> Is a vocal anti-vaxxer dying from a 2% mortality disease, where a vaccine reduces it to 0.05% mortality a predictable consequence? Is someone standing on a rooftop during a thunderstorm, and getting struck a predictable consequence? Is inciting your country into going to war, and then being one of the small % of the population dying in that war a predictable consequence?

No, no, and no. I already explained this very clearly.

You've watered down the concept of predictable consequences to the point of uselessness. If wearing a seatbelt while driving, not climbing up on the roof during a thunderstorm, not plunging your country into a war, or getting vaccinated to protect yourself from a dangerous disease are not mitigating 'predictable consequences', the term is just empty air.

Why are you choosing this semantic hill to fortify? What value does it bring?

> You've watered down the concept of predictable consequences to the point of uselessness.

No, I have not. There are plenty of situations in which something can be called a predictable consequence, and where doing so is useful.

> Why are you choosing this semantic hill to fortify? What value does it bring?

It brings the value of clear communication, and respect for the English language. I believe strongly that words should have a coherent meaning.

Words having one coherent meaning?

In English?

I think we've found the core philosophical disagreement that makes it unlikely we will see eye-to-eye.

> It brings the value of clear communication

You are quite clearly understanding everything that I'm saying[1], but I'll bite.

What sequence of characters would be 'the proper English' that I should use to describe the scenarios that I've presented in a parent post?

Be sure to be clear, unambiguous, and concise.

---

[1] s/saying/writing/g