[michaelt]

> They're not. They're inanimate f----- objects. [...] They become a problem for me when I use them.

In common usage of the english language, a thing can be a 'problem' without being sentient or unavoidable.

A pothole in the highway can be a problem if it's damaging people's cars - even if they could avoid it by driving more cautiously.

[dijksterhuis]

I see what you're getting, and I like the pothole analogy. I agree with the fact that it can be used like that in the English language, but I disagree with the idea behind it.

In the pothole analogy - it's like saying potholes are the reason for all these people's cars being damaged.

If no cars were driving over the pothole then the pothole wouldn't be a problem as no damage would ever be caused! It's an inanimate f----- object. It's just there.

It's the fact that people are driving cars on a road that has potholes that causes their cars to be damaged. It's some action that was taken that causes an effect to occur.

Then we get into the murky world of who is actually responsible and what is the solution. Which I don't have an answer for.