Good and bad word associations

scanlas

I've noticed it seems to be widespread that people tend to attach the meaning of good or bad to certain words.

Natural - Some people seem to think this word also means good. For example if you say bullying is natural people consistently assume you are condoning it. A lot of people would jump to that conclusion automatically without even really thinking. It's like their thinking is pre programmed.

The reason the abortion debate confuses many is the messages conflict with their basic thinking. Vote Yes for pro life, vote no pro choice. The person with good/bad thinking is confused because in their head choice is good and life is good. This baffles them, they can't seem to actually think about the subject without the labels.

Selfish - This word has gotten a very bad reputation, we are all actually selfish, that doesn't mean it's a bad thing. Selfishness adds value and joy to many people's lives as well as cause destruction. It does not equate to bad. For example helping an old lady across the street is selfish. It makes you feel good.

Genius - I think some people attach the word good to genius. How else can one explain Michael Jackson saying Hitler was a genius making the front page of a newspaper. Hitler was clearly talented in many ways, it wouldn't be shocking to an intelligent person to hear that he was a
genius. He seemed to be a masterful influencer.

Nuclear - A teacher was telling me a story that he was explaining to his class the amazing potential benefit that nucleur power can offer the world. He said the class were in a state of bemused shock. I'd say to them nuclear is asscociated with evil, I'd say they watched too many episodes of the simpsons and heard too many sellafield scare stories from protesters. They didn't actually think about nuclear power and the potential benefit it can bring to mankind.


I'll add more words to this as they come to mind.

mikemac

Average isn't realy a good thing.

If a teacher tells a parent their child is average then might not be happy at all. If your boss tells you that you are just average in your appraisal then people might take offence.

scanlas

Average means average, neither good, bad, apple, space shuttle nor strawberry. It means average.

Zulu

Ah no, average has -ve connotations.
So does "prejudice". But to pre-judge something isn't necessarily a terrible thing. Darwin pretty much demands it. If prey doesn't pre-judge preditor, it won't last long enough to pass on it's genes!

scanlas

Zulu wrote: »

Ah no, average has -ve connotations.
So does "prejudice". But to pre-judge something isn't necessarily a terrible thing. Darwin pretty much demands it. If prey doesn't pre-judge preditor, it won't last long enough to pass on it's genes!

What's inherently negative about average?

Zulu

scanlas wrote: »

What's inherently negative about average?

Clearly nothing for you!
I'm hesitant to speak for Mikemac, but I'm guessing he feels the same as myself in that "average" isn't really good, it's "good enough", which, ironically, isn't good enough at all.

Take a review of a computer game. 50% is average, yet I wouldn't even consider a game unless is was reviewing at 80% or above. That said, game reviews these days are a total cod.

Wibbs

scanlas wrote: »

Average means average, neither good, bad, apple, space shuttle nor strawberry. It means average.

That would be my take on it too. If I ascribe any more to it personally I feel it's my issue rather than those giving me the description. Either I'm not applying myself enough or simply don't have the wherewithal to be more than average. In the former case I may work on that, in the latter, well if after all avenues are exhausted and I'm still average at whatever it is, that's just me. Meh, basically and I'd rather pursue things where I'm not so average and work on them.


Anyway, like I said in another thread I think most are average. Very few stand out to a huge degree, in either a bad way or good. Most like to think they're special little snowflakes and they are to themselves(hopefully) and their loved ones. Beyond that? Not so much.

scanlas

Zulu wrote: »

Clearly nothing for you!
I'm hesitant to speak for Mikemac, but I'm guessing he feels the same as myself in that "average" isn't really good, it's "good enough", which, ironically, isn't good enough at all.

Take a review of a computer game. 50% is average, yet I wouldn't even consider a game unless is was reviewing at 80% or above. That said, game reviews these days are a total cod.

What about average growth of an oak tree in a year? It just means average, in some contexts average can imply a positive or negative meaning, there are certain words that automatically have an association to other meanings by a lot of people.Average doesn't inherently have a good or bad meaning. The same as "genius" doesn't mean good or bad. Associated meanings to words can cause confusion and conflict between people.

Zulu

True.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Good post. I agree natural is the worst in this case. Can easily be shown rape/murder/stealing is natural.

People need to realise natural is not necessarily right in human terms.

I also hate the "pro-life" "pro choice" bull. I always say "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion"

Dades

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

I also hate the "pro-life" "pro choice" bull. I always say "pro-abortion" or "anti-abortion"

I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think the term "pro-abortion" is more fitting. That implies someone would actively encourage abortions, rather then simply want the choice to be with those in the position.

Of course if you are in the pro-life/anti-abortion camp, then perhaps this is image of the other side that one wants to propagate.

Zulu

Dades wrote: »

I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think the term "pro-abortion" is more fitting. That implies someone would actively encourage abortions, rather then simply want the choice to be with those in the position.

Of course if you are in the pro-life/anti-abortion camp, then perhaps this is image of the other side that one wants to propagate.

I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think the term "pro-choice" is more fitting - the choice of the child is somewhat ignored!
I believe "pro-abortion" more accurate. It simple means that they are for abortions and not against.

Dades

This is an interesting one in the context of the thread.

What I see here is people using one term over another - not because it correctly identifies the others position - rather that it paints the other in a negative light.

"Pro-choice" is correct in that the choice of whether to have an abortion or not, in places where it is legal, lies with the mother. And it is with the mother that pro-choice people want the decision to be.

"Pro-abortion", while a handy label, suggests incorrectly that people see abortions as a positive thing. For example if I say I am pro-Europe, it suggests that I believe being part of the European Community is a good thing, and that memberhship should be encouraged.

Hence I believe that the term pro-abortion is somewhat disingenuously used.

And before anyone asks - and derails this thread - I don't even know where I stand on the "A" debate.

ChocolateSauce

Drugs is another one; it doesn't matter if you're talking about the (compared to alcohol) less harmful recreational drugs or about asprin, the first thing that pops to mind is "junkie".

Zulu

Dades wrote: »

This is an interesting one in the context of the thread.

I agree, and I don't want to derail the thread either.

What I see here is people using one term over another - not because it correctly identifies the others position - rather that it paints the other in a negative light.

I don't believe this is accurate. One lobby uses the adverb/prefix(?) "pro-" in one light (choice) with the understanding the it means "for" or as the dictionary would have it

Dictionary wrote:

in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc."

And yet, as you pointed out, deny the same meaning when used in another light (abortion).
Simply put, "pro-" is the same regardless. And in that particular "debate", pro-"A" is far more accurate, as the person is for legalising "A". As for choice, they aren't "pro-" all "choices". So it's really "pro-choice with reservations", but of course that doesn't really sound as liberal...

"Pro-abortion", while a handy label, suggests incorrectly that people see abortions as a positive thing.

Again, thats a misunderstanding. It's "pro-" as in

Dictionary wrote:

in favor of a proposition, opinion, etc."

Zulu

ChocolateSauce wrote: »

Drugs is another one; it doesn't matter if you're talking about the (compared to alcohol) less harmful recreational drugs or about asprin, the first thing that pops to mind is "junkie".

Very good point.
A: "I'm on drugs"
B, C, & "....boo!"
A: "No, I'm on drugs for my lukemia"
B, C, & "Oh, like medication drugs"

scanlas

I think there are also certain foods and habits which bring about confusion due to the good/bad thinking. I think some people want the recommended "good" way to live their life.

Often times you'll hear them complaing about how confusing it is with all the "contradictory" studies, some saying it's a the food is good for you and some saying it's bad for you.

For example, say for argument's sake a study comes out showing drinking wine increases your chance of colon cancer by 10 percent and then another study comes out showing wine decreases you chances of heart disease by 15 percent. I think some people genuinely find this confusing.
When they hear this they are thinking "so is wine good or bad, these studies are so confusing,what should I do?" When in reality it's not confusing, only through the artificial good/bad lens.

I think this also causes some anxiety in people because they want to put their decisions in the "experts" hands so they feel safe about what they are doing. I think thoughts of taking responsibility for their own lives scares them. Also the fact that so much of life is down to chance scares them.

By the way, I'm not saying there aren't contradictory studies out there.

mikemac

scanlas wrote: »

Average means average, neither good, bad, apple, space shuttle nor strawberry. It means average.

Not realy in my opinion, I'm not alone on it.

If my boss told me I was average at my job I wouldn't be happy.

Over in the medical forum some of the doctors post about telling parents their child is average. And of course they take offense, their children must be advanced for their age!

Most people are average, some below and some above. But I'm reading it differently to you scanlas

scanlas

Average in a specific situation is percieved negatively by you under your specific beliefs and expectations.

Do you also consider a year of average rainfall in bolivia to be negative?

Some people would consider being told by their boss that they are very good at their job to be negative. To them they expect to be told that they are exceptional or the best. It's your personal and specific beliefs that make it negative, the word average isn't inherently negative.

I pity those doctors having to put up with offended parents all the time.

mikemac

A fair point Scanlas

miec

Interesting thread, and it shows how language can be so powerful. In reference to the post about studies on wine, whether it is good for you or bad for you, it all depends on who is funding the research and what their bias is.

Words are used to persuade and mould the reader to one way of thinking, for example language used to describe war activity is stripped of its aggressiveness, such as 'friendly fire' when soldiers accidentally kill men on their side (there is **** all friendly about it). A brilliant essay on this is by George Orwell http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm and he shows how words are used as propoganda tools for war but also stripped on their meaning.

I read somewhere that language or words are signs that lead to various concepts and it is a good way of looking at how the world is constructed through language. You have to try an understand the concept behind the words, and at the same time strip away your own response to those words.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Dades wrote: »

I can't for the life of me imagine why you'd think the term "pro-abortion" is more fitting. That implies someone would actively encourage abortions, rather then simply want the choice to be with those in the position.

I just think the notion of someone being pro-abortion in that sense is so absurd that no one would consider it and would know what context you meant it in.

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

The reason the abortion debate confuses many is the messages conflict with their basic thinking. Vote Yes for pro life, vote no pro choice. The person with good/bad thinking is confused because in their head choice is good and life is good. This baffles them, they can't seem to actually think about the subject without the labels.

I wouldn't consider it labelling rather than the truth of the situation. People who support the right to life, are pro-life in the fullest sense of the word. Life is good, and it is worthy of defence.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

I wouldn't consider it labelling rather than the truth of the situation. People who support the right to life, are pro-life in the fullest sense of the word. Life is good, and it is worthy of defence.

You say life is good and worthy of defence, I assume you don't eat eggs or any meat then, I also assume you do your utmost to rid the world of mouse traps. Also I assume you campaign against fly spray due to it's lethal effect on flies. Also I assume you defend weeds against being killed. Also I assume you are against disinfectants which kill bacteria and do your best to have them banned.

If my assumptions are not true I suggest you rethink the words you use to represent your beliefs as they are misrepresentative.

philologos

scanlas wrote: »

You say life is good and worthy of defence, I assume you don't eat eggs or any meat then, I also assume you do your utmost to rid the world of mouse traps. Also I assume you campaign against fly spray due to it's lethal effect on flies. Also I assume you defend weeds against being killed. Also I assume you are against disinfectants which kill bacteria and do your best to have them banned.

If my assumptions are not true I suggest you rethink the words you use to represent your beliefs as they are misrepresentative.

Life is good yes. The reason why pro-life groups emphasise human life is because humans are of equal dignity, we an relate to one another, and we have moral responsibilities to one another. We do not have the same moral responsibilities towards animals as we do to humankind.

Eggs are not fertilized when sold I.E there is no formed embryo there, so even if I do eat eggs, there is no life growing inside of it.

Meat, I have explained above the difference between our responsibilities towards fellow humans and animals.

scanlas

Jakkass wrote: »

Life is good yes. The reason why pro-life groups emphasise human life is because humans are of equal dignity, we an relate to one another, and we have moral responsibilities to one another. We do not have the same moral responsibilities towards animals as we do to humankind.

Eggs are not fertilized when sold I.E there is no formed embryo there, so even if I do eat eggs, there is no life growing inside of it.

Meat, I have explained above the difference between our responsibilities towards fellow humans and animals.

What about weeds and bacteria?

Pro life groups don't emphasise human life, then they would be known as pro human life groups.

I would argue that a fully formed organism such as a mouse has more dignity ( the way you seem to be defining dignity) than a one month old fetus. Yet you don't hear these pro life groups campaigning for mice rights.

I believe these groups such as pro life have their own personal agenda consisting of other beliefs and emotions, they use catchy lines such as pro life to get what they want. They say life is precious bla bla bla, but then they could go home and kill the bacterial life that lives in their home with antidisinfectant. The reality is they don't really think life is precious, but it sounds good. Perhaps human life, but not life.

Moral responsibilities are subjective. For the most part we (humanity) build our morals and reasoning for them, around what is convenient for humanity.

Also you mention that "relating to one another" is a value relating to dignity. I can't relate to native americans as well as Irish people. Does that mean native americans have less dignity than Irish people to me. No, it doesn't.

Zulu

scanlas wrote: »

Pro life groups don't emphasise human life, then they would be known as pro human life groups.

Why should they? It's pretty clear they are talking about human life.

"Pro-choice" groups don't emphasise the choice of the father; "pro-choice" groups don't emphasise the choice of the child. They should be known as "pro-limited-choice" groups or "pro-mothers choice but to hell with everyone else choice" groups.

scanlas

Zulu wrote: »

Why should they? It's pretty clear they are talking about human life.

"Pro-choice" groups don't emphasise the choice of the father; "pro-choice" groups don't emphasise the choice of the child. They should be known as "pro-limited-choice" groups or "pro-mothers choice but to hell with everyone else choice" groups.

I was making the point they don't emphasise human life as the poster suggested.

I don't like the terms "pro choice" or "pro life", I feel it's propaganda.

Zulu

scanlas wrote: »

I was making the point they don't emphasise human life as the poster suggested.

Kinda getting bogged down in symantics though, isn't it?

asdasd

The thread is about semantics....

asdasd

The reason why people dont like average - I think they associate it with half way, which may not be the case. It depends on the distribution. For instance Zulu made the mistake in this thread

Zulu wrote:

Take a review of a computer game. 50% is average, yet I wouldn't even consider a game unless is was reviewing at 80% or above. That said, game reviews these days are a total cod.

50% is not average if there are 100% awards and no 0%. And what game could possibly be worth nothing? The average is probably 80% actually, games score high...

asdasd

Also it is possible for more than 50% of people to be better, or worse, than average depending on distribution. So it is possible that most drivers are better than average. Probably that is the case.

Zulu

asdasd wrote: »

The thread is about semantics....

Good point!

scanlas

Another of those words is ignorant.

If you tell someone they are ignorant of a topic they take offence to it. It's merely a descriptive word, not necessarily insulting. I am ignorant of Kenyan culture and I will continue to be ignorant of it. We are required to be ignorant of the vast majority of information, but ignorant is one of those words which carries a negative connoation for most people.

Zulu

But is that not because "You are ignorant." is commonally used as an insult? The implication being that you are ignorant of everything.
Personally I wouldn't take offence to being called ignorant if what I was being accused of be ingnorant of was specified, and it wasn't an area that I consided myself educated in.

I wouldn't be insulted if you told me I was ignorant of Kenyan culture, however, were you to suggest that I was ignorant, I would be insulted.