Actually, after some further thought I’ve realised I was wrong actually. If you were to use the phrasing “decimated 10 percent of the population”, it wouldn’t be redundant it would just be straight up wrong. To decimate 10 percent of a population would mean either you killed 10 percent of 10 percent of the population (i.e. 1 percent), or it would mean you’ve killed a large proportion of that 10 percent of the population.

And of course my point about how using the phrase “decimating the population” on its own would lead to confusion for most people because when people think of “a large proportion of”, people generally think that it’s more than 10 percent.

You’ve been engaged enough to type out replies. But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Your original comment didn’t stand “perfectly well on its own”, actually. Decimate meaning to destroy or kill a large proportion of something is just as literal as the definition you’re using, only the definition I’m using is much more commonly used and understood, so it generally takes precedence.

Everything about you and your smarmy act is redundant. Can you shut the fuck up? Thanks.

If you want someone to shut up on the internet, the best way to do it is to not engage them. Works just about every time in my experience. But you cared enough to engage and then engage again.

And if you don’t like smarmy people explaining things with a holier than thou attitude, engaging in internet discussion might not be the thing for you, you little piss baby.

Unnecessary or superfluous. For example: calling an ATM (automated teller machine) an “ATM machine”.

You seem to have missed the example I gave.

If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.

What would be redundant in this circumstance is saying decimate (e.g. to kill 10 percent of a group) 10 percent of the population. This is of course assuming that the person reading it knows the historical definition of decimate.

Furthermore I used the two different phrasings as examples because if you just wrote “they decimated the population”, most people would assume a number larger than 10 percent. But if you try and clarify by stating “they decimated 10 percent of the population”, and they know its historical definition, you’re being redundant.

So in conclusion, using decimate would either confuse people or be redundant.

As an aside; when you’re trying to report something, whether that be a current event or a historical one, you should be using language that the most people will be able to understand for the sake of clarity.

If it were phrased “they decimated the population” most would assume from the phrasing that it mean that you’re saying that a large proportion was killed, because that’s how that word is actually used in the English language. If it were phrased “they decimated 10 percent of the population” you’re either using the word as people understand it wrong or your saying they killed 10 percent of the population twice right next to each other, which is you know, redundant.

The definition of words reflect how we use them. An interesting fact is that scientists use Latin for scientific names of things because no one speaks Latin so the meanings of those words will not change with time. It’s the same in courts, you’ll find that a lot of old English words that aren’t commonly used in everyday conversation are used and that’s so that the meaning of things stay consistent over time.

Most people don’t know the historical definition of decimate, so using here it would be confusing or redundant.

Just like me fr

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2625386/

https://sc.edu/uofsc/posts/2022/08/conversation-old-age-is-not-a-modern-phenomenon.php

https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/life-expectancy-measure-misperception/

Logically, average life expectancy cannot be higher than average lifespan. For that to be true would mean that more people who made it out of childhood lived past their expected lifespan than didn’t, which doesn’t make sense.

If the expected lifespan is 38, than the average life expectancy before medical science advanced to the point where we could extend it should be lower than 38, but we in fact know that more often than not if you made it out of childhood in the past your chances of making it to 50+ were good, barring disease, war or what have you.

Just googled “best Linux distro for gaming,” and got about 10 different recommendations.

You’re literally the person your quote is describing lol

Can feel this image in my bones

They’re not going ask if someone is actively dying obviously, but if they’re in a position where they can ask those questions and the patient is able to answer then they could be seen as liable for a miscarriage if they don’t ask and they give something harmful.

It’s about protecting themselves. For example, I was a man working in childcare and I always had to be careful with my interactions with children and to minimise the times I was ever alone with a child as much as possible, because people can and will assume the worst about men in a position of power over children. So I can understand people doing everything in their power to protect themselves, even if they have to ask questions other people may be annoyed by.

They do it to determine whether someone could be pregnant because if they give you any drugs that could harm a foetus they could be sued. It’s an important question for all parties’ safety.

Here some definitions for you, Elaborate: Containing a lot of careful detail or many detailed parts. Details definitely aren’t careful or many.

Impressive: If an object or achievement is impressive, you admire or respect it, usually because it is special, important, or very large. They’re not special, important, or very large by any objective metric.

Decorative: Serving to decorate especially : purely ornamental You could use them as a decoration but it’s definitely not their purpose, and them saying that they never broke implies that they were using them.

Expensive has never, nor will it ever, mean that the product 100% of the time is better.

True, but irrelevant. It’s not about being better, it’s about being fancy. (Edit: Whatever fancy actually means, words have lost all meaning at this point of the argument and I’m losing grip on reality)

They never broke.

Maybe, but we don’t know how often they were used or even how they were used. And while I’ve never seen these particular plates in person, I’ve know plenty of plates like them where the printed design will quickly chip of or fade which speaks of poor quality.

Compared to a plain plate with nothing on it, these are undeniably elaborate.

Something being more elaborate than something else doesn’t mean that it’s something any reasonable person would call elaborate itself. If I scribble on a piece of paper you could say it’s more elaborate than an empty page, but would anyone look at some paper with a scribble on it and call it elaborate without a reference point?

Edit: ignore that paper analogy, upon further thought I don’t think you can call something that’s elaborate elaborate without a plainer reference point to compare it to actually. I still stand by the first bit about something being more elaborate makes it elaborate itself though.

Edit 2 electric boogaloo: Don’t take my arguing to heart I’m just doing it to be contrary at this point

I gave objective reasons why they don’t fit the definition fancy, but you just had to latch onto the one that wasn’t.

You just keep picking one thing that works as an argument for you while ignoring all the ones that don’t.

Honey, if you use some context clues you should be able to figure out that they’re talking about someone from the royal family.

Sorry but I cant agree to disagree. Not because I don’t agree that they could be called “fancier” while not strictly fitting the definition of fancy, but because I enjoy arguing to much to ever stop.

You’ve picked out the single definition that fits your narrative, and many many things will fit the definition “not plain”. I also see that in the definition that you linked right after it says not plain it says “ornamental.” And while I’m sure there are some people who might use children’s bee plates as an ornament, I can’t imagine that there is very many.

But beyond all that fancy also means elaborate, which they’re not. Along with ornamental, impressive, of particular excellence, decorative, expensive, and high quality. Which these plates are not.

Nah, I’ve seen plenty of children’s plates and designs like that are very common. They’re definitely very cute but do not fit the definition of fancy.

In no context are the bee plates any kind of fancy.

No, they’re children’s dinner plates. That’s about as far from fancy as you can get. Made from sturdy plastic instead of ceramic or what have you so they don’t break when an unruly child throws it on the floor to spite their broccoli.