Get out of here with that technical, semantic BS. Goodness. If we were at a beach, and you said, "Hey, Athena, I'm going swimming. See you later," and I watched you stop ankle-deep in water, I'd think you had been dropped on your head as a baby. :hilarious:
Let me see if I have this straight. If you see a sign that says "No Swimming", you consider it acceptable to wade out hip-deep into that water, as far in as you want because so long as one is
wading that isn't "technically" swimming? What about chest-deep water? Neck-deep? According to your personal definition, it doesn't matter how deep the water is, nor how far from the edge you go, nor how long you stay in because "wading is not swimming". Really? And you accuse me of semantic BS?
I remember many years ago there was a case where a group of neighborhood kids liked to go swimming in some guy's private swimming pool in his back yard at night. He put up a fence. They climbed over. He put up signs that said "Private Property" and "No Swimming". They ignored them. Then one night a kid climbed over the fence and took a dive off the diving board only to find, much to his demise, that the pool had been completely drained and he and his friends hadn't noticed the lack of water in the darkness. Of course the family of the kid who broke his neck sued the pool owner. I take it you would side with the family of the kid in that case too? Since diving face-first onto concrete isn't technically swimming and therefore the "No Swimming" sign clearly allows it?
Because, we have this amazing plethora of terms so we can communicate more accurately, not less. That's why we have a separate word for what that kid was doing. "Wading". It is a related but entirely distinct activity.
We also have these amazing
general terms that encompass a vast spectrum of activities, succinctly. Instead of a list of thirty different specific types of swimming you aren't allowed to do, the sign just says "no swimming", encompassing them all. A reasonable person understands what that means. When the sign on the beach says "no swimming", it means you aren't allowed to bathe, surf, float, or otherwise put one's body into the water.
Imagine if the sign had been something like this...
NO doing the crawl-stroke
NO doing the breast-stroke
NO doing the back-stroke
NO doing the side-stroke
NO doing the butterfly stroke
NO doing the Trudgen stroke
NO doing any Aquaman-style swimming
NO snorkeling
NO scuba-diving
NO swan-diving
NO jack-knife diving
NO cannonballs
NO treading water
NO dog-paddling
NO wading
NO sad attempts at surfing
NO floating in the water with an innertube
NO floating in the water with floaties
NO floating in the water with a pool noodle
NO floating on the water with one of those inflatable chair things
NO floating on the water with one of those inflatable chaise-lounge things
... and if the kid had been floating with a kickboard you would be arguing that it was still the evil corporation's fault due to insufficiently specific signage.
The damning evidence, as far as I'm concerned, this
neighboring resort that had sufficient signage. If "No Swimming" is coupled with "Because Alligators," people get that it means "stay the fuck out of the water for your own good." And no kids have gotten ate on their beaches.
It
doesn't matter whether the rule is "for their own good" or not. Rules are rules, and the rule there is
no swimming. When a reasonable person is on someone else's property they will obey the signs that are posted. They stay out of the areas marked "Employees Only" and won't argue that they are technically "an employee" since they are employed at Acme Widget Factory in Nebraska, nor will they argue that the sign somehow isn't valid because it doesn't explain
why only employees are allowed back there. A reasonable person understands what "Employees Only" means, and they
don't need to know the reason for the sign in order to obey it. Similarly, a reasonable person would not go for a dip in areas marked "No Swimming" and argue (to the alligators, I guess) that what they were doing doesn't technically constitute swimming according to their own personal definition. But if that person chooses to break those rules and gets hurt, it is their own fault.
In the case of someone too young to read/understand the sign, then it is the responsibility of the parents to tell that kid no. I know
obeying rules and
telling kids no are not fashionable things these days-- we like to "live dangerously" and "stick it to the Man"-- but the fact remains if these parents had been willing to follow rules and tell their kid no, then that kid would likely be alive today, since alligators greatly prefer the water. It is not reasonable to expect corporations and/or the government to toddler-proof the whole world because parents aren't willing to tell their toddlers no.
Furthermore, even if the sign
had said "because alligators" and the kid went for a dip anyway but was bitten and killed by a water moccasin, some would still be arguing that the signage is insufficient. Water moccasins are not terribly uncommon in that part of the country either, after all. So now we will need to expand our sign to cover every possible danger of swimming, no matter how unlikely, just to be on the safe side...
Because alligators
Because snakes
Because bacteria
Because pollution
Because parasites
Because lightning
Because piranhas
Because zombies
Because sharks with or without frickin' lasers on their heads
Because maybe the water is gone and you are too dense to notice before diving head-first
Because maybe the property-owner doesn't want you fouling the water with your E. Coli
Because maybe you ate first and will cramp up even though that's an urban legend
Because maybe you don't actually know how to swim but still need a sign to tell you not to
...And in the end,
someone would have ignored the sign anyway, and people would be arguing that the sign was too wordy and no one should be expected to read all that fine print.
Look, I'm sorry this kid died, but "better safe than sorry" is cliche for a reason. If the sign says
No Swimming, rather than looking for a loophole that would allow you to "stick it to The Man" and swim anyway, just find somewhere else for you and your kid to swim, where you would have a more reasonable expectation of safety.