It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Originally posted by butcherguy
reply to post by TsukiLunar
That would be why I said commonly accepted.
Oh yes, the commonly accepted use. Using it the way Biden did must be so rare that wiki decided to mention his use of the term in the second sentence.
Originally posted by WhiteAlice
That is an rather awkward use of the term "mortally wounded", which is generally associated with death of a victim. However, he's not really misusing the term "mortal wound" at all. A mortal wound is one that threatens life but can be survived with prompt medical attention. It's a wound that threatens the loss of life, not assures the loss of life 100% of the time. So, technically, Giffords WAS mortally wounded and if it hadn't been for medical intervention, then she would have died due to a mortal wound. However, she survived and became simply wounded. Mortal, as an adjective, means liable or subject to death. It's an implication of extreme severity as well. One can hold mortal fear but that doesn't mean that they are going to die from that fear. They are simply extremely afraid.
Gotta love the English language in all its infinite complexities. Totally agree with the prior posters' remarks about Biden's use of clips though. They are magazines--not clips!
I used the words 'more obscure'.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by butcherguy
His use of "Mortally wounded" is not obscure. It is what the term means!
Originally posted by azureskys
It has been posted before but I'll post it again with the hopes that it gets through a lot of thick
skulls with mental tunnel vision.
en.wikipedia.org...
ex]A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide). It can, but does not necessarily, lead to the death of the victim.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Originally posted by butcherguy
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
HAHA SOMEONE USED A WORD THAT IN MY OPINION SHOULD BE USED DIFFERENTLY LOOK AT ME I AM SMART
Is it opinion?
Or, by commonly accepted use of the term 'mortally wounded', was he simply WRONG?
A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide). It can, but does not necessarily, lead to the death of the victim.
en.wikipedia.org...edit on 22-3-2013 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)
A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide), which leads directly to the death of the victim. Death need not be instantaneous, but follows soon after. If proper medical treatment is provided immediately, the victim has a chance of survival, at which point the wound retroactively becomes non-mortal.
Very true. Biden's idiot act is purposeful IMO. He's a dangerous man and was chosen for a reason.
Originally posted by solomons path
reply to post by Wrabbit2000
While I'll agee to Biden being an idiot . . . one must remember that there are no "media" accidents in Washington. Talking points and such are carefully crafted by a staff that is anything but idiotic.
People never pay attention to the crazy and stupid people in the world . . . they are written off, usually as harmless.
I can't tell you how many people believe the gov could have never had a hand in 9/11 because they are all "too stupid" to get away with something like that.
It would be naive to think that he is allowed to continually act/speek as an idiot, without some reasoning behind it.
Governments play chess . . . not checkers.
Originally posted by butcherguy
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
Originally posted by butcherguy
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
HAHA SOMEONE USED A WORD THAT IN MY OPINION SHOULD BE USED DIFFERENTLY LOOK AT ME I AM SMART
Is it opinion?
Or, by commonly accepted use of the term 'mortally wounded', was he simply WRONG?
A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide). It can, but does not necessarily, lead to the death of the victim.
en.wikipedia.org...edit on 22-3-2013 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)
WOW, this is strange.
I followed your link that you provided. It says this:
A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide), which leads directly to the death of the victim. Death need not be instantaneous, but follows soon after. If proper medical treatment is provided immediately, the victim has a chance of survival, at which point the wound retroactively becomes non-mortal.
According to the link that you provided Joe Biden did use the term inappropriately.
It isn't really so strange when you look at the last revision... today. I guess the dictionary is probably correct though... I already posted the dictionary definition.edit on 22-3-2013 by butcherguy because: (no reason given)
Source
Biden Gaffes His Way Across Europe
Today, after attending a UK national security council meeting, Biden said that he was "delighted to do it, I spent half my life on OUR national security council," according to the pool report. In fact, Biden has only been on the U.S. National Security Council for four years--the four years the 70-year-old vice president has served in the Obama administration, and not the 35 years he suggested.
........
Also in London, Biden praised the tight bond between the U.S. and Britain by calling it an "open relationship."
........
Biden also got Portugal mixed up with Poland. The UK Telegraph calls it the vice president's "latest embarrassing gaffe for the vice president."
So you agree. Gabby did receive a mortal wound, which was treated, and became non mortal wound. Nice catch!
So, no, I don't agree. The wound retroactively became a NON MORTAL wound. It NEVER was a mortal wound.
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by butcherguy
So, no, I don't agree. The wound retroactively became a NON MORTAL wound. It NEVER was a mortal wound.
Retroactively means "after the fact". Which means, when the wound was treated, it was no longer "Mortal" it does not mean the wound was always "non-mortal".
In fact, going by your twisted logic, once the wound completely heals it was never even non-mortal since it is not a wound, but a scar.
A mortal wound is a very severe and serious injury (almost always a form of penetration or laceration) whether accidental or inflicted intentionally (by either suicide or homicide), which leads directly to the death of the victim. Death need not be instantaneous, but follows soon after. If proper medical treatment is provided immediately, the victim has a chance of survival, at which point the wound retroactively becomes non-mortal.
extending in scope or effect to a prior time or to conditions that existed or originated in the past; especially : made effective as of a date prior to enactment, promulgation, or imposition
Originally posted by TsukiLunar
reply to post by butcherguy
It clearly says that a mortal wound, left untreated, will kill you. After treatment, it is a non-mortal wound. You are being ridiculous.edit on 22-3-2013 by TsukiLunar because: (no reason given)