> In fact, this whole subthread seems to be a deliberate attempt to sidetrack discussion of important ecological policy with a pointless war about linguistics.
The fight for marriage equality was a "pointless war about linguistics" in those jurisdictions where the same-sex couples already had the same substantial rights? The choice of signs is important; in particular some carry more respectability than others.
The word choice does matter if what you're doing is taking a concept that the public already supports, and tack on additional meanings to advance your agenda. If all that mattered in a discussion
> Even taking all that, I don't see how we're breaking with the spirit of the word anyway. If you have a fishery that preserves the population of one target species, but is steadily depleting that of another (the bycatch)
It wasn't a fight over linguistics, it was a fight for the right for same-sex couples to be able to enter into the same legal contract as any other couple. the idea that there existed a "separate but equal" set of rights under a distinct legal contract is questionable, but also not a fight over linguistics.
The fight for marriage equality was a "pointless war about linguistics" in those jurisdictions where the same-sex couples already had the same substantial rights? The choice of signs is important; in particular some carry more respectability than others.
The word choice does matter if what you're doing is taking a concept that the public already supports, and tack on additional meanings to advance your agenda. If all that mattered in a discussion
> Even taking all that, I don't see how we're breaking with the spirit of the word anyway. If you have a fishery that preserves the population of one target species, but is steadily depleting that of another (the bycatch)
The article doesn't make that argument.