Reply
Sun 28 Jun, 2015 09:35 pm
By saying "it seems plausible for an authority to punish him severely enough that he learns that "crime does not pay," the author seems to refer to "it seems reasonable for an authority to punish him severely enough so that he will learn that "crime must pay its price."
So that question is how we define the word plausible, which has two opposite meanings:
(1) apparently reasonable and valid, and truthful
(2) given to or characterized by presenting specious (false) arguments
I wonder when it is proper to use definition (1), or definition (2).
Context:
Destructive individuals are commonly viewed as having a "violent streak," a pattern of willfully harming other people as a deliberate strategy for getting what they want, or as an expression of uncontrolled rage. Given this profile of the violent offender, it seems plausible for an authority to punish him severely enough that he learns that "crime does not pay."
@oristarA,
Quote:(1) apparently reasonable and valid, and truthful
Definition (1), obviously. The other one wouldn't make much sense here, don't you agree?
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Quote:(1) apparently reasonable and valid, and truthful
Definition (1), obviously. The other one wouldn't make much sense here, don't you agree?
Yes, I inclined to agree. The problem is that the author writes "crime does not pay", which cannot be reasonable/plausible. If he has written "crime must pay its price," I will agree with you immediately.
@oristarA,
The other meaning,
Quote:(2) given to or characterized by presenting specious (false) arguments
could for example be used in a sentence like "He is a plausible rogue, a confidence trickster. He could talk his way out of anything."
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
The other meaning,
Quote:(2) given to or characterized by presenting specious (false) arguments
could for example be used in a sentence like "He is a plausible rogue, a confidence trickster. He could talk his way out of anything."
This is a good example of how to use plausible in a proper situation.
And do you agree that "crime does not pay" is a misrepresentation of the author who actually wants to express with "crime does pay"?
@oristarA,
Quote:do you agree that "crime does not pay" is a misrepresentation of the author who actually wants to express with "crime does pay"?
No, I don't agree with you here. The author is suggesting that the authorities should punish violent/ destructive offenders sufficiently severely so that they learn that crime does not pay. Nothing new in that, but he seems to be emphasising the fact that violent offenders behave as they do in order to get their own way...not purely because they are naturally violent in character. In other words, they are making a choice, consciously or unconsciously. So the prospect of severe punishment might well persuade them to moderate their behaviour.
@McTag,
McTag wrote:
Quote:do you agree that "crime does not pay" is a misrepresentation of the author who actually wants to express with "crime does pay"?
No, I don't agree with you here. The author is suggesting that the authorities should punish violent/ destructive offenders sufficiently severely so that they learn that crime does not pay. Nothing new in that, but he seems to be emphasising the fact that violent offenders behave as they do in order to get their own way...not purely because they are naturally violent in character. In other words, they are making a choice, consciously or unconsciously. So the prospect of severe punishment might well persuade them to moderate their behaviour.
Then it is because I've misunderstood the meaning of "crime does not pay."
I rechecked it and found that it means "crime is not worthy of doing it (the crime)." So all the confusions have been dispersed.
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace