For my (apparently?!) 100th post a swimming eagle, I would like to tell the aloud tale of the true meanings of the words could, would and should; and to open minds to the near limitless world of POWER that is glimpsed.
Let's start with 'could' as it is the most straightforward. If you can, or can not, do something: it is literally possible or impossible for you. I CAN not naturally bear a child. I CAN not make it to dinner at 5:30 this Wednesday. I CAN, however, drive you to campsite. See?
I CAN for that matter, drive my car 140km/h, but generally don't..... yeah...
'Can' is quite simple. 'Can' is used somewhat interchangeably with 'will' at this time.
People who get a shallow grasp of this are the kinds of annoying f#x who will pull the pseudo-Shakespearean "Can you pass me the salt?""Well, I could..... ;) ;)"
'Will' is more of a complex or subtly powerful word. You might say, "I will drive you to campsite at 7." That's a commitment.
'Will' is an honourable, heartfelt word reflecting best intentions. Like, "I will get off the road and abandon my car, then I will run into the flaming schoolhouse and seek out the uncounted kid." If you bail on a tree root and don't reach the fire and someone else saves the kid, don't feel bad, right. You were running the right direction. It's not THAT kind of commitment. Not like 'should'.
'Should' is a word you must watch out for. Should is the most powerful form of 'may/might/must' (which you may notice I have been using freely). I single out 'should' because 'should' is fervent and fanatical, where 'must' is tragic and passionate. Of the two, 'should' is the dangerous word, and 'should' is the fundie word.
"Shall" signifies that what is described, in spite of not yet having happened, is to be considered an inevitability.
I have to actually pause for a second whilst I parse how to describe how horrifying this linguistic device can be. !@# Well, let's take, 'You are unintendedly pregnant. You should have an abortion."
Or man! what about "You should NOT have an abortion."?
This is loaded, I know. I am being careful. In such a situation, the meaning of the word 'should' is thrown starkly into light. Not only does it clearly define a power relationship with the subject; but an approved inevitability for the subject to carry out on their own is presented approvingly with the additional possibility of future disapproval on failure.
You can lean on people and manipulate them something fierce using the word 'should'. I do not because IT IS WRONG.
THE ONLY time it can ever be judged responsibly (note hi-power weasel language) to use on someone, the word 'should', with the lean against, is in a situation of a large gap of experience. And as my example clearly shows, if you act like a fundie, you could be wrong anyway.
How the heck can I illustrate a proper 'should' shove... Say the tough good guy and the kid went into the bar to use the phone, and the guy sees and hears people really aren't liking him... He sez to the kid, "You should go outside and start the car. Go on..." and cracks his neck over... hehe
I thinq people in general are somewhat astute and have begun in a generalized sense to notice their manipulation by language in the vein of 'should'. That's why the real king hell weasels have started switching to 'can'. Fuck them.
fuck all king hell weasels.
"Hey, don't miss bla bla bla bla you can..."
"You can acheive eternal bla bla bla..."
"You can be a suicide bomber."
Or maybe my favorite,
"You can be a celebrity."
It will never be a waste of your time learning to critically gauge what you are hearing, and set it at a healthy remove from what you are doing. Because wedged inbetween ought to be
what you decide.