'Survivor' Fails the logic test

I decided to retire from writing until someone called me a stroke survivor, Mistake! I credit AJ Ayer’s book ‘Language Truth and Logic’ for my interest in the language associated with stroke (Some which is nonsense).

Now, suppose we have the chance to set up groups to help people Ex stroke patients improve their lot.

Based on recovery but wait! There already is one

Stroke Recovery Association …..

The objective is better recovery.

2/ Based on survival

Stroke survivors Association

Objective- Better stroke survivals. It sounds a bit silly but let us pause. I work on my recovery, it is true. So by the logic of language I am entitled to call myself a recoverer, till someone can prove otherwise.

The situation with survivors is not so clear. There are a few reports of men who escape from dangerous situations combined with a stroke to gain a miraculous cure and go on to make a joke of stroke survival by going on to swim from Broken Bay to Mosman, or similar.

These are a few non Typical cases which we can ignore particularly not knowing the SEVERITY OF THE STROKE.

I have committed a nonsense by laughing at silly survivors without defining… and comparing them to known recoverers.

O.K. People who have survived a stroke as we all have (otherwise we would have died within the first month) Are entitled to call our survivors. The language is ok. But why would you define yourself on a single event which is disappearing into the past. It fails the logic test. Submit alternative views in writing to Angus, Recoverer. The term ‘survivors’ was put onto stroke people by well-meaning people and writers in stroke organisations. And is now standard language. But is it doing more harm than good?

Angus