Wounded fox shoots man in leg

Dixie said:
Good for you. I'm also working on a B.A. in English. :P I think we are looking at it differently based on our own perceptions. You say it implies intent, I say it does not.

Alex stated it is vague enough to be either way. To shoot something implies intent. Yes. But kids playing with guns, shoot them, accidentally wounding or even killing their friends and/or family. I don't think a child would intentionally shoot someone to cause them harm. Before you decide to go deeper with this, I am implying children who can't yet tell the difference between a toy gun and a real gun and they have irresponsible idiots for parents that don't lock their guns up. I've seen headlines that read 'Four-Year-Old Shoots Brother Playing Cowboys and Indians". Does this example title imply intent or accident? The one intended to 'shoot' the other, however it was real and discharged a bullet. Will the court hold the child accountable for his actions for 'shooting' the gun. At this age the child will readily admit to 'shooting' the gun in questioning.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
My thoughts are that the fox headline and the four-year old shoots...headlines are deliberately chosen to attract attention and sell papers.

Alex said that fox headline s vague, which I agree with.

They are headlines and their aim is different. More sensationalist writing than precise writing.

All this is what I think and I am not saying you're wrong. We have different ways of looking at it.
 
souggy said:
It only implies intent because we have grown to culturally accept that only people understand what guns are, or how to operate them. If we live in an accident-prone world, then "shoots" wouldn't imply intent anymore because it doesn't have the same cultural expectation.

It's like the word "kill." Even though we know someone could kill someone else by accident, we still associate the word with intent because more likely than not there's a reason why someone was killed-- so we expect a reason even if it's never stated.
Click to expand...

Excellently put, good Canadian sir.
 
Glenn said:
My thoughts are that the fox headline and the four-year old shoots...headlines are deliberately chosen to attract attention and sell papers.

Alex said that fox headline s vague, which I agree with.

They are headlines and their aim is different. More sensationalist writing than precise writing.

All this is what I think and I am not saying you're wrong. We have different ways of looking at it.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. Clearly the author was aware of what his words were implying, but he was careful to word it vaguely enough that he would not appear to be lying. Crafty.

But it's really nothing to argue about, people. In this case, the only person really at fault is the author for using ambiguous language.
 
TheWriteAlex said:
I agree with this. Clearly the author was aware of what his words were implying, but he was careful to word it vaguely enough that he would not appear to be lying. Crafty.

But it's really nothing to argue about, people. In this case, the only person really at fault is the author for using ambiguous language.
Click to expand...

:laugh2:

At least in ASL, it's more of:

"what the hell did he just sign?"
 
Ugh.

We are not in English classroom for God's sakes! The unnecessary nitpick on the title seems to ruin the flow of pleasant discussion.

I simply copied and pasted the title of article from the source here.
 
Royale said:
Ugh.

We are not in English classroom for God's sakes! The unnecessary nitpick on the title seems to ruin the flow of pleasant discussion.

I simply copied and pasted the title of article from the source here.
Click to expand...

I agree with Royale, it's about the article, not grammar.

You go Fox! FireFox! Fox is my top favorite animal.
 
Back
Top