> "Yes, they destroyed the boat and the people had to be rescued, but it's not
aggressive."
> When organizations use weasel words and spaghetti logic like this, they signal that they're not interested in arguing in good faith
There are a few relevant questions in a scenario like this:
1. Was the attack intentional?
2. Was causing harm/destruction a goal of the attack?
3. Orcas are predators. Were they attempting to eat anyone?
I would interpret "not in an aggressive way" as drawing a line between questions (1) and (2), and that's certainly an important distinction to draw. It's also possible to draw a line between (2) and (3), which wouldn't match well with the ordinary use of the word "aggressive", but which is still important and is suggested by the context.
> When organizations use weasel words and spaghetti logic like this, they signal that they're not interested in arguing in good faith
There are a few relevant questions in a scenario like this:
1. Was the attack intentional?
2. Was causing harm/destruction a goal of the attack?
3. Orcas are predators. Were they attempting to eat anyone?
I would interpret "not in an aggressive way" as drawing a line between questions (1) and (2), and that's certainly an important distinction to draw. It's also possible to draw a line between (2) and (3), which wouldn't match well with the ordinary use of the word "aggressive", but which is still important and is suggested by the context.