a murderer. 3) Gandhi was a martyr; was he therfore a murderer?
- therefore, this particular one is even worse then the one preceding it.
Tally: 1.5/4. A failing grade. Do better next time.
Mr Dark, is my simple point better uderstandable now?
Cheers, Translator

Another rabbit hole.

Since, in this case, the question is rooted in the definition of the term euphemism, let's start with that:

"The act or an example of the substitution of an inoffensive term for one considered offensive." (American Heritage Dictionary. 2nd College Edition. Houghton Mifflin, Boston. 1985.)

On the term "choice" you indicate you don't accept it as a euphemism because you haven't heard it enough. But I see no quantitative threshold relevant to whether or not a term is a euphemism. Abortion carries a lot of emotional impact, so people use the term choice, instead. As a matter of definition, when used in this term, it is a euphemism. Frequency of use is not the issue. Intention of use is the issue.

There is no assertion that the term "capital punishment" is a euphemism for death in all uses. When it is used to diminish the impact of the term "death" in reference to a state-imposed execution, it is a euphemism. It seeks to substitute a more offensive (or emotionally charged) word with one that is less offensive. It seems that in some cases, the term is a euphemism, but not in all cases. I'm not sure it was asserted that it was a euphemism in all cases.

You say that the terms "suicide bomber" and "martyr" are not the same and your implication is that that fact makes it impossible that one can be a euphemism for another. But you may be missing the point. There is no requirement that a euphemism is an exact replacement or match for a term. In fact, I would imagine that in the majority of cases the word functioning as a euphemism is NOT an exact match. The idea of selecting a different word is that the desire is to alter meaning and impact. So the argument here, that a suicide bomber and a martyr are not the same seems irrelevant to whether or not one term could be a euphemism for another.

The example of Ghandi is just silly, as you must be aware. A suicide bomber intends to kill others. I can think of no example where Ghandi's intent was to murder others. Nor am I aware of any suicidal tendencies manifest publicly by Ghandi. So the relationship between Ghandi as a martyr and Ghandi as a suicide bomber is nonsensical at best. Is the distortion intentional?

I'm hard-pressed to understand why you have decided to wade in and pronounce some terms as euphemisms and others as not.

Translator: Choice: abortion

There is no choice. The choice for life was made at conception. Afterwards it's a abomination of the term choice. I think of those aborted babies who may have turned to be pro-choice later in life. Those 'choices' robbed them in the 'safe place'

Well, Nard, there are such things as failure of contraception and other unforeseen misfortunes.

dandelion:

failure at contraception a misfortune. For whom?

failure at conception is NOT abortion.

Soooo...How about those Red Sox?

I'm with dandelion on that one.

Yeah...how about them BoSox?!!

Here is one from a spokeswoman for CBS in reference to not prematurally calling a winner in a certain state (as various reports did in 2000): from NPR Morning Edition

"We will not predict a winner, but rather (no pun intended-I suppose) we will propose an outcome." ?????

[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 11-02-2004).]

I can't believe this post, some of you people talk of double-speak and yet you still seem to support the biggest perpetrates of it in the world. I say go get 'em' Michael Moore! He may use his own form of propaganda but, gee, it is mild compared to what comes out of the mouths of American Presidents - time and time again! I dont understand how Anyone can Watch Mr Bush give a speach for one second and not get nightmares from the thought of ever voting for him. Talk about cencorship, I bet this post gets deleted and no, I am not a leftest plant. I am a Horror Fiction and Ray Bradbury fan but none of his horror fiction comes close to George Bush. If I have missed something (as, damn it... I have not got the time to read every post) then I apologise, if not then you and I are in for at least three to four more years of this mess.

[This message has been edited by Paul White (edited 11-04-2004).]

[This message has been edited by Paul White (edited 11-04-2004).]

I voted for him, and I don't get nightmares about it. In your view, I must simply be an idiot or a dupe. What can I say?

PW: From this post above, can we assume you did not vote for The President? Maybe a Michael Moore write-in!

My point in reference to the comment on NPR was simply that the big media power brokers did play a major role in the fiasco that was at the center of the '00 election's outcome. They called Fla. hours before any unbiased news agency should have. By making a statement that even hinted of trying to beat everyone else to the finish line, seemed to me to be playing right back into the same old faux pas. It seemed euphemistic within the young lady's other points about CBS's coverage. (Actually, I was quite surprised that Fox gave Fla. to Mr. Bush, even at a late hour, as they did. Luckily it proved Wed. to be a no-contest. Otherwise we would have been looking at an unleashed army of legal experts -on both sides- deciphering every syllable and analyzing every pagination of the voting/election laws within several states!!)

MM is no Walter Cronkite, David Brinkley, Lowell Thomas, or Walter Winchell. These reporters of the news and history were like artists. Agendas and money did not motivate them. Though each could be critical and groundbreaking in what they reported. Reading about their lives is like stepping into the historic events they covered, meeting the people, witnessing the events!

MM is a filmmaker of documentaries which take a side and hammer it home as he sees it. He includes sound and video clips to make his points. Some fact, some fiction (contextually), and some pure hyperbole. Fine - it's a free country. We do not all need to be marching to his beat. If some good comes of his opinions, all the better. However, he does not speak for all Americans.

As for the outcome of the election, in a democracy the people speak purposefully via the voting box, and, not, though at times we get quite thick in the debates here, through forums like this. So, let us all hope the next four years bring us security in our homes, schools, places of worship, cities, small towns, and -most importantly- within ourselves!



[This message has been edited by fjpalumbo (edited 11-04-2004).]

Paul White,

quote:

Originally posted by Paul White:
Talk about cencorship, I bet this post gets deleted. . .

You lose. Though you get points off for spelling.

Best,

Pete