20 Years ago...

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

well if there isn't a person for whom the tragedy is greater, then how can
the tragedy be greater?


I would say:

Loss of human life = Tragedy for the person losing the life and his
friends/family and anyone else effected by the loss only.
That the loss happened to many other people and their respective
friends/family and anyone else effected by the loss does not compound
the loss for anyone.

You seam to be taking the position of a farmer in my previous, goat
based example.
There is no such position in the real world. It is utterly abstract.

You're changing the meaning of the word to fit your argument.

The fact is that, if someone communicates that there are two tragedies involving the loss of human life, and that one was greater, the VAST majority of people will understand that the greater tragedy will be the greater loss of human life. That is not abstract in any way. It can completely be quantified, if that's the qualifier. Also, abstract concepts are STILL concepts, and can STILL be described using language.

Seriously, you are absolutely wrong. Why must you play this game, instead of ever seeing the obvious? It isn't that hard to admit that either you're wrong or that you were looking at the situation from a different perspective (this isn't the first time)?

Do a poll: ask ten people, all things being equal, what's the greater tragedy, the loss of 10 people, or the loss of 1000. I bet the results will be 10 for 10. Meaning that the communicated quality of the term "greater tragedy" works.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Aramike

You're changing the meaning of the word to fit your argument.

I am describing the word differently to illustrate the concepts I wish to
convey.

I can't be held accountable if the common usage of this word of that does a
poor job of explaining this concept or that with out clear explanation of how
the word is being used.

I wish to discuss concepts and ideas, not semantics.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Letum

I am describing the word differently to illustrate the concepts I wish to
convey.

I can't be held accountable if the common usage of this word of that does a
poor job of explaining this concept or that with out clear explanation of how
the word is being used.

I wish to discuss concepts and ideas, not semantics.

Language involves common usage as a neccessity; if it did not, then it would be difficult to communicate.

Ultimately, in this discussion you should have understood what others meant regarding the magnitude of tragedies, and then presented your thought regarding tragedy separately - not as a "but".

From most people's perspective, one cannot compare 2 million deaths with 2 thousand.