[Eisenstein]

That's not ironic, it is perfectly consistent with the phenomena of motion sickness -- sight not correlating to motion. Irony is when Ronald Reagan got a gunshot wound when the bullet bounced off the bulletproof window and hit him in the chest.

[singlow]

Neither you nor GP gave an example of a traditional meaning of the word Irony. Both of the examples represent the more modern definition of situational irony as "something that is amusingly unexpected". I don't think you can say anything is not ironic under that definition. After all, everything makes sense if you understand it well enough, so any level of surprise would be ironic because what you understood pointed to one outcome and a different outcome was produced. All that is left is whether you find the difference to be amusing or not.

[Eisenstein]

It is the act of 'the thing that is designed to protect you has caused your injury' that is ironic; not that it is 'amusingly unexpected'.

What is this 'traditional meaning' that you speak of?

[singlow]

Older usage of the word does not include amusing coincidences such as this. It used to be used to describe speech which intentionally meant the opposite of its plain meaning for humor or emphasis, such as sarcasm, or in dramatic context a situation where the audience has greater awareness than a character.

Words change and this is a meaning everyone seems to want I guess. I was just pointing out that once you go down this route, its pretty hard to differentiate between what is ironic or not because its a broad and subjective definition.

Your assertion does not make sense to me. Your definition is that the situation is ironic because a slightly broader statement of that situation is ironic? It sounds like you are just saying its ironic because it seems ironic. All that means is that it gives you a feeling which you associate with that word. The reason it seems ironic is that the unexpected outcome of a "life-saving" thing actually resulting in injury, is amusing, because it is the opposite of its intention. In fact almost every time something has a net positive influence on overall outcomes, there will be cases where some outcomes are worse. If you are shot and the surgeon goes to perform life-saving surgury, but it turns out you have an allergy to the anesthetic and it kills you, is that ironic? A doctor who was intending to save you actually killed you. I don't know about this definition but I guess its the one we're stuck with. I'll probably just call it an amusing coincidence though.

[Eisenstein]

> If you are shot and the surgeon goes to perform life-saving surgury, but it turns out you have an allergy to the anesthetic and it kills you, is that ironic? A doctor who was intending to save you actually killed you.

Oh come on.

A device which was made for one purpose and one purpose only -- to stop the president from getting shot ends up getting the president shot. This is the direct opposite of the intention of the thing's existence -- hence "intentionally ... the opposite of its plain meaning".

If you want to purposefully dilute things to make a point you can do that, but it is dishonest.

[TylerE]

I disagree. I think my original post is perfect irony.

Effect X being caused by Y and solved by Z AND X being caused by Z and solved by Y is irony.

Dictionary definition: “ a state of affairs or an event that seems deliberately contrary to what one expects”

[singlow]

You selected the relatively modern definition from the dictionary. That usage is fairly recent and is very broad in definition. The verbal and literary definitions are usually the ones that pedants are protective of. I specifically said that it fits that modern definition. I was actually criticizing the parent for calling out your usage, as if his example was more ironic than yours.