No, it is about their presence being wanted or not. I don’t want to go to a swamp because is infested with mosquitoes for example, mosquitoes were always there.
I see. The word infested has nothing to do with being their natural habitats or not, it means that there’s plenty of an animal we don’t want for whatever reason, otherwise we would say that it is rich in those animals.
Edit: Oh, second I see. The fallacy is that they are using a wrong definition that is creeping into a common use of the word not yet in the dictionary.
Aren’t infestations about something that wasn’t there before and doesn’t actually belong there?
No, it is about their presence being wanted or not. I don’t want to go to a swamp because is infested with mosquitoes for example, mosquitoes were always there.
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infestation
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/infest
I saw both links pop up as well. I opted to go with the first, standard, book— webster’s instead of cherry picking.
The problem is, both meanings are correct. However, the “troublesome” definition is primary… and look at the example given:
1 to spread or swarm in or over in a troublesome manner
shark-infested waters
2 to live in or on as a parasite
We are aware of the dictionary definition. OP was precisely about arguing that that definition is a based on a fallacy.
Where is the fallacy?
Present where they are unwanted, but often used to describe their natural habitat.
I see. The word infested has nothing to do with being their natural habitats or not, it means that there’s plenty of an animal we don’t want for whatever reason, otherwise we would say that it is rich in those animals.
Edit: Oh, second I see. The fallacy is that they are using a wrong definition that is creeping into a common use of the word not yet in the dictionary.
But live there though.