Discussion Forum (Archived)
Guest
On an SUV (Law & Order Special Victims Unit) rerun yesterday, the character, a therapist, protested that others were using her as an "escape goat" for acts that, without argument, they had done.
Google finds About 345,000 results versus bout 681,000 results for scapegoat, which surprises me;I'd have thought scapegoat to be much more common.
The Urban Dictionary defines escape goat as:
A slang used by idiots who do not realize the term is scapegoatSomehow, this slang is becoming popular and I'm hearing it more and more. Please, stop the ignorance.
"I felt like the escape goat!!"
"You mean scapegoat, you dimwit!"
deaconB said
Normally, I think of scapegoats as taking undeserved (in the view of the speaker) blame for something the scapegoat actually did - but in the case of the SUV shrink, she was arguing that she was getting the blame for a murder everyone agreed had been performed by the *sister* of the client in whom she implanted false memories. I don't think scapegoat was the proper term either. "Fall guy" might fit - but the writers obviously wanted viewers to consider the shrink culpable.
You may have made a typo above but it makes no sense. A scapegoat taking undeserved blame for something the scapegoat actually did. If the scapegoat actually did it, any blame would be deserved.
In fact, the scapegoat takes undeserved blame for something that someone else actually did. At Thesaurus.com fall guy is number one on the list of synonyms for scapegoat. They mean the same thing so maybe the writers thought scapegoat would sound better from a psychologist. I think the dialogue from the show is probably correct except for the escape goat flaw, and who knows if that was the writer's fault or the actress's slip of the tongue.
Also, for the record, the show's name is SVU not SUV. I know this is a small thing, but since it was referenced a ways after the beginning of your post, I had to read that paragraph twice before I understood what you were talking about.
You may have made a typo above but it makes no sense. A scapegoat taking undeserved blame for something the scapegoat actually did. If the scapegoat actually did it, any blame would be deserved.
I don't think that's true. Safety experts suggest taking your shoes off on a long drive, as a way to combat drowsiness, but despite that, Indiana law requires one wear shoes to drive.
Am out of state driver, unaware of the law; slip, off his shoes. Thirty minutes later, a line fails on the truck he is following, and the air brakes on the semi trail freeze full on. The driver brakes as hard as he can but he slams into the truck with his passenger dying. The state charges him with manslaughter,on the theory that he could have braked harder wearing shoes.
In fact, with power brakes, you can easily lock your brakes driving barefoot. The truck had multiple issues with their brakes, The brake lights never came on, and so the standard guideline of staying one car length back for every 10 MPH didn't work. It was only because he was alert that he was able to stop as quickly as he did, sparing the lives of the kids in the back seat. He was scapegoated for going barefoot,which he DID do, but the real culpability may rest with the truck mechanic who didn't maintain the truck in a safe operating condition,, or perhaps with a factory that shipped substandard brake parts, or perhaps it was just something that happened despite everyone acting on a responsible manner. That's why they call them accidents, y'know.
We obviously define scapegoat differently, and I'm not trying to browbeat you into submission, only to explain why how a person may be scapegoated for something they did do, when in fact their actions were not particularly blameworthy. I suspect many married men can remember catching hell for doing something not especially blameworthy.
As you suspected, the SVU/SUV thing wasn't a typo., it was a first rate brain fart. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa.
What an interesting and intricate story about not wearing shoes. And I am not trying to browbeat you into submission, either. It is obvious that we define scapegoat differently, but you can check with any dictionary and it will talk about a scapegoat being innocent but blamed for crimes of others. It is like the Bible story you cited, the totally innocent goat (except that he wasn't wearing any shoes) takes the blame for the sins of all the people of Israel and is punished by being exiled. However, it was not the goat that escaped (his death was not really an escape) but the people who escaped the punishment for their sins.
Dick said
What an interesting and intricate story about not wearing shoes. And I am not trying to browbeat you into submission, either. It is obvious that we define scapegoat differently, but you can check with any dictionary and it will talk about a scapegoat being innocent but blamed for crimes of others. It is like the Bible story you cited, the totally innocent goat (except that he wasn't wearing any shoes) takes the blame for the sins of all the people of Israel and is punished by being exiled. However, it was not the goat that escaped (his death was not really an escape) but the people who escaped the punishment for their sins.
The goat in Leviticus was not killed, he was set loose: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. There was a second goat and a bullock who were slaughtered. The scapegoat was a hog on ice, but he did escape the abatoir.
As always, mileage may vary.
deaconB said
"Actually, a fairly typical definition, that of Random House, says a person or group made to bear the blame for others or to suffer in their place. It doesn't say that the scapegoat is accused of an act they didn't do, only that they are blamed when they are not deserving."
Dick said
"you can check with any dictionary and it will talk about a scapegoat being innocent but blamed for crimes of others."
I think we said the same thing
deaconB said
"The goat in Leviticus was not killed, he was set loose: And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. "
Dick said
"It is like the Bible story you cited, the totally innocent goat (except that he wasn't wearing any shoes) takes the blame for the sins of all the people of Israel and is punished by being exiled. However, it was not the goat that escaped (his death was not really an escape) but the people who escaped the punishment for their sins."
I was not clear when I spoke of the goat's death. I know it was set free into the wilderness (I did say it was punished by being exiled) but I assumed, maybe incorrectly, that that would be as good as a death sentence. Nevertheless, the innocent goat did not escape blame for the sins of Israel. It was Israel that escaped punishment for their sins.
Anyway, I think we now agree about the definition of scapegoat since we are both quoting dictionaries. As far as the Biblical origins of the word, I am not qualified to comment. You can see that I will probably keep talking about my assumptions and guesses and you will show how you believe them to be wrong. Whereas the current definition of the word is not in debate.
This is going to be really off topic, but I couldn't let it go by. Current safety guidlines suggests staying 3 seconds behind the car in front of you. The old rule of one car length/10mph gives you about one second to react. DeaconB's shoeless driver was using an outdated, unsafe standard; sad to say most drivers today aren't doing much better.
faresomeness said
This is going to be really off topic, but I couldn't let it go by. Current safety guidlines suggests staying 3 seconds behind the car in front of you. The old rule of one car length/10mph gives you about one second to react. DeaconB's shoeless driver was using an outdated, unsafe standard; sad to say most drivers today aren't doing much better.
Bad math. In Indiana a car length is 40 feet (an RV, trucs or bus can be longer), which gives you .2.73 seconds to react.
Whose guidelines are you citing? The Indiana BMV booklet says "a good rule to follow" is two to three seconds behind, and 2.73 seconds sounds about right. The actual tailgating statute (IC 9-21-18-14) simply requires a "reasonable and prudent" distance. (The only law I know of that specifies an objective standard is Germany's, which specifies a 0.9 second following distance.)
Some of today's self-styled "experts" seem pretty iffy. They say you can't use a cellphone while driving, but the state patrol has been using keyed handheld mikes since the 1920s, and nobody ever complained about truckers jabbering on CB radios, or Sky King picking up the mike while flying a plane sideways, trying to keep n eye on events occurring on the ground under his wings. I used to see people reading newspapers - broadsheet, not tab - every day - while commuting to work an hour each way. Mike got caught on a snowdrift and died of exposure, but none of the other even scratched up their paint, hitting a mailbox, or everyone on town would have been razzing them.
deaconB, you have very long cars in Indiana. Limos are the only cars I can think of that are over 20 feet. The standard length of a school bus is 40 feet.
You almost quoted the Indiana Driving Manual verbatim. The next item under your quote is a chart. Part of it is duplicated here.
Speed 35 mph 55 mph 65 mph
Feet traveled in one second 51.3 80.7 95.3
If you use the rule of one car length per 10 mph you can see that you only have about 1.5 seconds to react at the higher speeds. That is why that rule is obsolete. (I am assuming a car length of 20 feet. In Indiana it may be different.)
faresomeness was almost spot on with his post, very close anyway. If you check Google with distances to follow in traffic, you’ll see that many recommend 3 seconds, about an equal number recommend 2 seconds and the rest will say 2 to 3 seconds. The problem is that we don’t know what is “reasonable and prudent” until after the wreck.
Dick said
deaconB, you have very long cars in Indiana. Limos are the only cars I can think of that are over 20 feet. The standard length of a school bus is 40 feet.
A carlength is not the length of whatever vehicle you are driving. You don't get to tailgate just because you're in a Cooper Mini. A carlength is 78 feet to the rail community, and 40 feet is a carlength on roads or canals, derived from the fact that 40 foot was the maximum car length to traverse the entirety of the canals of England. (The bottleneck lies near Brandon in Norfolk.)
They also call twelve inches a foot in Indiana, although few people shove than much pedal appendage into their wafflestompers, and they eat their shredded wheat with teaspoons that don't have a one-teaspoon capacity. The reason the license bureau suggests 2-3 seconds as a good rule is because the schools are deficient and many don't know what a carlength is, I expect people on this forum to be better educated.
If you use the rule of one car length per 10 mph you can see that you only have about 1.5 seconds to react at the higher speeds. That is why that rule is obsolete. (I am assuming a car length of 20 feet. In Indiana it may be different.)
Not just at higher speeds. It works out to exactly 1.365 seconds at ANY speed, using your rule of "20 feet per 10 MPG" And if you assume that the average foot is 10 inches long, there are 6335 feet in a mile. Among those who use standard measures, though, it's 5,280 feet.
This is not just off-topic, but you obviously haven't the skills to discern whether you're parroting experts or fools. Let's take it to email.
Seriously, I don't doubt your history but I will need some evidence that a carlength on U.S. highways is defined as 40 feet.
Since deaconB has high expectations about the education of people on this forum, I would like to take a 2 question poll.
1. Has anyone heard of a carlength on U.S. highways being defined as 40 feet?
2. Do you believe the old rule-of-thumb to stay one car length back for every 10 mph is talking about 40 feet per car length?
I, also, will assume the people reading this are highly educated and I will accept the results of this poll to be the final word.
BTW If I ever parrot anyone, I will say who it is and let the reader decide if it is an expert or fool.
This is my final word on this post because I'm tired of it.
I never saw car length defined as a dimension for any legal or educational purposes.
Everyone took safety courses, drivers tests- are there any mentions of any definition of car length there? There should be little doubt that any car length mentioned in safety recommendations is the approximate length of a sedan.
But I hope that this forum is read and contributed to by many uneducated people, though I don't know the definition of that either.
Taking Dick's poll:
1. I have never heard a "standard car length" defined as 40 ft. An online search says 13.5 ft is considered average.
2. The old rule of thumb (1 car length per 10 mph) ignores the physics. It also ignores human reaction time. If you're going 20 mph it will take you FOUR times longer to stop compared to 10 mph. That's because a braking car's energy is dissipated by friction, which is a linear factor (F x D). But the vehicle's energy scales as the SQUARE of the speed. Of course, this model ignores human reaction time, but that's a small factor if you're already driving safely.
In practice, I tend to leave at least 1-2 average car lengths between me and the vehicle I'm following when on surface streets. On the freeway, at 60 mph, 7-8 average car lengths. In 40+ years of driving I have never failed to stop when I had to. Got rear-ended by a driver who wasn't so careful just a couple years ago. I find "feet" difficult to estimate on the road, but I can easily imagine "average car lengths" and stay a safe distance back.
Heimhenge said
2. The old rule of thumb (1 car length per 10 mph) ignores the physics. It also ignores human reaction time. If you're going 20 mph it will take you FOUR times longer to stop compared to 10 mph. That's because a braking car's energy is dissipated by friction, which is a linear factor (F x D). But the vehicle's energy scales as the SQUARE of the speed. Of course, this model ignores human reaction time, but that's a small factor if you're already driving safely.
If you are "driving with traffic", the fact that it takes you four times as far to stop is irrelevant, because it takes the guy in front of you four times as far as well. If you're driving faster than traffic, or you have bad brakes, or bad tires, that changes things, but you're driving recklessly already, and in for a dime, in for a dollar. The distance-per-speed rule looks only at reaction time.
It also matters if the car ahead stops by crashing into something, your brakes can't match that. I decided in the late 1980s to bail on an appointment with an important customer because it was just so foggy. I pulled off I-69, called to cancel, and drank coffee until the fog burned off, Turns out I'd missed participating in a chain collision involving dozens of cars, just a mile further along. . It doesn't matter much if you stop in time if the car behind doesn't, and it shoves you into the car ahead.
deaconB said: If you are “driving with traffic”, the fact that it takes you four times as far to stop is irrelevant, because it takes the guy in front of you four times as far as well.
No arguments there. At least about both vehicles taking a greater distance to stop. I was only trying to explain why the "X car-lengths" rule is not a good rule. That's why it's been replaced by the "X seconds" rule in virtually all safe driving guides.
I would, however, disagree that the increase in stopping distance is "irrelevant" since that assumes (as deaconB pointed out) all other factors are equal ... which they rarely are. And sometimes it's not the vehicle ahead of you that's the hazard. My wife recently got front end damage to her car from a large piece of tire rubber that was on the road and got kicked up by the vehicle ahead of her. She admits she was following too closely to react by either braking or swerving. The damage was covered (surprisingly) by collision and not comprehensive, so the repair cost us nothing beyond lost time while the car was in the shop.
The point about the car ahead stopping more quickly than by braking, as in a collision with the vehicle ahead or some fixed object, is well stated. Even if you've left the "recommended" distance for whatever speed you're going, that situation can burn you. Like in the multiple vehicle pileup deaconB mentioned.
By certain interpretation of ancient wisdom, car collisions are impossible, as long as the leading car maintains a forward motion: that's because you have to first cover the distance in order to effect contact at all; but in the time it takes to do that, the other car has moved further ahead, thus creating another gap to cover. So on and so forth that way, contact cannot happen, regardless that the first car might slow to turtle's rate. Or at turtle's rate all that time.
Here is an article on Zeno's Paradox as found on Slate:
Slate: What Is the Answer to Zeno’s Paradox?
I love the digression about the circumstance in which a faster-moving object may not catch up to a slower moving one if their speed slows based on a divergent series such as 1/2 + 1/3 + 1/4 + 1/5 ... .
I first encountered Zeno's paradox in high school in a "pre-calculus" course. This was in the late 60s, and a full-blown calculus course was then rare at that level. These days it's commonplace. That's a very good article about the paradox (Glenn's link above), and it explains the resolution quite clearly. I was unaware that Zeno posed this question before the "invention" of zero, but I'll take Palmer's word on that.
And since this thread has already wandered far off its original course, I'll pose another philosophical question: In what sense can it be said a number was invented ? I'm not sure if that's really the right word. I'd tend to say the number was discovered, since numbers have a type of existence independent of our using them.
Every definition of invent I've seen presupposes the invention did not exist before the inventor invented it.
I agree that the claim in article is suspect. Most references say that many cultures had numerical zero prior to Zeno. Even the Greeks had a word for "nothing" but seem to have had some philosophical dissonance around the number.
Still, I will take a stab at this one. And it DOES have a lot to do with words and language. It all has to do with reference and referent, or sign and symbol.
First, let's talk about language. In semantics, and especially semiotics / semiology, there is the concept of the signified and the signifier. A cat on the street may be signified by the word "cat" or "katze" or "chat" or "gatto". These are symbolic signs -- both the written word and the spoken word are symbolic signs. A cat could also be signified by an iconic sign, say, a picture of a cat. The signified exists independently of the signifier. Cats existed before human language.
Similarly, one could argue that zero exists independently of its signifiers. (The phrase "that zero exists" may stir up in you some of the dissonance that our Greek friends experienced). Still, the signifier, the symbolic sign, the numerical representation of zero is an invention, as is its conventional use. This is almost certainly what someone means when they say that zero was invented.
As for iconic signs for zero, it is hard to conceive. How would someone show a picture of zero? In contemporary culture, we have adopted the convention of the iconic sign surrounded by a circle with a diagonal line overstriking the iconic sign to represent the absence of something.
Hold a sec, note this statement in the link: 'Achilles’ task seems impossible because he “would have to do an infinite number of ‘things’ in a finite amount of time”
That's not why it seems impossible: Zeno stipulates no restriction on time, nor speculates on how great the number of iterations. And who says that the movements have to be regimented as any kind of series at all?
(The thing, and the only thing, that sets off the paradox : the pursuer must first reach the point where the pursued started.)
Also, the article apparently defeats itself : it sets out to explain why Zeno's reasoning is wrong, and yet it turns around and gleefully congratulates itself for how with its divergent series, the paradox still holds.
There is something in there, but the presentation is very jumbled.
Martha Barnette
Grant Barrett
Grant Barrett
1 Guest(s)