Perhaps, but it doesn't change the impact/influence on the reader/listener.
If you're not familiar with the field of cognitive science and linguistics, this was really the source behind my concern, and the genesis for raising a discussion on the language that surrounds this issue, as it does have a material (albeit subconscious) impact on how we perceive (support or don't support) a given policy.
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the impact/influence on the reader/listener.
If you're not familiar with the field of cognitive science and linguistics, this was really the source behind my concern, and the genesis for raising a discussion on the language that surrounds this issue, as it does have a material (albeit subconscious) impact on how we perceive (support or don't support) a given policy.
That may be, but the terms have defined meaning legally and in business. Let's not split hairs here. Loans of the education variety are loans for something that is not easily (if at all) repossesed hence the use of different terms. I personally think one, any one of us really, should take the effort to learn and understand the terms governing our agreements. That's the whole point behind the injunction to read/understand contracts and agreements before signing them.
Happy to agree to disagree -- it's not about 'splitting' hairs.
For me, it's about the moral frameworks that shape discourse and reinforce our value systems and influence what we support and don't support in terms of candidates and policies.
Perhaps, but it doesn't change the impact/influence on the reader/listener.
If you're not familiar with the field of cognitive science and linguistics, this was really the source behind my concern, and the genesis for raising a discussion on the language that surrounds this issue, as it does have a material (albeit subconscious) impact on how we perceive (support or don't support) a given policy.
That may be, but the terms have defined meaning legally and in business. Let's not split hairs here. Loans of the education variety are loans for something that is not easily (if at all) repossesed hence the use of different terms. I personally think one, any one of us really, should take the effort to learn and understand the terms governing our agreements. That's the whole point behind the injunction to read/understand contracts and agreements before signing them.
Happy to agree to disagree -- it's not about 'splitting' hairs.
For me, it's about the moral frameworks that shape discourse and reinforce our value systems and influence what we support and don't support in terms of candidates and policies.
But that has nothing to do with the plain meaning of the terms.