Why have terms constantly been redefined over the last5 years? Anyone else got a problem with this?

Question

Stating the obvious, geneva conventions, patriotism, marriage. But here is one I just dont get-

"Shareef planned to set off four hand grenades in garbage cans at the CherryVale shopping mall........................He was charged with one count of attempting to damage or destroy a building by fire or explosion and one count of attempting to use a WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION." Now im not saying this was a good guy, but weapons of mass destruction? Grenades?

Tell me again, were any WMD's found in IRAQ? No. But there were plenty of hand grenades im sure. What gives? Is it okay to constantly redefine things at our discretion because its conveniently in our agenda?

Answer 1

I guess what you need here is a definition of the word "mass". What exactly is the "mass" in 'weapons of mass destruction'? Is the "mass" determined by size or number? Without knowing exactly what the word 'mass' means you are at a loss to define the term 'weapons of mass destruction'.

Without any definition of the word 'mass', you could then describe anything as a weapon of mass destruction. For example, a shoehorn could be a weapon of mass destruction just as easily as an atomic bomb, if the mass we are talking about is an ant or a cockroach.

Answer 2

your example isn't a great one, just because you are too occupied with the word 'mass'.
I actually think that the charge is right, since he was attempting to hurt a mass of people. this is different to murdering someone since you don't know how many people he would have killed if is plan worked. so WEAPON OF MASS DESTRUCTION relates to the attempt to kill many people.

However, I do think you are right in general, since it seems that things are constantly being re-defined for convenience purposes.