Because your fellow human beings are so profoundly stupid as to not understand that “delete” and “kill” have the same semantic value in that sentence?
If you are going to argue for word replacement it should be for stylistic reasons (rhyming, alliteration, humour, etc), or semantic reasons, as in actually changing the meaning of the statement.
Changing the wording of statement, while retaining the same semantic value, does nothing to reduce offense when the semantic value is what would cause offense.
Because your fellow human beings are so profoundly stupid as to not understand that “delete” and “kill” have the same semantic value in that sentence?
No, because people could be traumatized by suicide and get a reaction every time they hear the word. I compare your argument to refusing to stop blasting off crackers around war veterans, it’s obviously not gunshots and vets are not stupid enough to mistake them for gunshots.
If you are going to argue for word replacement it should be
No, I argue just the way I like.
Changing the wording of statement, while retaining the same semantic value, does nothing to reduce offense when the semantic value is what would cause offense.
I’m not trying to reduce offense, I’m trying to be considerate. But it seems that’s an unknown concept to you. I see no point in communicating with you further, good bye and I wish you a life as nice as you are.
“consideration to my fellow human beings”.
Because your fellow human beings are so profoundly stupid as to not understand that “delete” and “kill” have the same semantic value in that sentence?
If you are going to argue for word replacement it should be for stylistic reasons (rhyming, alliteration, humour, etc), or semantic reasons, as in actually changing the meaning of the statement.
Changing the wording of statement, while retaining the same semantic value, does nothing to reduce offense when the semantic value is what would cause offense.
No, because people could be traumatized by suicide and get a reaction every time they hear the word. I compare your argument to refusing to stop blasting off crackers around war veterans, it’s obviously not gunshots and vets are not stupid enough to mistake them for gunshots.
No, I argue just the way I like.
I’m not trying to reduce offense, I’m trying to be considerate. But it seems that’s an unknown concept to you. I see no point in communicating with you further, good bye and I wish you a life as nice as you are.