That’s a different point though. If you have a termite infestation, you might say that they’re invasive to the house and it’s not their natural element. However you might also say that they live there, which is equally true.
If you have a termite infestation, you might say that they’re invasive to the house and it’s not their natural element. However you might also say that they live there, which is equally true.
But the post is about sharks in the ocean. It is their natural habitat, they live there, but because they’re sometimes inconvenient to humans, humans sometimes use the phrase “shark-infested waters”, which can be damaging because it frames disrupting the ecosystem as some kind of defensive act.
And my point was it’s the humans that don’t belong and cause damage and yet there have been humans infesting the oceans since time immemorial and it’s only getting worse.
For example, “Native Americans” did not “infest” the United States. White people did.
Do you imagine the various indigenous populations of Americas popped out of the ground like mushrooms? They’re pretty far from their “natural habitat” in the plains of sub-saharan Africa… Or is that too far back in history and their “natural habitat” is in Siberia and Polynesia?
It’s not that they came from nowhere, but rather that they aren’t pests. Invaders slaughtered them and colonized the country, and in modern times are actively destroying ecosystems and the environment.
So the right phrasing would be “no, it’s their natural habitat”, not “no, they live there”, since, and this was my point if you go back, if an animal infests something it usually lives there, making the point in the post redundant.
Yes the white folks came and made a mess of the place. Which, if sharks chose to move into your house, they would also do. Probably leave the taps running all over the place too
Valid point. Although that’s without their consent, whereas most humans infesting the ocean are choosing to remain there, USS Abraham Lincoln sailors notwithstanding.
No, it is about their presence being wanted or not. I don’t want to go to a swamp because is infested with mosquitoes for example, mosquitoes were always there.
I see. The word infested has nothing to do with being their natural habitats or not, it means that there’s plenty of an animal we don’t want for whatever reason, otherwise we would say that it is rich in those animals.
Edit: Oh, second I see. The fallacy is that they are using a wrong definition that is creeping into a common use of the word not yet in the dictionary.
Isn’t that usually how infestations work though?
Humans infest shark habitats. You don’t see sharks coming into your gated community, do you?
Would be a rad way to thin out the herd of xenophobic rich people, though 🤔
No, sharks rarely infest gated communities. The point was that infestations usually consist of animals that live in the place they are undesired.
No, the point is that indigenous populations are not infesting their own natural habitats.
For example, “Native Americans” did not “infest” the United States. White people did.
That’s a different point though. If you have a termite infestation, you might say that they’re invasive to the house and it’s not their natural element. However you might also say that they live there, which is equally true.
But the post is about sharks in the ocean. It is their natural habitat, they live there, but because they’re sometimes inconvenient to humans, humans sometimes use the phrase “shark-infested waters”, which can be damaging because it frames disrupting the ecosystem as some kind of defensive act.
And my point was it’s the humans that don’t belong and cause damage and yet there have been humans infesting the oceans since time immemorial and it’s only getting worse.
Right, I agree with you. I was responding to gjoel’s comments.
Do you imagine the various indigenous populations of Americas popped out of the ground like mushrooms? They’re pretty far from their “natural habitat” in the plains of sub-saharan Africa… Or is that too far back in history and their “natural habitat” is in Siberia and Polynesia?
It’s not that they came from nowhere, but rather that they aren’t pests. Invaders slaughtered them and colonized the country, and in modern times are actively destroying ecosystems and the environment.
So the right phrasing would be “no, it’s their natural habitat”, not “no, they live there”, since, and this was my point if you go back, if an animal infests something it usually lives there, making the point in the post redundant.
Yes the white folks came and made a mess of the place. Which, if sharks chose to move into your house, they would also do. Probably leave the taps running all over the place too
A zoo is a gated community
Damn snobbish animals living in gated communities.
And sharks regularly infest zoos?
Wouldn’t you if you were a shark? It’s a whole smörgåsbord
Valid point. Although that’s without their consent, whereas most humans infesting the ocean are choosing to remain there, USS Abraham Lincoln sailors notwithstanding.
Aren’t infestations about something that wasn’t there before and doesn’t actually belong there?
No, it is about their presence being wanted or not. I don’t want to go to a swamp because is infested with mosquitoes for example, mosquitoes were always there.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infestation
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infest
I saw both links pop up as well. I opted to go with the first, standard, book— webster’s instead of cherry picking.
The problem is, both meanings are correct. However, the “troublesome” definition is primary… and look at the example given:
1 to spread or swarm in or over in a troublesome manner
shark-infested waters
2 to live in or on as a parasite
We are aware of the dictionary definition. OP was precisely about arguing that that definition is a based on a fallacy.
Where is the fallacy?
Present where they are unwanted, but often used to describe their natural habitat.
I see. The word infested has nothing to do with being their natural habitats or not, it means that there’s plenty of an animal we don’t want for whatever reason, otherwise we would say that it is rich in those animals.
Edit: Oh, second I see. The fallacy is that they are using a wrong definition that is creeping into a common use of the word not yet in the dictionary.
But live there though.