A samurai sword sounds much more efficient than a baseball bat, I have to say.

A samurai sword sounds much more efficient than a baseball bat, I have to say.

One swing limb lopping!

Though, to be fair to the baseball bat, it'd probably only take one well aimed blow to the head for a killshot.

Still, you can't swing at somebody's hands with a bat and wind up with a corpse.

Okay, technically not mayhem like the Johns Hopkins sitch because no limbs were lost. Everybody's clear on that right? Mayhem = limb loss. And while we're at it, let's all be mindful of how we use "decimation," which is, of course, one in ten.

As much as I agree that people invariably use decimate when they should say devastate, I have never heard decimate used in the traditional sense, nor do I find it likely that it will resume. This battle has been lost.

This battle has been lost.

It made more sense when cannons were firing at infantrymen.

Then you get a proper decimation.

What about begging the question? Will that ever be used correctly again? It's my favorite logical fallacy and Strega tells me that battle is lost as well.

You know, I still don't understand how it's supposed to be used correctly -- assuming the argument, I guess. I think it's fair to say "begging the question" in the old sense is quaint. (Which begs the question: why are we so keen to retain archaic meanings when the new ones are so useful?)

What about begging the question? Will that ever be used correctly again? It's my favorite logical fallacy and Strega tells me that battle is lost as well.

I would say so. Frankly, the misuse is far more useful than the correct version, which is generally kind of confusing anyway.

X-post FTW.

Actionable is the one that gets under my skin.

Frankly, the misuse is far more useful than the correct version, which is frankly kind of confusing.

What's the correct use?

Here's a reasonably clear explanation:

"Begging the question" is a form of logical fallacy in which a statement or claim is assumed to be true without evidence other than the statement or claim itself. When one begs the question, the initial assumption of a statement is treated as already proven without any logic to show why the statement is true in the first place.

A simple example would be "I think he is unattractive because he is ugly." The adjective "ugly" does not explain why the subject is "unattractive" -- they virtually amount to the same subjective meaning, and the proof is merely a restatement of the premise. The sentence has begged the question.

It may be that it's an archaic use of begged? Because that's part of the problem, I think - the name for the fallacy makes no obvious sense itself. The misuse seems more rational.

Huh! I had never thought about that particular phrase, and that's interesting. Thank you, brenda!