hawk45
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 27, 2009
- Messages
- 10,009
- Reaction score
- 16
Popeyejones":28k6jx9s said:Don't mean to be argumentative, but I don't think it's even remotely the same thing.
Think about it this way, someone says "They think I'm worth 10 million a year and I think I'm worth 15 million a year, ..."
Then either branch out to:
#1: "...I want the 15 million a year because I think I'm worth that and at the end of the day me and my family come first."
#2: "...I want the 15 million a year because 10 million a year isn't enough for my children to be able to eat."
#1 is an incredibly logical end to that sentence. We can dislike it or like it, but it makes sense.
#2 is an incredibly stupid end to that sentence that is worthy of ridicule.
Seriously, they're not even remotely the same thing, and pretending that they are (or even worse, pretending that he said #2 when he said #1) is, IMO, really unfair to him.
"Me and my family come first" <> "I have to protect my family" IMO. The former is easily interpreted as a desire to maximize income for his family and is disconnected from any notion that his family is in jeopardy. The latter is quite firmly suggestive that there is some jeopardy to his family if his pile of gold isn't as large as it could be.
The implicit jeopardy is what people react to negatively. Both the "feed" formulation and the "protect" formulation center on jeopardy.
I think you framed the "protect" statement in a way more friendly to your argument, but IMO the court should uphold a ruling of semantics here