NationStates Jolt Archive

Meh, I dribbled a bit. Still not worth it. :p

So you finally admit it...Arthais turns you on!

See...that wasn't hard, was it? Or actually, I suppose it was....that kind of being the point:D

So you finally admit it...Arthais turns you on!

See...that wasn't hard, was it? Or actually, I suppose it was....that kind of being the point:D

You so naaaaaasty. :p

I probably have one. I carry a Pocket Criminal Code with me everywhere I go so I can consult it before I do things.

I don't understand why other people don't do that. How else do they know what the rules are?

So you think you understand the rules, because you can read the Criminal Code?

Tell me then...is sexual assault a subjective mens rea offence, or an objective mens rea offence?

Hint...you won't find the answer in the CC.

By the way Llewdor...do you think the average person REALLY needs to carry a copy of the Criminal Code to 'consult' before they 'do things'?

I mean...seriously. Most people are pretty clear on things like...don't kill other people...don't rob them, don't destroy property etc. What are you thinking about doing that you need to check in the Code first to see whether it's legal or not? I mean...seriously now. For someone so stuck on 'logic' you seem to be completely lacking in common sense.

I don't understand why other people don't do that. How else do they know what the rules are?

And herein we have the problem. People don't do that because they don't have to. Normal people are able to intuit the rules through their social experiences. Most people are able to understand social conditioning. Most people are able to reason out the rules for society. Most people, through their socialization, don't need to carry a law book with them to figure out that murder, rape, theft and all that is probably illegal.

Most people, if you ask them "is theft illegal" would be able to answer that without a rule book. Most people would go "of course it is" and they know this because they are able to intuit the social rules around them. Most people, having never ever seen the actual statute can tell you theft is illegal.

You, however, can't. Because you're totally incapable of understanding social conditions.

Because they, like me, are not your teachers, and they, like me, don't feel like having you waste their time teaching you things that most people are capable of dealing with.
But you think I'm not, and you're apparently perfectly willing to support a legal system that excludes me. Who's being sacrificed before an altar now?
They are not irrational, they just include dimensions to their reasoning that you are incapable of understanding.
Reasoning is necessarily constrained by logic. Even the OED backs me up on that one.
There is a difference between not being shown, and not being incapable of understanding. I can tell you a flower is yellow. I can tell you how I KNOW it is yellow. I can not, however, demonstrate to you that it is yellow if you are blind.
Sure you could. You could design a machine that emitted a tone based on the frequency of light. When it was between 570 and 590 nm, the tone would correspond with yellow. Then I could know when something is what you describe as yellow.

If you want me to understand how yellow appears to you, well then of course that's impossible. But so is it impossible for Neesika, or anyone, to understand how yellow appears to you. You could only think that possible if you assumed (unjustifiably) that everyone perceived yellow the same way you do, but that's exactly the same error of which you're accusing me.
I can not describe to you how one understands social situations if you are incapable of understanding it.

No, you can not. You can not understand any rationale that includes social conditions as you are incapable of understanding those social conditions.
How do you know? Perhaps they are learnable in a rational and systematic way, but most people just don't learn them like that.

I'm annoyed that children aren't taught that english is a tone language. Spoken english does carry meaning in tones, but no one ever bothered to tell me that as a kid and it took me decades to work it out on my own.

This is knowledge people have but they don't share because they assume (unjustifiably) that it's widely known.

Wjhen I meet people, I treat them as individuals. I learn each person's behaviour and traits separately, and I don't disrespect them by assuming they behave like most people do. But other people don't do that. I find that people often assume I'm bored or upset just because I don't emote unless I make a special point of it, even people who've known me for years. Why can't they be bothered to get to know me? I got to know them.
Whether one is illiterate is quite relevant to the content of an argument of a definition of a written word.
But it's not a cripplin deficiency. If you explained to me why you thought a given word meant what you thought it meant, I could question the reasoning that lead you there without reading the word myself. I wouldn't necessarily hold a contrary opinion as to what the word meant, but I also might fail to share yours. And that would place us rationally at odds.
Whether one is incapable of understanding social norms is quite relevant to an argument discussing a legal system based on an understanding of social norms.
Given that many people are incapable of understanding social norms, isn't a legal system (I see you stopped calling it a justice system - good for you)based on social norms guaranteed to fail your standard of equity?
If, through your mental defect, you are incapable of understanding how a system works, this is very relevant to debating with you how a system works.
Which is why we're not debating so much how your system works, but whether it should work like that.
No, your rationality is inherently flawed, as pointed out to you numerous times
My logic is quite good, and logic is the sole basis for all rational thought.

If those rules weren't both codified and publicly available, they weren't knowable.

of course they were. The reason you think it's unknowable is because YOU lack the skills to know it. Normal people do not need to look at the codified statute that makes theft illegal to know, intuitively, that theft is illegal. Normal people can know that without ever having seen the codified law.

You however apparently are defective.

By the way Llewdor...do you think the average person REALLY needs to carry a copy of the Criminal Code to 'consult' before they 'do things'?
A reasonable person does. Average, no idea.
I mean...seriously. Most people are pretty clear on things like...don't kill other people...don't rob them, don't destroy property etc. What are you thinking about doing that you need to check in the Code first to see whether it's legal or not? I mean...seriously now. For someone so stuck on 'logic' you seem to be completely lacking in common sense.
Sure, pick the big ones.

What about copyright violations? Racketeering? Influence peddling? Obscenity? Fraud? Some of these laws are pretty complicated.

of course they were. The reason you think it's unknowable is because YOU lack the skills to know it. Normal people do not need to look at the codified statute that makes theft illegal to know, intuitively, that theft is illegal. Normal people can know that without ever having seen the codified law.

You however apparently are defective.
I just realised what you've been doing. You're defining knowledge extremely broadly, so broadly as to include unjustified beliefs.

I'm annoyed that children aren't taught that english is a tone language. Spoken english does carry meaning in tones, but no one ever bothered to tell me that as a kid and it took me decades to work it out on my own.

This is knowledge people have but they don't share because they assume (unjustifiably) that it's widely known.

And that is your problem. People don't assume unjustifiably that it's widely known. It IS widely known, because the vast amount of people do understand that. People generally can understand that intuitively.

The fact that YOU can not doesn't mean that the assumption that it is widely known is irrenious. It means YOU are incapable. It means YOU are defective.

I got to know them.

No you don't. You get to know them, within your pigeonholed definitions mr. "I'm the most rational person I know". It can't be that maybe the reason everyone else seems irrational is that they all know something you don't, can it?

Given that many people are incapable of understanding social norms, isn't a legal system (I see you stopped calling it a justice system - good for you)

Justice system and legal system, in civilized society, are functionally equivalent. I did so for your comfort, not because you are in any way correct

based on social norms guaranteed to fail your standard of equity?

Thats just it, "many people" are not. You are not, some are not. You are defective. The majority is not. There are far more people capable of understanding social norms than there are who can understand vast legal code. As such this sytem fits the needs of the most people.

You and your defective bretherin are in the minority, and as such, you don't get to have a system based on YOUR needs, equity demands that the most be served as possible.

My logic is quite good, and logic is the sole basis for all rational thought.

Your logic fails because it is based on a faulty premise, namely, that your perspeption of the world is the correct one.

It is not, you are defective.

So you think you understand the rules, because you can read the Criminal Code?

Tell me then...is sexual assault a subjective mens rea offence, or an objective mens rea offence?

Hint...you won't find the answer in the CC.
But do I really need to know that? I'm not arguing cases, here. I just need to be able to tell when something is sexual assault and what the statutory punishment is, and then I can make informed decisions governing my actions.

Some of these laws are pretty complicated.

And you would make them moreso. So complicated that the entire justice system would effectively be rendered incomprehensible for the vast majority of people.

Most people, if you ask them "is theft illegal" would be able to answer that without a rule book. Most people would go "of course it is" and they know this because they are able to intuit the social rules around them. Most people, having never ever seen the actual statute can tell you theft is illegal.
But they don't know that intuitively. They know that because they've heard about people being apprehended, and chances are someone told them along the way.

But they probably don't know what constitutes the different types of theft, and that's part of the rule. Thus, they fail to know it.

But do I really need to know that?...I just need to be able to tell when something is sexual assault

...bwahahahahahaha

Oh my god you don't even realize how stupid that is.

What she asked, basically, is what is the mental state necessary for an act to be sexual assault. It boils down to "what does someone have to do for their act to be considered sexual assault".

The "that" in your question IS what the definition of sexual assault is. That is basically what she asked you.

You don't know that, because you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

What you just asked is "do I really need to know what sexual assault is? I just need to be able to tell when something is sexual assault"

Mens rea is a state of mind. It is an element in every crime. When ones actions meet all elements of a crime, they have committed that crime. When they do not meet each and every elements of a crime, that crime has not been committed.

For you to know "when something is sexual assault" you need to know what the elements of sexual assault ARE. Mens rea is one element of a crime. If you don't know the elements of the crime, you can not tell whether or not the crime has been committed, because, by definition, a crime has been committed when all elements have been met.

Yes, you do need to know that. And you just proved her point.

A reasonable person does. Average, no idea.

Sure, pick the big ones.

What about copyright violations? Racketeering? Influence peddling? Obscenity? Fraud? Some of these laws are pretty complicated.
Ah. So you're planning to do some of those things, and you wanted to check first if they were legal?

Bizarre world you live in.

But do I really need to know that? I'm not arguing cases, here. I just need to be able to tell when something is sexual assault and what the statutory punishment is, and then I can make informed decisions governing my actions.

You also need to know in relation to sexaul assault, that consent is determined objectively. It matters not that you might THINK the person in question consented. Without knowing that, you can't tell me what is sexual assault and what isn't.

And that issue was defined in Ewanchuk.

So yes, you really need to know that. And after Ewanchuk, "No means No" was finally true in law.

The Code doesn't tell you that though.

Alright folks, it's been a blast, but I've got to go. Have a wonderful weekend!

Ah. So you're planning to do some of those things, and you wanted to check first if they were legal?

Bizarre world you live in.
Are you honestly claiming that some kid on the internet downloading files knows intuitively whether he's downloading illegal content? Does he know intuitively that whether he violates copyright is determined in part by the medium on which he records it, or whether he copies it himself or receives a copy from someone else?

Are you honestly claiming that some kid on the internet downloading files knows intuitively whether he's downloading illegal content? Does he know intuitively that whether he violates copyright is determined in part by the medium on which he records it, or whether he copies it himself or receives a copy from someone else?

I think that most people socialized in our culture has a general idea that doing so is wrong, yes.

You don't, because again, you are defective.

you know what, no. You just asked whether you need to know an element of a crime to know whether or not a crime has been committed.

You obviously know NOTHING about this subject matter. You are incapable of discussing the law because you know nothing of it.

I'm not going to have this conversation further with you, and frankly, you have nothing to say to me further in this or any other context. You're put on ignore from here on out. You have nothing useful to say to me, and I have no interest in knowing what you have to say. Frankly speaking you long since stopped being amusing, and you have no other qualities worth paying attention to.

I probably have one. I carry a Pocket Criminal Code with me everywhere I go so I can consult it before I do things.

I don't understand why other people don't do that. How else do they know what the rules are?
This is possibly the strangest thing I've heard all week.

...bwahahahahahaha

Oh my god you don't even realize how stupid that is.

What she asked, basically, is what is the mental state necessary for an act to be sexual assault. It boils down to "what does someone have to do for their act to be considered sexual assault".
Yes it does, but you're presupposing that knowledge of that necessarily includes knowledge of the Latin phrases in her question.

I don't need to know what mens rea means in order to know what constitutes sexual assault. Again you've jumped to a conclusion.
The "that" in your question IS what the definition of sexual assault is. That is basically what she asked you.
No, she asked me which of those Latin phrases described the definition, and that's a side issue.
What you just asked is "do I really need to know what sexual assault is? I just need to be able to tell when something is sexual assault"
See? There. There you're assuming that knowledge of Latin is a necessary condition.
Mens rea is a state of mind. It is an element in every crime. When ones actions meet all elements of a crime, they have committed that crime. When they do not meet each and every elements of a crime, that crime has not been committed.
Good to know. Now I can define the crime in Latin as well as English.
Yes, you do need to know that. And you just proved her point.
I need to know what the crime is. I don't need to know what mens rea means, and that was a component of her question.

I think that most people socialized in our culture has a general idea that doing so is wrong, yes.
But a general idea isn't enough. There are some very fine distinctions there.

you know what, no. You just asked whether you need to know an element of a crime to know whether or not a crime has been committed.

You obviously know NOTHING about this subject matter. You are incapable of discussing the law because you know nothing of it.

I'm not going to have this conversation further with you, and frankly, you have nothing to say to me further in this or any other context. You're put on ignore from here on out. You have nothing useful to say to me, and I have no interest in knowing what you have to say. Frankly speaking you long since stopped being amusing, and you have no other qualities worth paying attention to.
That's a shame. He didn't get to see his final great mistake (presupposing that knowledge of Latin is necessary to comprehend the law).

I still have challenges unanswered. I chalk this one up as a victory.

Holy Crap! Is Llewdor still going? Someone didn't unplug him yet?


I'd like to point out that here you got anoyed at something I said - except I was asking a question. Questions contain no information. They are in no way declarative.

Then you clearly don't understand the subtleties of the English Language. (Which of course, the law of your country is written in.)

Bahahahahhahaaaaa....

Are you really that much of a douchebag?

No information in that non-declarative question!

That question most definitely contains information. She declared that you are a douchebag. She merely wants to know how much of a douchebag.

Consider this question posed by a large and burly body-builder; "Did you fuck my wife?"

Trust me buddy, if you can't figure out the declaration in that sentence, you deserve the beating you're about to get. He's clearly stated that he suspects you of having had sex with his wife. It also conveys a strong message of brutal violence. Lots of information. You're missing the nuance in language, as well as the law, and life in general.

Most reasonable people understand nuance. A reasonable person wouldn't expect a system of law that doesn't apply to most people in society (those who you consider unreasonable.), because it simply isn't reasonable to expect that.

Then you clearly don't understand the subtleties of the English Language. (Which of course, the law of your country is written in.)
No. You're assuming the presence of implication. Implication, of course, doesn't exist.
That question most definitely contains information. She declared that you are a douchebag. She merely wants to know how much of a douchebag.
What she means and what she said aren't necessarily the same thing. Nothing about the question stated that I was a douchebag.
Consider this question posed by a large and burly body-builder; "Did you fuck my wife?"

Trust me buddy, if you can't figure out the declaration in that sentence, you deserve the beating you're about to get.
That beating would be the result of his failure to understand the question, not mine.

That people will react that violently based on nothing more than baseless suppositions is why I generally avoid people. Unfortunately they still govern me, which is why I have an interest in the legal system.
You're missing the nuance in language, as well as the law, and life in general.

Most reasonable people understand nuance.
Nuance isn't reasonable. Therefore, reasonable people cannot understand it.

I would further assert that nuance doesn't exist, and thus cannot possibly exhibit characteristics.

No. You're assuming the presence of implication. Implication, of course, doesn't exist.

What she means and what she said aren't necessarily the same thing. Nothing about the question stated that I was a douchebag.

That beating would be the result of his failure to understand the question, not mine.

That people will react that violently based on nothing more than baseless suppositions is why I generally avoid people. Unfortunately they still govern me, which is why I have an interest in the legal system.

Nuance isn't reasonable. Therefore, reasonable people cannot understand it.

I would further assert that nuance doesn't exist, and thus cannot possibly exhibit characteristics.

Of course nuance exists. That's where double-entendres come from. Do you claim that they don't exist?

Furthermore, of course Implication exixts, otherwise we wouldn't have created a word to define it.

Furthermore, of course Implication exixts, otherwise we wouldn't have created a word to define it.
That we created the word is only evidence that some people think it exists.

Those people are wrong.

Of course nuance exists. That's where double-entendres come from. Do you claim that they don't exist?
Double-entendres don't require nuance. They're cleverly applied ambiguity.

That we created the word is only evidence that some people think it exists.

Those people are wrong.

The root word of implication is imply. You mean to tell me that you've never implied anything before? Or are sugesting that people never have? The result of those actions would be implication. Denying it exists is like denying language exists. Each sound we make is an implication of meaning. Otherwise, they're just sounds with no meaning whatsoever.

I'm a prosecuting lawyer and i prefer common law to civil law. But by no means is common law perfect. I don't like the fact that judges can make very different punishments for very similar crimes. I almost always supports bills going around that suggest there be stricter limits of how long people can go to jail for certain crimes.For example i think it is quite ridiculous there are some crimes where the judge can choose between a few weeks in jail and 20 years in jail...
Also, precedent can easily be ignored. The judge doesn't have to find much difference between the current case and the precedent in question to decide he can ignore the precedent and use another precedent he likes. The laws with precedence are very blurry.

The root word of implication is imply. You mean to tell me that you've never implied anything before? Or are sugesting that people never have? The result of those actions would be implication. Denying it exists is like denying language exists. Each sound we make is an implication of meaning. Otherwise, they're just sounds with no meaning whatsoever.

no no you see, nothing is every implied every word has an exact meaning, and he says exactly what he means at every single situation. People who do otherwise are clearly illogical, and thus, inferior.

no no you see, nothing is every implied every word has an exact meaning, and he says exactly what he means at every single situation. People who do otherwise are clearly illogical, and thus, inferior.
I knew Arthais would eventually see it my way.

no no you see, nothing is every implied every word has an exact meaning, and he says exactly what he means at every single situation. People who do otherwise are clearly illogical, and thus, inferior.

Not only illogical and inferior, but clearly incorrect. Apparently body language, dialect and changes in intonation of words also mean absolutely nothing.

I'm a prosecuting lawyer and i prefer common law to civil law. But by no means is common law perfect. I don't like the fact that judges can make very different punishments for very similar crimes. I almost always supports bills going around that suggest there be stricter limits of how long people can go to jail for certain crimes.For example i think it is quite ridiculous there are some crimes where the judge can choose between a few weeks in jail and 20 years in jail...
Also, precedent can easily be ignored. The judge doesn't have to find much difference between the current case and the precedent in question to decide he can ignore the precedent and use another precedent he likes. The laws with precedence are very blurry.
And that is why I dislike common law.

Not only illogical and inferior, but clearly incorrect. Apparently body language, dialect and changes in intonation of words also mean absolutely nothing.
Exactly right. Score one for Mikesburg.

Whatever Llwedor means, he doesn't understand English. He should get working on Newspeak. English is doubleplusungood.

Exactly right. Score one for Mikesburg.

Sarcasm, also apparently does not exist.

Not only illogical and inferior, but clearly incorrect. Apparently body language, dialect and changes in intonation of words also mean absolutely nothing.

and as such, I stand by my original position.

Clearly defective specimen, and as such should not be pandered to.

Sarcasm, also apparently does not exist.

of course not, don't you know that people only say exactly what they mean, sarcasm means they actually mean the opposite of what they're saying. That would be....illogical.

The sad part is, if he actually believes the shit he's saying, he doesn't even realize we're mocking him.

I recognise that you're trying to mock me. You're just making yourselves look like half-wits by doing it.

is he trying to sound smart and falling flat on his face again? I can't see, but I imagine it's something pretty fucking stupid.

par for the course though, really.

of course not, don't you know that people only say exactly what they mean, sarcasm means they actually mean the opposite of what they're saying. That would be....illogical.

The sad part is, if he actually believes the shit he's saying, he doesn't even realize we're mocking him.

Well, I can believe that he tries to only say what he means. I can believe that he thinks other people are inferior for using nuance, sarcasm or implication. What I can't believe, is that he thinks that these things don't exist. So clearly, he's arguing some rediculous philosphical point, like 'how can language be a 'thing'? Or 'does it exist if we can't touch it?'. The kind of philosophical crap that I can't normally be bothered with.

I don't think it's possible for someone to be as inhuman as Llewdor is posing to be.

I recognise that you're trying to mock me. You're just making yourselves look like half-wits by doing it.

How did you discover that? Clearly we stated what we meant.... or perhaps you understood our (non-existant) implication....

I don't think it's possible for someone to be as inhuman as Llewdor is posing to be.

I don't either.

I do think however that being this inhuman is what he ASPIRES to be. I am fully convinced that he would be far happier if he could just somehow turn himself into a computer, free of all those pesky emotions and silly human illogical problems.

It's impossible to be what he is claiming to be. But it is what he wants to be. And that's the disgusting part of it

How did you discover that? Clearly we stated what we meant.... or perhaps you understood our (non-existant) implication....

oh wait, this is a problem. How could we be implying something with our words when clearly implication doesn't exist? Obviously we must have said exactly what we meant, there is after all no such thing as implication.

Llewdor,

What is the argument, here?

oh wait, this is a problem. How could we be implying something with our words when clearly implication doesn't exist? Obviously we must have said exactly what we meant, there is after all no such thing as implication.

Of course not. We are half-wits for failing to mock him by using the correct words. Somehow, the power of logic broke through our meaninglessness.

Well, I can believe that he tries to only say what he means. I can believe that he thinks other people are inferior for using nuance, sarcasm or implication. What I can't believe, is that he thinks that these things don't exist. So clearly, he's arguing some rediculous philosphical point, like 'how can language be a 'thing'? Or 'does it exist if we can't touch it?'. The kind of philosophical crap that I can't normally be bothered with.

I don't think it's possible for someone to be as inhuman as Llewdor is posing to be.
If I write a sentence, you can't point to the bit where the implication is. You also can't know for sure that I don't mean what I'm saying literally.

Implication is a construct to absolve you, the inferrer, of responsbility for having drawn a lousy conclusion. Nothing I say implies anything - all inferrences are entirely your own fault.

Of course not. We are half-wits for failing to mock him by using the correct words. Somehow, the power of logic broke through our meaninglessness.

oh that's right, it's not that we were mocing hm, that was our intent, but obvously we failed because we didn't say exactly what we mean. And he deduced this through his incredible logic powers.

How did you discover that? Clearly we stated what we meant.... or perhaps you understood our (non-existant) implication....
You both adopted my position is very simplistic terms. By presenting my position in the form of a straw-man, you could potentially get others to view my positions as the simplistic caricatures you present.

And it might work, but only unreasonable people would look at what you said and think it accurately represented what I said.

And I didn't take the bait. I chose not to correct your simplistic parody.

If I write a sentence, you can't point to the bit where the implication is. You also can't know for sure that I don't mean what I'm saying literally.

Implication is a construct to absolve you, the inferrer, of responsbility for having drawn a lousy conclusion. Nothing I say implies anything - all inferrences are entirely your own fault.

Again - you may not make implications. Denying that implications exist is plain wrong. You just said that I, the inferrer constructed it. How does it not exist if I constructed it? How do I 'construct' nothing? How is that logical?

More importantly, how did you come to the conclusion that we were 'mocking' you, without realizing we were using implication?

You both adopted my position is very simplistic terms. By presenting my position in the form of a straw-man, you could potentially get others to view my positions as the simplistic caricatures you present.

And it might work, but only unreasonable people would look at what you said and think it accurately represented what I said.

And I didn't take the bait. I chose not to correct your simplistic parody.

How does parody exist without implication?

How does parody exist without implication?

it can't obviously, words have no implication, sarcasm doesn't exist,and you can neer make fun of anything unless you clearly state "I am making fun of this"

I do think however that being this inhuman is what he ASPIRES to be.
Everyone should.

If they did, then when someone did draw an unreasonable conclusion (like an inference), we could just point it out, accept our error, and move on, and we wouldn't need any of these overwrought histrionics.

I've been perfectly calm thoughout this discussion. I suspect that's not true of Arthais.

By the way, the law system in the state of Louisiana is based on Nepolianic law which is the basis of French law. It has some very screwed up laws. For example, as the only boy in the family I could have taken 1/2 of what my mother and father owned when my father died. My two sisters and I had to sign a waiver when dad died so mom could get the rights to everyting they owned.

That problem has been corrected since dad died in 1988.

I have had direct experience with that type of law. Morocco uses the same model because of being a former French colony. My wife's side of the family has 11 children. All 11 had to sign off on the possessions before the mother could legally have what they have had for years. It is an antiquated law to say the least.

How does parody exist without implication?
Parody can exist without implication - it just can't be an effective persuasive tool.

he still whoring himself for attention and trying to pass off his stunted emotional growth and social defects as a superiority?

I have had direct experience with that type of law. Morocco uses the same model because of being a former French colony. My wife's side of the family has 11 children. All 11 had to sign off on the possessions before the mother could legally have what they have had for years. It is an antiquated law to say the least.
Absurd, antiquated laws are not unique to civil law systems.

he still whoring himself for attention and trying to pass off his stunted emotional growth and social defects as a superiority?
Why do you care? You're ignoring me. Or had you forgotten?

And as for defective, you're the one who's incapable of reading a sentence without drawing irrational inferences. Just because you're the majority doesn't make you right.

I can draw irrational inferences. I simply choose not to. I would prefer my opinions be true.

Guess so.

Common Law FTW.
What he said.

he still whoring himself for attention and trying to pass off his stunted emotional growth and social defects as a superiority?

I don't think Llewdor's all that bad. He's just picked an ideological summit to defend with little room for escape. He kind of reminds me of Rocky Balboa. He keeps taking hits to the head, yet he keeps getting back up for more hits.

Rocky! Rocky! Rocky!

No really. I love ya man. Keep up the good fight.


Now I'm off to do some highly illogical drinking.

Llewdor,

What is the argument, here?
Again, another "what he said". I'm not inclined to wade through 21 pages of argument.

Your use of "logical" in that sentence has nothing at all to do with logic.

Logic is an axiomatic system of reasoning. A sound logical system cannot make mistakes (by definition).But what if two different people use sound logic but start from different places?

No. You're assuming the presence of implication. Implication, of course, doesn't exist.Of course it does. You pointed out earlier that people sometimes use different tones of voice when speaking the same words. Those tones of voice imply different things.

Of course it does. You pointed out earlier that people sometimes use different tones of voice when speaking the same words. Those tones of voice imply different things.

Careful, don't point out his inconsistancies, you might discredit his purpose and make him disappear in a poof of illogic.

Your use of "logical" in that sentence has nothing at all to do with logic.

Logic is an axiomatic system of reasoning. A sound logical system cannot make mistakes (by definition).

your sort of logic isnt applicable to the law. human interactions are not cut and dried. everything needs interpretation.

The spirit isn't knowable. As such, it should carry no weight at all.

It's not just that reasonable people can disagree as to what the spirit is, but that no reasonable person can claim to have any idea what the spirit is.
Then your reasonable person must be dumb as a post. What part of no gambling or prostitution is not clear here? If the law says that it should be illegal for children under the age of 18 to sell sex, I would assume that a reasonable person would conclude that giving "gifts" for sex would fall under the spirit that the law intended.

I have to agree, you ARE an idiot.

What, no Stalinist law? wtf? whats better than a 100 dead innocent people for each 1 guilty person!

Or vigilanty justice.

Parody can exist without implication - it just can't be an effective persuasive tool.

I disagree. Without implication, it simply isn't parody. It's just a story with no relevance.

Then your reasonable person must be dumb as a post. What part of no gambling or prostitution is not clear here? If the law says that it should be illegal for children under the age of 18 to sell sex, I would assume that a reasonable person would conclude that giving "gifts" for sex would fall under the spirit that the law intended.

I have to agree, you ARE an idiot.

Oh no, see you don't understand. The law says you can't sell sex, and that's all it says. So you can't sell sex, but gifts are fine. Obviously if the law had intended for gifts to be covered it would have said that, an no rational person could ever construe a law against selling sex to include giving sex for gifts.

or...something like that. I dunno, the fucktard's still on ignore.

Oh no, see you don't understand. The law says you can't sell sex, and that's all it says. So you can't sell sex, but gifts are fine. Obviously if the law had intended for gifts to be covered it would have said that, an no rational person could ever construe a law against selling sex to include giving sex for gifts.

or...something like that. I dunno, the fucktard's still on ignore.

I think he's decided that the law works on legal realism, but he doesn't like legal realism or something.

He should just do what lawyers do and pretend it doesn't.

Then your reasonable person must be dumb as a post. What part of no gambling or prostitution is not clear here? If the law says that it should be illegal for children under the age of 18 to sell sex, I would assume that a reasonable person would conclude that giving "gifts" for sex would fall under the spirit that the law intended.

I have to agree, you ARE an idiot.

No, he just had his ability to understand the law destroyed by going to law school for three years and getting a juris doctorate.

Idiot indeed :rolleyes:

I always wonder, why do these legal know-nothing know-it-alls bother doing whatever they do in life when they could so easily become hot-shot attorneys or federal judges, what with their perfect understanding of the law, gained not through study but through magic and fancy.

No, he just had his ability to understand the law destroyed by going to law school for three years and getting a juris doctorate.

Idiot indeed :rolleyes:

I always wonder, why do these legal know-nothing know-it-alls bother doing whatever they do in life when they could so easily become hot-shot attorneys or federal judges, what with their perfect understanding of the law, gained not through study but through magic and fancy.
Did you even bother to read what I was replying to, or we're you just having a bad day?

Common law, less bureaucracy needed to overturn stupid decisions.

Is anyone else wondering if Llewdor has a wealthy relative who has included him in their will and he wants to speed up the process and is just mad that he wont get to keep the dough?

Really, Llewdor is only guilty of not conceding to an obvious error. I dont' think there's any more need for continued Llewdor-bashing. Arthais admittedly chose some vehement words at his frustration with Llewdor.

Now let's all just pick up our toys and play a new game...

Again, another "what he said". I'm not inclined to wade through 21 pages of argument.
I started out asking whether people preferred civil law or common law as the basis for legal systems. I chose civil law for specific reasons (rational predictability), and I've pretty much had that backed up. I don't think anyone's disputing that a civil law system more closely resembles my ideal system.

Arthais then took it upon himself to decide that I don't know anything about the law (so I shouldn't talk about it), that I'm autistic (even though he's not a mental health professional, so by making that claim he broke his own first rule), that logic is subjective (apparently Arthais can't add), and that most people are best served by a system where the rules are never made clear because they have a magical ability to know what each other are thinking (even though Arthais can't tell what I'm thinking, thus exempting himself from the group).

Again - you may not make implications. Denying that implications exist is plain wrong. You just said that I, the inferrer constructed it. How does it not exist if I constructed it? How do I 'construct' nothing? How is that logical?

If I make a statement, and you take it to mean something other than what it actually says, you've made an inference.

An implication would be if I intended the statement to mean something other than what it actually said. But that would be insane, and I can't credibly expect anyone to understand me if I do that, so I don't. No one does. If they expect understanding, then they have to think there is some sort of hidden, yet still denotative, meaning in their statements.

What you perceive as implication is just justification for your own inferences. You're blaming the speaker for your own lousy understanding of the language.

I actually started a whole thread about this very topic some time ago:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481918

There it is. Feel free to quote from it.

But what if two different people use sound logic but start from different places?
We were specifically discussing the case of two people interpreting the same contract. They're necessarily starting from the same place (the contents of the contract).

If they disagree on some other issue because they started from different premises, they can share those premises to clear that up. That's usually how I try to resolve differences with the religious.
Sarcasm, also apparently does not exist.
Sure it does. Sarcasm is denoted through tone of voice.

Denoted. Not implied.
Of course it does. You pointed out earlier that people sometimes use different tones of voice when speaking the same words. Those tones of voice imply different things.
As above, those tones denote different things. If you've ever observed ESL classes, this is actually taught to people.

If I adopt a sarcastic tone, I'm trying to convey sarcasm. If you understand the language, you'll get that. There's no real room for error, which is how it differs from the implication/inference system.

As above, those tones denote different things.

Then doesn't phrasing as well?

For instance, the fact that I used "doesn't" instead of "does" in the question I just asked you denotes that I hold the position that "phrasing denotes different things" follows from the argument you have advanced.

Thus, a question can convey information.

Careful, don't point out his inconsistancies, you might discredit his purpose and make him disappear in a poof of illogic.
Much as you ignore the ease with which I explain away those things you perceive as inconsistent.

They only appear inconsistent to you because you infer conclusions unsupported by my statements, and you seemingly do so specifically to construct these inconsistencies. It's like a confirmation bias gone insane.
your sort of logic isnt applicable to the law. human interactions are not cut and dried.
But there's no reason why the rules that govern them shouldn't be.

Then your reasonable person must be dumb as a post. What part of no gambling or prostitution is not clear here? If the law says that it should be illegal for children under the age of 18 to sell sex, I would assume that a reasonable person would conclude that giving "gifts" for sex would fall under the spirit that the law intended.

I have to agree, you ARE an idiot.
Maybe the guy who wrote the law wanted to allow barter for sex.

I would tend to count what they were doing as sale (because sale doesn't require fiat currency), but it is likely that there is another Japanese law that defines sale differently.

And it's not like the guy who wrote the law wasn't familiar with the rest of the law. Isn't it more likely that he knew full well he was permitting barter for sex than assuming that as a legal author he was unfamilar with the law?

You're allowing your distate for the practise to bias your interpretation of the law governing it.

I disagree. Without implication, it simply isn't parody. It's just a story with no relevance.
Parody is a comedically simplified retelling which emphasizes the absurdity of the subject.

You're presupposing the persuasiveness of parody. If you do that, then of course it can't exist.

Parody is a comedically simplified retelling which emphasizes the absurdity of the subject.

You're presupposing the persuasiveness of parody.

No, I think he was referring more to the "comedic" aspect.

How do you know?

I always wonder, why do these legal know-nothing know-it-alls bother doing whatever they do in life when they could so easily become hot-shot attorneys or federal judges, what with their perfect understanding of the law, gained not through study but through magic and fancy.
Perfect understanding? I don't think the common law system is understandable except in hindsight.

Then doesn't phrasing as well?
No.
For instance, the fact that I used "doesn't" instead of "does" in the question I just asked you denotes that I hold the position that "phrasing denotes different things" follows from the argument you have advanced.
There I disagree. While phrasing (effectively grammar) can impart denotative meaning, questions still cannot be declarative. It's contrary to their function.

No, I think he was referring more to the "comedic" aspect.

How do you know?
You think comedy is implied?

Really, Llewdor is only guilty of not conceding to an obvious error. I dont' think there's any more need for continued Llewdor-bashing. Arthais admittedly chose some vehement words at his frustration with Llewdor.

Now let's all just pick up our toys and play a new game...
What obvious error?

The only one I can recall is my supposed misrepresentation of Riggs v. Palmer, but even accepting I did that, it was merely an illustrative example.

If I make a statement, and you take it to mean something other than what it actually says, you've made an inference.

An implication would be if I intended the statement to mean something other than what it actually said. But that would be insane, and I can't credibly expect anyone to understand me if I do that, so I don't. No one does. If they expect understanding, then they have to think there is some sort of hidden, yet still denotative, meaning in their statements.

What you perceive as implication is just justification for your own inferences. You're blaming the speaker for your own lousy understanding of the language.

I actually started a whole thread about this very topic some time ago:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=481918

There it is. Feel free to quote from it.

Boy oh boy.

Let's start with the language.

An implication IS in an inferrence. They're synonyms.

Main Entry: implication
Part of Speech: noun
Definition: suggestion
Synonyms: association, assumption, conclusion, connection, connotation, entanglement, guess, hint, hypothesis, incrimination, indication, inference, innuendo, intimation, involvement, link, meaning, overtone, presumption, ramification, reference, significance, signification, undertone, union
Antonyms: explicit statement
Source: Roget's New Millennium™ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.3.1)
Copyright © 2007 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

I also bolded the antonym for you. If the antonym of implication is explicit statement, are you trying to say that inexplicit statements do not exist?

Seriously, you're trying to not only deny that the word means what it does, but that people even use implication. Your statement that no one makes implications is rediculous, and plain wrong.

This statement;

Sure it does. Sarcasm is denoted through tone of voice.

Denoted. Not implied.

is also rediculous.

im·plied /ɪmˈplaɪd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[im-plahyd] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective involved, indicated, or suggested without being directly or explicitly stated; tacitly understood: an implied rebuke; an implied compliment.

de·note /dɪˈnoʊt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[di-noht] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -not·ed, -not·ing. 1. to be a mark or sign of; indicate: A fever often denotes an infection.
2. to be a name or designation for; mean.
3. to represent by a symbol; stand as a symbol for.

Notice the difference is the explicit nature of the indication, yet they are both used as meanings of indication. Sarcasm is inexplicit communication.

sarcasm

A form of irony in which apparent praise conceals another, scornful meaning. For example, a sarcastic remark directed at a person who consistently arrives fifteen minutes late for appointments might be, “Oh, you've arrived exactly on time!”

The fact that you can detect the sarcasm based on intonation, doesn't mean that sarcasm is a form of explicit communication.


Trying to dodge the issue with minor semantic synonymous words doesn't escape the fact that you are trying to say that people never try to convey meaning other than what is explicitly said in conversation, which is exactly what implication is.

As I said before, I can imagine that you refuse to use implication in language, but to deny that others do, and do so on a regular basis, is intellectually dishonest. You said yourself that you can't possibly understand someone elses mind, yet presume to think that someone could never possibly mean something other than what they said when speaking to you. That's insane.

Consider this statement made between a wife to her husband; "The kids are going to be at my parents for the weekend." Now, YOU may think that this is a simple statement, and that all it means is the kids won't be in the house for the weekend. However, there is a distinct possibility that the wife is implying that this is a signal for some extra lovin'. You're claiming that it is impossible that she could have meant that, and that she is simply using the language incorrectly, and that if the husband were to make the inferrence of 'all right, I'm gonna get some action this weekend', he is also failed to use the language correctly. Yet somehow, they were able to communicate exactly what they meant - inexplicitly.

To deny that implication exists is rediculous.

Boy oh boy.

Let's start with the language.

An implication IS in an inferrence. They're synonyms.
That has to be the worst thesaurus I have ever seen. I know the language better than it does.

Let's find actual definitions of the words so we can compare them, shall we?

inference - the forming of conclusions from data or premisses by inductive methods
imply - to express indirectly; to insuinuate
Those, incidentally, are taken from the Oxford English dictionary, second edition. If you want to check my work, those definitions can be found on pages 97 and 257 of volume I.

Implication is the attempted expression. Inferrence is the unfounded conclusion.
Trying to dodge the issue with minor semantic synonymous words doesn't escape the fact that you are trying to say that people never try to convey meaning other than what is explicitly said in conversation, which is exactly what implication is.
First of all, all distinctions are semantic.

Second, I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying exactly what I'm trying to say, and that's that implication doesn't exist. That people try to imply things isn't in dispute. I'm simply claiming those attempts cannot help but fail.
As I said before, I can imagine that you refuse to use implication in language, but to deny that others do, and do so on a regular basis, is intellectually dishonest. You said yourself that you can't possibly understand someone elses mind, yet presume to think that someone could never possibly mean something other than what they said when speaking to you. That's insane.
Again, I'm not saying people don't try to imply. They just can't, because there's no such thing. By failing to express themselves, they're failing to communicate.
Consider this statement made between a wife to her husband; "The kids are going to be at my parents for the weekend."
Fun, an example I can tear to shreds.
Now, YOU may think that this is a simple statement, and that all it means is the kids won't be in the house for the weekend.
That's exactly what it is. It even tells me where they'll be. It does not tell me when or if they'll ever come home, or what they'll be doing there, or if they're alive.
However, there is a distinct possibility that the wife is implying that this is a signal for some extra lovin'.
She may be trying to do that. But she can't actually do that.
You're claiming that it is impossible that she could have meant that, and that she is simply using the language incorrectly, and that if the husband were to make the inferrence of 'all right, I'm gonna get some action this weekend', he is also failed to use the language correctly.
She may have meant that, but for whatever reason she failed to include anything meaning that in her statement, explicit or otherwise.

And yes, the husband would be incorrect to draw that entirely baseless conclusion.
Yet somehow, they were able to communicate exactly what they meant - inexplicitly.
This time. Sometimes they'll be wrong.

We were specifically discussing the case of two people interpreting the same contract. They're necessarily starting from the same place (the contents of the contract).Yes, but each of them might pick a different segment of the contract to start from, holding it up as the most important.

If they disagree on some other issue because they started from different premises, they can share those premises to clear that up. That's usually how I try to resolve differences with the religious.Simply because they share their premises doesn't mean that they will end up agreeing.

As above, those tones denote different things. If you've ever observed ESL classes, this is actually taught to people.

If I adopt a sarcastic tone, I'm trying to convey sarcasm. If you understand the language, you'll get that. There's no real room for error, which is how it differs from the implication/inference system.Sure there is room for error in sarcastic tones. This is why the phrases "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" mean the same thing - because of errors in using and interpreting sarcasm.

No.

There I disagree. While phrasing (effectively grammar) can impart denotative meaning, questions still cannot be declarative. It's contrary to their function.Simply because conveying information isn't the function of a question doesn't mean that questions are always devoid of information.

Here, take this question: Why is it that I can't get laid, no matter how hard I try?
Are you going to say that there's no information contained in that question?

While phrasing (effectively grammar) can impart denotative meaning, questions still cannot be declarative. It's contrary to their function.

That's begging the question (no pun intended). The function of questions is broader than you say it is; that's the whole point.

You think comedy is implied?

Comedy is not limited to cases where someone explicitly states "This is meant to be funny." Nor is it always a matter of tone.

Usually it is implicit in the absurdity of something.

Really, Llewdor is only guilty of not conceding to an obvious error. I dont' think there's any more need for continued Llewdor-bashing. Arthais admittedly chose some vehement words at his frustration with Llewdor.

Now let's all just pick up our toys and play a new game...

Boy oh boy.

Let's start with the language.

An implication IS in an inferrence. They're synonyms.



I also bolded the antonym for you. If the antonym of implication is explicit statement, are you trying to say that inexplicit statements do not exist?

Seriously, you're trying to not only deny that the word means what it does, but that people even use implication. Your statement that no one makes implications is rediculous, and plain wrong.

This statement;



is also rediculous.





Notice the difference is the explicit nature of the indication, yet they are both used as meanings of indication. Sarcasm is inexplicit communication.



The fact that you can detect the sarcasm based on intonation, doesn't mean that sarcasm is a form of explicit communication.


Trying to dodge the issue with minor semantic synonymous words doesn't escape the fact that you are trying to say that people never try to convey meaning other than what is explicitly said in conversation, which is exactly what implication is.

As I said before, I can imagine that you refuse to use implication in language, but to deny that others do, and do so on a regular basis, is intellectually dishonest. You said yourself that you can't possibly understand someone elses mind, yet presume to think that someone could never possibly mean something other than what they said when speaking to you. That's insane.

Consider this statement made between a wife to her husband; "The kids are going to be at my parents for the weekend." Now, YOU may think that this is a simple statement, and that all it means is the kids won't be in the house for the weekend. However, there is a distinct possibility that the wife is implying that this is a signal for some extra lovin'. You're claiming that it is impossible that she could have meant that, and that she is simply using the language incorrectly, and that if the husband were to make the inferrence of 'all right, I'm gonna get some action this weekend', he is also failed to use the language correctly. Yet somehow, they were able to communicate exactly what they meant - inexplicitly.

To deny that implication exists is rediculous.


physician heal thyself.

I like bananas.

Consider this statement made between a wife to her husband; "The kids are going to be at my parents for the weekend." Now, YOU may think that this is a simple statement, and that all it means is the kids won't be in the house for the weekend. However, there is a distinct possibility that the wife is implying that this is a signal for some extra lovin'. You're claiming that it is impossible that she could have meant that, and that she is simply using the language incorrectly, and that if the husband were to make the inferrence of 'all right, I'm gonna get some action this weekend', he is also failed to use the language correctly. Yet somehow, they were able to communicate exactly what they meant - inexplicitly.

To deny that implication exists is rediculous.

No no you see, the wife is quite illogically says something other than EXACTLY what she means.

The husband is also quite illogically assuming that the wife means something other than EXACTLY what she says.

So she's wrong because she says something other than what she means, and he's wrong because he thinks she means something other than what she says.

So they're obviously both completely wrong and sould speak in the correct way, which is the way Llewdor wants them to, despite the fact that at the end of this conversation they both understood each other.

And of course since the proper way to speak is to say exactly what we mean to say, I must of course be serious in everything I am saying, rather than using context to make it clear that I am, in fact meaning the exact opposite. This can not be the case since nobody is capable of "reading my mind" and understanding that I am using sarcasm, so i must man exactly what I am saying, and not, through sarcastic implication, attempting to say that Llewdor is a complete and utter tool.

And by the way, has anyone ever heard of this Jonathan Swift guy? He thinks it's ok to eat babies. Someone should really put a stop to him.

That has to be the worst thesaurus I have ever seen. I know the language better than it does.

Let's find actual definitions of the words so we can compare them, shall we?



Those, incidentally, are taken from the Oxford English dictionary, second edition. If you want to check my work, those definitions can be found on pages 97 and 257 of volume I.

Implication is the attempted expression. Inferrence is the unfounded conclusion.

First of all, all distinctions are semantic.

Second, I'm not trying to say that. I'm saying exactly what I'm trying to say, and that's that implication doesn't exist. That people try to imply things isn't in dispute. I'm simply claiming those attempts cannot help but fail.

Again, I'm not saying people don't try to imply. They just can't, because there's no such thing. By failing to express themselves, they're failing to communicate.

Fun, an example I can tear to shreds.

That's exactly what it is. It even tells me where they'll be. It does not tell me when or if they'll ever come home, or what they'll be doing there, or if they're alive.

She may be trying to do that. But she can't actually do that.

She may have meant that, but for whatever reason she failed to include anything meaning that in her statement, explicit or otherwise.

And yes, the husband would be incorrect to draw that entirely baseless conclusion.

This time. Sometimes they'll be wrong.

Well, here's your problem Llewdor. Language is about communication. If two people speak, and relay the information correctly, than the language is successful. You haven't torn my example to shreds at all. The wife communicated what she meant to her husband, and her husband understood what she was saying.

Secondly, the fact that I can look on dicitonary.com, and find 7 different definitions for implication (that's taken from seven different dicitionaries) also shows that the english language is an imprecise one. An imprecise language cannot help but rely on implication. The very fact that I was able to choose which defenition I liked best for my argument, proves that you can't rely on the english language to prove a logical point. English, is not math.

You're saying that people try to imply things, but people can't possibly understand that implication, because the implication doesn't exist. Well, the authors of those dicitonaries and thesauruses who put implilcation into their works all disagree with you.

Your defenition of implication is 'the attempted expression'. There you go. It exists - as an attempted expression. Most people can pick up on those attempted expressions, thus making it a part of the process of communication.

If we're arguing the english language, well forget about it. You're wrong. If we're arguing whether or not implication exists, well you're wrong. I don't know how else to say it.

In so far as this relates to the legal nature of this thread, it shows that the english language isn't nearly precise enough to meet the demands of the legal system you aspire for, and frankly, I doubt you would be able to create any language that meets that qualification.

Here, take this question: Why is it that I can't get laid, no matter how hard I try?
Are you going to say that there's no information contained in that question?

It's a complex question. It's a question conjoined to a declarative statement: "I can't get laid. Why is that?"

This is distinct from a question that declares something through implication - "Are you really that stupid?" or "Why did I decide to do this?"

physician heal thyself.

Point taken. Thank-you!

And by the way, has anyone ever heard of this Jonathan Swift guy? He thinks it's ok to eat babies. Someone should really put a stop to him.

LO f'n L!

Yes, but each of them might pick a different segment of the contract to start from, holding it up as the most important.
How? A reasonable person would only hold one section more important than another if the contract stated it.

Furthermore, if the sections of the contract contradict one another, the contract is logically meaningless.
Simply because they share their premises doesn't mean that they will end up agreeing.
Yes it does. That's how reason works.

If A, then B
A

If you conclude from that anything other than

If A, then B
A
B

you've made an inference. Furthermore, if you fail to conclude B, you haven't understood the first two statements.
Sure there is room for error in sarcastic tones.
Not everyone has perfect pitch. Tone is an imprecise, but still denotative, tool.
This is why the phrases "I couldn't care less" and "I could care less" mean the same thing - because of errors in using and interpreting sarcasm.
They do not mean the same thing. "I could care less" is a result of people not understanding "I couldn't care less" and assuming it to be idiomatic.

When I interview candidates for a job, I try to bait them into saying things like "I could care less". As soon as they do, interview over.
Simply because conveying information isn't the function of a question doesn't mean that questions are always devoid of information.
Yes it does.
Here, take this question: Why is it that I can't get laid, no matter how hard I try?
Are you going to say that there's no information contained in that question?
Yes. Do you think it contains information? If so, what?

You know, for all his fumblig and idiocy, he does have a point, although it's one absolutly and totally convoluted (and I am not sure, he's still on ignore, I only see what people quote).

I THINK what he's trying to say, in a fumbling way, is that because we can not read each others minds, there is no such thing as true implication. Someone might mean something other than what is explicitly stated. The wife says something but means something else. Thus husband, in this instance, based on tone, intonation, and a history with his wife, can make an educated GUESS what she means. And perhaps he will have a remarkable rate of sucess.

But he can't read her mind. And because he can't read her mind, he can never be absolutly, totally, 100% certain what she means, other than exactly what she says. Yes, this is true. Since he can not read her mind, at best he may only guess. It may be an educated guess, he may have a high rate of accuracy. But in the end, it's only a guess.

And in this, yes, llewdor is right, there is no such thing as "perfect" implication. In that, he's correct. He's absolutly and totally INCORRECT when he assumes that this is somehow bad. Inferences may be imperfect, but yet we manage just fine.

He might not. It seems he's unable to grasp tone and implication. It seems he has trouble understanding implications and hidden meanings.

But frankly, that's HIS problem, not anyone elses. The vast majority of us get along just fine.

It's a complex question. It's a question conjoined to a declarative statement: "I can't get laid. Why is that?"
I would assert that his question doesn't require even that. What if the asker can get laid when he doesn't try at all?

I would assert that his question doesn't require even that. What if the asker can get laid when he doesn't try at all?

Hmm, I think that's a stretch - but let's go with it.

What about "Why can't I get laid?"

You know, for all his fumblig and idiocy, he does have a point, although it's one absolutly and totally convoluted (and I am not sure, he's still on ignore, I only see what people quote).

I THINK what he's trying to say, in a fumbling way, is that because we can not read each others minds, there is no such thing as true implication. Someone might mean something other than what is explicitly stated. The wife says something but means something else. Thus husband, in this instance, based on tone, intonation, and a history with his wife, can make an educated GUESS what she means. And perhaps he will have a remarkable rate of sucess.

But he can't read her mind. And because he can't read her mind, he can never be absolutly, totally, 100% certain what she means, other than exactly what she says. Yes, this is true. Since he can not read her mind, at best he may only guess. It may be an educated guess, he may have a high rate of accuracy. But in the end, it's only a guess.
That's certainly a point I'm making, yes. I'm not just trying to make it - I'm making it. You appear to be the only one smart enough to understand me, though.
And in this, yes, llewdor is right, there is no such thing as "perfect" implication. In that, he's correct.
Thank you.
He's absolutly and totally INCORRECT when he assumes that this is somehow bad. Inferences may be imperfect, but yet we manage just fine.
You're introducing error into your system. As such, sometimes you'll be wrong and yet be totally convinced that you're right. That can't happen if you don't draw unfounded conclusions.

What you've done is abandoned soundness in favour of completeness. Sure, you can get to more answers than I can, but you have no reason to believe that your answers are right.
But frankly, that's HIS problem, not anyone elses. The vast majority of us get along just fine.
And that's okay because you outnumber me?

Care to apply that to religion? Are areligious people wrong because they're outnumbered by religious folks? Perhaps your failure to perceive God and his works marks you as somehow a lesser and defective human.

The crux of your argument here is that I'm wrong because I'm in the minority. But in the Atheism thread, you're in the minority (worldwide) in your opposition of theism. You can't have it both ways.

As such, sometimes you'll be wrong and yet be totally convinced that you're right..

Who said anything about total conviction?

How? A reasonable person would only hold one section more important than another if the contract stated it.

Furthermore, if the sections of the contract contradict one another, the contract is logically meaningless.Nonetheless, if a decision has to be made on whether or not somebody breached a contract, either someone did or they didn't. To throw the case out of court has the same effect as saying that they didn't.

Yes it does. That's how reason works.

If A, then B
A

If you conclude from that anything other than

If A, then B
A
B

you've made an inference. Furthermore, if you fail to conclude B, you haven't understood the first two statements.I'm saying that one person says "If A", and the other person rejects A. Simply because they know the other's position on A doesn't mean they'll agree.

Not everyone has perfect pitch. Tone is an imprecise, but still denotative, tool.And since not everyone has perfect pitch, when someone is imprecise with their tone, the listening person will have to infer the correct denotation.

They do not mean the same thing. "I could care less" is a result of people not understanding "I couldn't care less" and assuming it to be idiomatic.It is.

When I interview candidates for a job, I try to bait them into saying things like "I could care less". As soon as they do, interview over.That's rather unnecessary.

Yes. Do you think it contains information? If so, what?It says that I am unable to get laid, even though I make attempts to do so.

I would assert that his question doesn't require even that. What if the asker can get laid when he doesn't try at all?The question would also give the information that the asker is unable to get laid when s/he tries.

Hmm, I think that's a stretch - but let's go with it.

What about "Why can't I get laid?"
Hmm. Does that question require that you think you can't? Let me think about that one.

...

...

...

No, it doesn't. If as an exercise I ask a stuednt why a thing is true, knowing full well that it isn;t, I'm not telling the student that the thing is true. I'm just asking him to explain why it might me.

If I, in a drunken stupor, insist to you that you can't get laid, you could respond with that question without meaning that you can't.

As always, a question remains nothing more than a request for information.

edit: Good question though. That one took some thought.

No, it doesn't. If as an exercise I ask a stuednt why a thing is true, knowing full well that it isn;t, I'm not telling the student that the thing is true. I'm just asking him to explain why it might me.

But couldn't I also stipulate something as an academic or intellectual exercise in a statement rather than a question?

"Determinism is true. Discuss the implications."

If I, in a drunken stupor, insist to you that you can't get laid, you could respond with that question without meaning that you can't.

Only if I were being imprecise in language.

What I would mean by the question is, "Why do you think that I can't get laid?" or "Why did you say that I can't get laid?"

Edit: Alternatively, I could just be humoring you, but non-serious statements and questions are another matter entirely.

edit: Good question though. That one took some thought.

Jello Biafra deserves the credit, not me; I just modified it slightly.

Nonetheless, if a decision has to be made on whether or not somebody breached a contract, either someone did or they didn't. To throw the case out of court has the same effect as saying that they didn't.
If the contract is meaningless, no one can have breached it. Throwing it out is exactly the proper response.
I'm saying that one person says "If A", and the other person rejects A. Simply because they know the other's position on A doesn't mean they'll agree.
Then that wasn't your question. You asked how two reasonable people starting from the same premises could disagree. But now you're presupposing contradictory premises.
And since not everyone has perfect pitch, when someone is imprecise with their tone, the listening person will have to infer the correct denotation.
Not infer. Guess. If you infer then you think you're right. If you guess you're aware you could be wrong.
It is.
It's literally true. That's not how idioms work.
That's rather unnecessary.
No it isn't. I need to be able to communicate with these people, and if they're going to use words incorrectly I'm not going to waste my time interviewing them further.

I also give an abstract reasoning test with my interview, but my test has no solution. To pass the test, their response to my question "What's the answer?" needs to be "There isn't one."

This is exactly the sort of reasoning we're discussing here. I'm saying people shouldn't draw conclusions without conclusive evidence. Arthais disagrees.

But couldn't I also stipulate something as an academic or intellectual exercise in a statement rather than a question?

"Determinism is true. Discuss the implications."
You could.

You needn't.
Only if I were being imprecise in language.
Excellent use of the subjunctive mood, there, by the way. English speakers almost never get that right.
What I would mean by the question is, "Why do you think that I can't get laid?"
I fail to see what that isn't synonymous.
or "Why did you say that I can't get laid?"
That's an entirely different question. The response could well be "I wanted to annoy you."
Edit: Alternatively, I could just be humoring you, but non-serious statements and questions are another matter entirely.
I don't think they are. Humouring me is another good reason to ask such a question. Thanks for doing the work for me.

If the contract is meaningless, no one can have breached it. Throwing it out is exactly the proper response.If the contract is meaningless then does this mean that the people who made the contract should revert to the state they were in before the contract?

Then that wasn't your question. You asked how two reasonable people starting from the same premises could disagree. But now you're presupposing contradictory premises.Nope. I said that reasonable people can disagree if they start from different premises. The original question that started this arc was "But what if two different people use sound logic but start from different places?"

Not infer. Guess. If you infer then you think you're right. If you guess you're aware you could be wrong.So it's impossible to infer something if you think you might be wrong?

It's literally true. That's not how idioms work.Not necessarily. If a subject is boring, but not the most boring thing ever, the person could conceivably care less even if they say "I couldn't care less."

No it isn't. I need to be able to communicate with these people, and if they're going to use words incorrectly I'm not going to waste my time interviewing them further.But you're the one using words incorrectly.

As always, a question remains nothing more than a request for information.Then questions contain the information that the asker lacks information about a particular subject.

You could.

How, then, can you justify making a distinction between declarative statements and complex questions?

In both cases, I can use them without necessarily conveying information.

I fail to see what that isn't synonymous.

"Why do you think I can't get laid?" asks for the reasons for you holding the position that "Soheran cannot get laid."

"Why can't I get laid?" asks for the reasons for the truth of the statement "Soheran cannot get laid."

(Hmm, under that formulation I do actually see room for a hypothetical - "Were it the case that I could not get laid, what would the reasons be?")

I don't think they are. Humouring me is another good reason to ask such a question. Thanks for doing the work for me.

But, then, we can say the same about anything at all. Nothing conveys information, because anything could conceivably be meant non-seriously.

If the contract is meaningless then does this mean that the people who made the contract should revert to the state they were in before the contract?
Not at all. As signatories, we're presumed to know the contents of the contract we signed, and we should be bound by it. Since the contract is meaningless, it has nothing at all to say about how we should behave or be described, now or in the future.
Nope. I said that reasonable people can disagree if they start from different premises. The original question that started this arc was "But what if two different people use sound logic but start from different places?"
And that's a given, but in contract disputes the only source of information is the contract, so they must start with the same premises.

If two reasonable people disagree then they haven't ever discussed the issue between them. One of them must hold unjustified premises to be true.
So it's impossible to infer something if you think you might be wrong?
Yes. As long as you allow for your own uncertainty, you haven't inferred anything.
Then questions contain the information that the asker lacks information about a particular subject.
Detectives and lawyers routinely ask questions to which they already know the answer.

How, then, can you justify making a distinction between declarative statements and complex questions?

In both cases, I can use them without necessarily conveying information.
I think the declaration does convey information. It asserted that determinism was true.
"Why do you think I can't get laid?" asks for the reasons for you holding the position that "Soheran cannot get laid."
Good point. Of course, the "Why do you think" question can't convey that sort of information because you can't know what I think.
But, then, we can say the same about anything at all. Nothing conveys information, because anything could conceivably be meant non-seriously.
I don't see why that would affect whether the sentence conveys information.

I think the declaration does convey information. It asserted that determinism was true.

If as an exercise I ask a stuednt why a thing is true, knowing full well that it isn;t, I'm not telling the student that the thing is true.

Why does that hold for the question and not for the statement? What's the difference?

Good point. Of course, the "Why do you think" question can't convey that sort of information because you can't know what I think.

"The external world exists." I don't know that, either. Does the statement convey information?

For that matter, I don't know whether or not determinism is true, either.

I don't see why that would affect whether the sentence conveys information.

Because if I said "Determinism is true", and I was joking, then I would not actually be asserting that determinism is true.

Not at all. As signatories, we're presumed to know the contents of the contract we signed, and we should be bound by it. Since the contract is meaningless, it has nothing at all to say about how we should behave or be described, now or in the future.But if actions were taken as a direct result of the contract being signed, and solely for that reason, then should those actions be undone if the contract was meaningless?

And that's a given, but in contract disputes the only source of information is the contract, so they must start with the same premises.Not if the contract is unclear.

If two reasonable people disagree then they haven't ever discussed the issue between them. One of them must hold unjustified premises to be true.Or they both could be starting from unjustified premises.

Yes. As long as you allow for your own uncertainty, you haven't inferred anything.Then how do you know that anybody ever infers anything? What if people guess and act upon those guesses?

Detectives and lawyers routinely ask questions to which they already know the answer.Hm...which argument to make...

Then what is the function of these questions?

Maybe the guy who wrote the law wanted to allow barter for sex.
And you're complaining about the rest of us making assumptions?

And it's not like the guy who wrote the law wasn't familiar with the rest of the law. Isn't it more likely that he knew full well he was permitting barter for sex than assuming that as a legal author he was unfamilar with the law?

That's assuming that a. the ministry official in question was familiar with all Japanese law (and it has already been pointed out just how impossible that would be). b. That particular cabinet who requested and vetted the proposed law knew what the previous laws stated and how glaring the loophole would be, OR could foresee the workaround that has happened would be used (And these are politicians, not lawyers). and c. that the Diet, when debating the new statutes was aware of all of the above AND that the said law was not the result of pressure from other quarters (which it was) and wasn't hastily written in order to show that Japan was addressing the notion of child prostitution in order to not get blacklisted by the US.

Again, that's an awful lot of assumptions you're making, none of which actually happened.

You're allowing your distate for the practise to bias your interpretation of the law governing it.
No, I am noting that your idea of a 'reasonable person' is very flawed. You seem to think that a reasonable person is either a computer or a Vulcan. Whether or not I agree with the law is immaterial, what matters is that a reasonable person would assume that a law with the stated intent to end underage prostitution, or a general ban on gambling, would also effect the current practices.

Why does that hold for the question and not for the statement? What's the difference?
Suppose for a moment we accept that there is no difference? Doesn't that eliminate all denotative meaning by rendering vocabulary and punctuation meaningless?
"The external world exists." I don't know that, either. Does the statement convey information?
Yes. The statement asserts that the external world exists. As before, I can't claim to know your thoughts, so I have no idea whether you actually hold these things to be true.

Oh HELL NO! Llewdor, you resurrected this huge steaming pile of shit of a thread? You must love abuse...

But if actions were taken as a direct result of the contract being signed, and solely for that reason, then should those actions be undone if the contract was meaningless?
Because it was the signatories' responsibility to know what they signed.

The whole point of this legal system is that rational agents will know what loaws govern their actions in advance. If the contract is unclear under the law, rational signatories will know that.
Not if the contract is unclear.
Yes, even then. They'll just start from the same unclear premises.

Your problem here is that you're presupposing inferrences when presented with insufficient evidence, and rational agents won't do that. They'll examine the evidence and then draw no conclusion at all. And they'll both do that.
Or they both could be starting from unjustified premises.
Only if they're not rational. Remember, we're discussing reasonable people and how they reach conclusions.
Then how do you know that anybody ever infers anything? What if people guess and act upon those guesses?
In a debate like this one, that distinction would affect your language.
Hm...which argument to make...

Then what is the function of these questions?
To elicit responses - the same as any question.

Oh HELL NO! Llewdor, you resurrected this huge steaming pile of shit of a thread? You must love abuse...
It was the weekend. I was away.

Had to take you off, just to see what you'd come up with.

Yes. The statement asserts that the external world exists. As before, I can't claim to know your thoughts, so I have no idea whether you actually hold these things to be true.

See, here's your problem. You equate "I can not read your mind" with "I have no idea what you mean"

This is a nonsensical proposition, and if true, would render all communication meaningless.

I might ask you to "pass me the blue book on the table", where I, in my haste, said blue, but instead meant green.

So in reality my intent is to ask you for the green book but instead asked you for the blue one.

What do you do? Do you say "well I can't read his mind, so I can't for sure know that he meant to say what he said, so I can't make assumptions" or do you say to yourself "he asked me for the blue book, I'll give him the blue book".

You can NEVER read my mind, as such you can NEVER know, with all certainty, that I mean exactly what I say. If the basis for communication is "I can't read your thoughts so I do not know if my interpreation is correct" this will completely cripple you from every doing anything with anybody because, once you accept human error, and realize that sometimes people slip up and say things other than what they mean, entirely by accident, you can never be 100% certain that anyone says exactly what they mean, ever.

Same way with implication. Just because you can't read my mind doesn't mean you have NO idea. People are quite capable of reading tone, body language, and a miriad of other things. Can I ever be certain of what someone means by implication?

No, I can never be certain, I can't read their mind.

By the same token I can never be certain that anyone ever means anything that they say at any time.

That does not mean we have "no idea" however. One could have a very good idea. Can one be certain? No, but then one never can, in any circumstances of human interaction.

You must love abuse...Kinky.

Because it was the signatories' responsibility to know what they signed.

The whole point of this legal system is that rational agents will know what loaws govern their actions in advance. If the contract is unclear under the law, rational signatories will know that.If they believed it was clear, they could simply be in error when they signed it. This doesn't invalidate the contract, though.

Yes, even then. They'll just start from the same unclear premises.

Your problem here is that you're presupposing inferrences when presented with insufficient evidence, and rational agents won't do that. They'll examine the evidence and then draw no conclusion at all. And they'll both do that.Not if they believe that the evidence is sufficient.

Only if they're not rational. Remember, we're discussing reasonable people and how they reach conclusions.I said unjustified, not unclear. In debate, the negative position (i.e. "There isn't a God") is the default position. This is clear, but it is unproven, as you can't prove a negative.
What if both people start from unproven negative positions?

In a debate like this one, that distinction would affect your language.How so?

To elicit responses - the same as any question.Do rhetorical questions exist?

Suppose for a moment we accept that there is no difference? Doesn't that eliminate all denotative meaning by rendering vocabulary and punctuation meaningless?

No. Why would that consequence ensue?

Yes. The statement asserts that the external world exists. As before, I can't claim to know your thoughts, so I have no idea whether you actually hold these things to be true.

Then clearly you cannot say that because I cannot know your thoughts, I cannot assert something about them in the question "Why do you think x?"

And you're complaining about the rest of us making assumptions?
That wasn't an assumption I made. Did you notice the word "maybe" at the start of that remark? I was presenting a possibly true scenario that was contrary to your assertions. If I can some up with a possibly true scenario contrary to your assertions, then you can't be confident that your assertions are correct.
That's assuming that a. the ministry official in question was familiar with all Japanese law (and it has already been pointed out just how impossible that would be). b. That particular cabinet who requested and vetted the proposed law knew what the previous laws stated and how glaring the loophole would be, OR could foresee the workaround that has happened would be used (And these are politicians, not lawyers). and c. that the Diet, when debating the new statutes was aware of all of the above AND that the said law was not the result of pressure from other quarters (which it was) and wasn't hastily written in order to show that Japan was addressing the notion of child prostitution in order to not get blacklisted by the US.
And perhaps that's true. We just don't know.

That said, in my experience most laws are written by career bureaucrats, not politicians.
No, I am noting that your idea of a 'reasonable person' is very flawed. You seem to think that a reasonable person is either a computer or a Vulcan.
A reasonable person uses reason, your derision notwithstanding.
Whether or not I agree with the law is immaterial, what matters is that a reasonable person would assume that a law with the stated intent to end underage prostitution, or a general ban on gambling, would also effect the current practices.
Reasonable people make no assumptions.

Reasonable people make no assumptions.

A person who made no assumptions would not be reasonable in the least. They would either:

1) be lying
2) have a disorder preventing them from making the normal connections humans are capable of.

Neither of which are ideals to aspire to.

If they believed it was clear, they could simply be in error when they signed it. This doesn't invalidate the contract, though.
It should.
Not if they believe that the evidence is sufficient.
They can't believe that if it isn't true. They're reasonable people, remember?
I said unjustified, not unclear. In debate, the negative position (i.e. "There isn't a God") is the default position. This is clear, but it is unproven, as you can't prove a negative.
What if both people start from unproven negative positions?
The rational default position is one of complete uncertainty. Asserting "There isn't a God" is irrational without supporting evidence (which, as you point out, isn't available).
How so?
If you're debating honestly, you won't assert that I hold positions you don't have reason to believe I hold. Simply because they're consistent with my stated positions is not sufficient; they must be logically required.
Do rhetorical questions exist?
A rhetorical question is just one for which you don't have a satisfactory response.

So no.

Neither of which are ideals to aspire to.
We have a difference of opinion.

We have a difference of opinion.

Luckily, only my opinions count.

See, here's your problem. You equate "I can not read your mind" with "I have no idea what you mean"
Those are equivalent.
This is a nonsensical proposition, and if true, would render all communication meaningless.

I might ask you to "pass me the blue book on the table", where I, in my haste, said blue, but instead meant green.

So in reality my intent is to ask you for the green book but instead asked you for the blue one.

What do you do? Do you say "well I can't read his mind, so I can't for sure know that he meant to say what he said, so I can't make assumptions" or do you say to yourself "he asked me for the blue book, I'll give him the blue book".
I'd give you the blue book (assuming I felt like doing anything at all).

Why? Because it makes you responsible for expressing yourself, not me for interpreting you.

I work as a Database Manager. Regularly, people request data from me. I require that they make those requests in writing, because I've found that most of them are very bad at making data requests. By forcing them to provide a written record of their requests, I'm creating a paper trail that demonstrates I gave them exactly the data they requested, regardless of what data they actually wanted.

You asked for the blue book - you get the blue book. Your mistake is in thinking that my goal is to give you what you want.

You could ven approach it from the point of view of Kant's Categorical Imperative. I would much rather people take me literally all the time, so I'll do the same for you.

(this line of thought got me fired for being "too creepy for retail" in 1996)
You can NEVER read my mind, as such you can NEVER know, with all certainty, that I mean exactly what I say. If the basis for communication is "I can't read your thoughts so I do not know if my interpreation is correct" this will completely cripple you from every doing anything with anybody because, once you accept human error, and realize that sometimes people slip up and say things other than what they mean, entirely by accident, you can never be 100% certain that anyone says exactly what they mean, ever.
But I do't care if they say what they mean. If I treat them like they do, then any miscommunication is always 100% their fault.
Same way with implication. Just because you can't read my mind doesn't mean you have NO idea. People are quite capable of reading tone, body language, and a miriad of other things. Can I ever be certain of what someone means by implication?

No, I can never be certain, I can't read their mind.

By the same token I can never be certain that anyone ever means anything that they say at any time.

That does not mean we have "no idea" however. One could have a very good idea. Can one be certain? No, but then one never can, in any circumstances of human interaction.
I can learn tone and body language for individuals, but each person is different, and I can't imagine how one might be able to learn that about great numbers of people, let along folks you've never before met.

Plus, if someone like me comes along who doesn't present the appropriate signals, you'll be wrong. I won't.

As I said before, this is very much the difference between sound and complete systems of logic. Your system might be complete, but its unsound. Mine is sound.

Since sound can't be wrong, I like mine better.

---

Incidentally, Arthais, you were easily the first person here to genuinely understand my position. That you disagree doesn't matter - when debating my point is to get my opponent to understand my position. Once I've done that you'll either be reasonable an accept it or be unreasonable and reject it, but I have no control over that.

So thanks.

Luckily, only my opinions count.
And yet, somehow only my opinions are right.

What's that say about society?

Incidentally, Arthais, you were easily the first person here to genuinely understand my position. That you disagree doesn't matter - when debating my point is to get my opponent to understand my position. Once I've done that you'll either be reasonable an accept it or be unreasonable and reject it, but I have no control over that.

So thanks.

While I appreciate the sentiment I can not appreciate the wording. You basically present two options. If I understand what you are arguing I can either agree with you, or be unreasonable.

That's an awfully big pedastal you've put yourself on there. An awfully arrogant one too. To assume you are always the reasonable one, and indeed to assume that there can never be disagreeing positions that are, at the same time, reasonable, is quite beyond most normal levels of ego.

And you will have to work on this misguided belief that there can be no such thing as competing, yet equally reasonable beliefs. The world, I fear, is not so black and white despite however much you may believe it to be so.

Which I believe is the fundamental crux of our disagreement. You contend that reasonable people will always reach the same conclusion. I do not. The entire premise of law and the legal system is based on my presumption, having, through the pains of history, rejected yours.

You could ven approach it from the point of view of Kant's Categorical Imperative. I would much rather people take me literally all the time, so I'll do the same for you.

"It is permissible to treat others as if they had the same preferences as myself."

Sorry, no - I don't think anyone would will the universalization of that maxim. And certainly it violates the positive aspect of treating humanity as an end-in-itself.

And yet, somehow only my opinions are right.

What's that say about society?

it says little about society, and a great deal about your sense of self importance.

And yet, somehow only my opinions are right.

What's that say about society?

it says little about society, and a great deal about your sense of self importance.

It should.So if the contract is invalid, does this mean that the people should return to the place where they were before the contract was signed?
For instance, if we have a contract that says I will give you 10 bushels of corn for 10 bales of hay, and we do so, does the invalidation of the contract mean that we should undo this transaction?

They can't believe that if it isn't true. They're reasonable people, remember?So then there is only one way to correctly interpret a sentence?

The rational default position is one of complete uncertainty. Asserting "There isn't a God" is irrational without supporting evidence (which, as you point out, isn't available).So if the two people are debating, and one says "I am uncertain, but the evidence suggests to me that there is a God" and the other says "I am uncertain, but the evidence suggests to me that there isn't a God", where is their agreement?

If you're debating honestly, you won't assert that I hold positions you don't have reason to believe I hold. Simply because they're consistent with my stated positions is not sufficient; they must be logically required.What if you are imprecise with your wording and this causes me to misinterpret what you said?
Are you precise with your wording 100% of the time?

A rhetorical question is just one for which you don't have a satisfactory response.

So no.Good. Then questions contain the information that the asker wants an answer.

Those are equivalent.
No, they are not equivalent.


I can learn tone and body language for individuals, but each person is different, and I can't imagine how one might be able to learn that about great numbers of people, let along folks you've never before met.
Which is a great part of your problem. Others can do this. You can't imaging doing it, but if you want to be realistic, you have to acknowledge that it's something that can be done by human beings (in fact most humans will do it without any particular training or even intentional effort on their part).
If you're not interested in learning to do it, then that's certainly your choice, but that doesnt mean it's not a normal and useful part of normal human functioning.

Plus, if someone like me comes along who doesn't present the appropriate signals, you'll be wrong. I won't.
The point is you are clueless and wrong most of the time, when you could certainly choose to be much more aware without dropping the tentativity of interpretations you make.
The rate at which people get it right, far outstrips the rate at which they get it wrong. Frankly why would they care if they get it wrong with you, one person in everyone else? How are they hurt by believing that you are creepy? I think you'll find that it doesnt bother them.
You see it's efficient, and further the better you are at it, frankly the better off you are. You can stand outside, glaring through the window at the party inside, stamping your feet and wondering why everyone doesnt just 'get you' and your 'advanced rationality', but you're still the one looking in wondering why you're always 'out there' and blaming everyone else and their 'rationality deficiency' because they can see and do what you cant.

As I said before, this is very much the difference between sound and complete systems of logic. Your system might be complete, but its unsound. Mine is sound.
Actually you'll find that it's quite possible, and since it's efficient, rational to employ more than one logic system. Deductive logic is fine but you have to understand that if you rely only on what it can prove, nothing can be proved. No one behaves as though only what isnt in some way assumed or deduced from assumption is true, not even you.

Since sound can't be wrong, I like mine better.

Sound can't ever prove anything. You have to know things to prove them using logic. Deductive logic helps you deduce things, deduce them from other things, where come the things from when you deduce ultimately? Assumptions my friend. You either dont think you know anything at all, or you are subject to the risk of being wrong because some assumption is occuring.

That wasn't an assumption I made. Did you notice the word "maybe" at the start of that remark? I was presenting a possibly true scenario that was contrary to your assertions. If I can some up with a possibly true scenario contrary to your assertions, then you can't be confident that your assertions are correct.
It's called evidence. There is no way to be 100% sure of ANYTHING after all.

That said, in my experience most laws are written by career bureaucrats, not politicians.
Depends on the law, but in this case I am well aware that the law was haistly drafted in order to avoid being blacklisted by the US. Japan is funny in that regards.

A reasonable person uses reason, your derision notwithstanding.
You have some very strange views as to what constitutes reason then.

Reasonable people make no assumptions.
I feel sorry for you then, you obviously live on a planet where everyone has to make assumptions all the time.

Reasonable people make no assumptions.
That's an exaggeration. In a world centred around imperfect information (the very fact that the future is uncertain necessitates this), assumptions must be made. In accepting facts as knowledge, we must assume they are true. A rational agent will drop these assumptions as soon as the appropriate evidence is made available.

it says little about society, and a great deal about your sense of self importance.

Oh come now, who doesn't believe their opinions are correct? Why else would one hold them?

Oh come now, who doesn't believe their opinions are correct? Why else would one hold them?
Some people hold internally inconsistent sets of opinions.

While I appreciate the sentiment I can not appreciate the wording. You basically present two options. If I understand what you are arguing I can either agree with you, or be unreasonable.

That's an awfully big pedastal you've put yourself on there. An awfully arrogant one too. To assume you are always the reasonable one, and indeed to assume that there can never be disagreeing positions that are, at the same time, reasonable, is quite beyond most normal levels of ego.

And you will have to work on this misguided belief that there can be no such thing as competing, yet equally reasonable beliefs.
It's not misguided. It's demonstrably true. That's how sound reasoning works.

I appear to be the only one who's even trying to be reasonable.
You contend that reasonable people will always reach the same conclusion. I do not. The entire premise of law and the legal system is based on my presumption, having, through the pains of history, rejected yours.
The entire premise of law and the legal system is based on a patently absurd definition of reasonable.

It's not misguided. It's demonstrably true. That's how sound reasoning works.

Believing yourself to always have the correct answer is the antithesis of reasoned behavior.

The entire premise of law and the legal system is based on a patently absurd definition of reasonable.


No, it is based on a workable definition of reasonable. Your definition of reasonable while it would work great in a class on logic systems or computer programming is absolutly untenable in the real world.

Frankly speaking, you are not nearly as "reasonably superior" as you make yourself out to be. In fact most of your positions, this one above all, is remarkably unreasonable, and frankly, completely disconnected from working reality.

Which has been your problem all along. You want to impose a version of reality that simply does not exist.

And your insistance on doing so has rendered you the most unreasonable person to have spoken in this thread.

So if the contract is invalid, does this mean that the people should return to the place where they were before the contract was signed?
For instance, if we have a contract that says I will give you 10 bushels of corn for 10 bales of hay, and we do so, does the invalidation of the contract mean that we should undo this transaction?
I don't see why. We weren't bound by a contract (because the one we signed was meaningless), so any corn you gave me was a gift, and any hay I gave you was a gift.
So then there is only one way to correctly interpret a sentence?
Yes, and before you haul out an ambiguous sentence, let me add that both possible interpretations of that sentence will be wrong. The rational response to an ambiguous sentence is not to interpret it.
So if the two people are debating, and one says "I am uncertain, but the evidence suggests to me that there is a God" and the other says "I am uncertain, but the evidence suggests to me that there isn't a God", where is their agreement?
They're both uncertain. Neither has drawn a conclusion. Neither holds a relevant belief. Neither thinks the evidence compelling.
What if you are imprecise with your wording and this causes me to misinterpret what you said?
You're misusing "misinterpret". Misinterpretation isn't you failing to grasp my intended meaning - it's you failing to understand the words I used. Whether the words I use accurately represent my intended meaning in unknowable to you, so you shouldn't concern yourself with it.
Good. Then questions contain the information that the asker wants an answer.
We know he's asking for one. We don't know he wants one.

Believing yourself to always have the correct answer is the antithesis of reasoned behavior.
It's not that I always have the correct answer, but more that none of my answers are incorrect. There may well be answers I don't have, but those are unknowable.

The logical tools, when properly used, cannot make mistakes. If I misuse them, that's my fault, and I should suffer the consequences.
No, it is based on a workable definition of reasonable. Your definition of reasonable while it would work great in a class on logic systems or computer programming is absolutly untenable in the real world.
I fail to see why.

People don't presently have much incentive to behave reasonably. My legal system would create that incentive.
Frankly speaking, you are not nearly as "reasonably superior" as you make yourself out to be. In fact most of your positions, this one above all, is remarkably unreasonable, and frankly, completely disconnected from working reality.
They're reasonable only because I reached then through reason.

Yes, and before you haul out an ambiguous sentence, let me add that both possible interpretations of that sentence will be wrong. The rational response to an ambiguous sentence is not to interpret it.

I take back what I said before. THIS is the stupidst thing you've said in this thread. It is, quite possibly, one of the stupidist things ever said in human history.

Really, there simply is no helping you.

At some point, when everyone disagrees with you, you could continue to cling to your false sense of superiority, or admit, that maybe it's you.

At some point, when everyone disagrees with you, you could continue to cling to your false sense of superiority, or admit, that maybe it's you.
I don't think you can reasonably believe those to be the only two options.

Until my position is shown to be false, I will continue to hold it.

Until my position is shown to be false, I will continue to hold it.

I would think the entirety of legal history would be enough demonstration. Or do you hold yourself superior to that as well?

You can continue to hold whatever damned fool opinion you like. Doesn't make it right. Doesn't make it workable. Doesn't make you even close to a rational human being.

Llewdor - are you Autistic with Aspergers syndrome?

I'm not trying to be offensive here - my brother has it even, I am just curious as you seem to have no concept of how social interaction works for the vast majority of the people on earth - aparently needing logic rules to explain it to yourself and apparently without the ability to draw reasonable assumptions when lacking sufficient evidence to make a conclusive judgement before acting.

Llewdor - are you Autistic with Aspergers syndrome?

I'm not trying to be offensive here - my brother has it even, I am just curious as you seem to have no concept of how social interaction works for the vast majority of the people on earth - aparently needing logic rules to explain it to yourself and apparently without the ability to draw reasonable assumptions when lacking sufficient evidence to make a conclusive judgement before acting.

I can't remember if he affirmed he has Aspergers, but if he doesn't, he seems to aspire to it.

Llewdor - are you Autistic with Aspergers syndrome?

I'm not trying to be offensive here - my brother has it even, I am just curious as you seem to have no concept of how social interaction works for the vast majority of the people on earth - aparently needing logic rules to explain it to yourself and apparently without the ability to draw reasonable assumptions when lacking sufficient evidence to make a conclusive judgement before acting.

Seriously that's freaky. I asked the same thing about 10 pages back. The similarity is....striking, isn't it?

Seriously that's freaky. I asked the same thing about 10 pages back. The similarity is....striking, isn't it?

Yeah, I didn't want to try to find that post...didn't he discount it as not important, rather than answering?

Yeah, I didn't want to try to find that post...didn't he discount it as not important, rather than answering?

no he discounted my question as I apparently lack the qualifications to make such a diagnosis.

The irony, apparently, was lost on him.

I didn't bother to mention that I was a case manager for 2 years for youthful offenders, a few of which were diagnosed with Asberger's

Seriously that's freaky. I asked the same thing about 10 pages back. The similarity is....striking, isn't it?

I was skimming pretty heavily - you guys have amazing patience to last 400 posts with this guy :)

I would think the entirety of legal history would be enough demonstration. Or do you hold yourself superior to that as well?
Legal history is filled with examples that support my position. Every instance the the law changing or expanding due to judicial interpretation is such an instance, because someone got screwed over by a law he could not have reasonably anticipated.

no he discounted my question as I apparently lack the qualifications to make such a diagnosis.

The irony, apparently, was lost on him.

I didn't bother to mention that I was a case manager for 2 years for youthful offenders, a few of which were diagnosed with Asberger's
I was pointing out your own gross inconsistency. If I'm not competent to comment on the law, then you're not competent to comment on psychology.

That was shortly before I shot down your appeal to the majority in the atheism thread.

I can't remember if he affirmed he has Aspergers, but if he doesn't, he seems to aspire to it.
Asperger's is a pretty trendy diagnosis these days. How many people my age ever got diagnosed (I'm 32)?

I, frankly, have no idea whether I'm an Aspie. I dismissed the question because I deemed it irrelevant. An Aspie diagnosis would invite ad hominem attacks rather than a discussion of the substance of my position.

I'm not trying to be offensive here - my brother has it even, I am just curious as you seem to have no concept of how social interaction works for the vast majority of the people on earth
The vat majority of people on earth don't understand it, either. They just don't seem to care, content to stumble along blindly be wrong with no warning.
- aparently needing logic rules to explain it to yourself and apparently without the ability to draw reasonable assumptions when lacking sufficient evidence to make a conclusive judgement before acting.
Without suficient evidence, no conclusion is reasonable.

Why is this so hard to understand?

I was pointing out your own gross inconsistency. If I'm not competent to comment on the law, then you're not competent to comment on psychology.

That was shortly before I shot down your appeal to the majority in the atheism thread.

Oh, you do amuse.

I dealt with mentally disabled children for over 2 years.

Your turn.

Oh, you do amuse.

I dealt with mentally disabled children for over 2 years.

Your turn.
In a psychiatric capacity? Were you trusted to diagnose them? I think not.

Your experience being near them is at least as irrelevant as my degree in the Philosophy of Law.

You're misusing "misinterpret". Misinterpretation isn't you failing to grasp my intended meaning - it's you failing to understand the words I used.

Jello's use of misinterpret is correct. So is yours.


mis·in·ter·pret /ˌmɪsɪnˈtɜrprɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mis-in-tur-prit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), verb (used without object) to interpret, explain, or understand incorrectly.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1580–90; mis-1 + interpret]

—Related forms
mis·in·ter·pret·a·ble, adjective
mis·in·ter·pre·ta·tion, noun
mis·in·ter·pret·er, noun
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

For clarification, here's the defenition of interpret;

in·ter·pret /ɪnˈtɜrprɪt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[in-tur-prit] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used with object) 1. to give or provide the meaning of; explain; explicate; elucidate: to interpret the hidden meaning of a parable.
2. to construe or understand in a particular way: to interpret a reply as favorable.
3. to bring out the meaning of (a dramatic work, music, etc.) by performance or execution. 4. to perform or render (a song, role in a play, etc.) according to one's own understanding or sensitivity: The actor interpreted Lear as a weak, pitiful old man.
5. to translate orally.
6. Computers. a. to transform (a program written in a high-level language) with an interpreter into a sequence of machine actions, one statement at a time, executing each statement immediately before going on to transform the next one.
b. to read (the patterns of holes in punched cards) with an interpreter, printing the interpreted data on the same cards so that they can be read more conveniently by people. Compare interpreter (def. 3).

–verb (used without object) 7. to translate what is said in a foreign language. 8. to explain something; give an explanation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1350–1400; ME interpreten < L interpretārī, deriv. of interpret- (s. of interpres) explainer]

—Related forms
in·ter·pret·a·ble, adjective
in·ter·pret·a·bil·i·ty, in·ter·pret·a·ble·ness, noun
in·ter·pret·a·bly, adverb


—Synonyms 1. See explain.
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.

To misinterpret is most often used to describe someone not understanding the meaning of the message. However, in the case of translating languages, your definition of 'not understanding the words' is also correct.

Whether the words I use accurately represent my intended meaning in unknowable to you, so you shouldn't concern yourself with it.

The object of communication is to convey your message. Both the speaker and listener should be concerned with the accuracy of the message. But you're right; as the bearer of the message, it is more incumbent upon you to state clearly what you mean, than it is the listener to understand it.

EDIT: Source for definitions = Dictionary.Com, top definitions for each word.

The object of communication is to convey your message.
I have no control over that. All I can do is express my message - whether the listener comprehends it isn't something I can influence or predict.

In a psychiatric capacity? Were you trusted to diagnose them? I think not.

Did I ever say if I had a degree in psychology?

Did I ever say I didn't?

You "think not?" Are you making an assumption based on incomplete evidence? My god man I think you did. That seems highly...irrational.

Did I ever say if I had a degree in psychology?

Did I ever say I didn't?

You "think not?" Are you making an assumption based on incomplete evidence? My god man I think you did. That seems highly...irrational.
I wish I'd phrased that "I don't think so."

But I didn't. So yes, I expressed myself very badly there.

I have no control over that. All I can do is express my message - whether the listener comprehends it isn't something I can influence or predict.

That's fair.

Although you can influence it by trying to be clear and concise, which seems to be your objective.

I don't see why. We weren't bound by a contract (because the one we signed was meaningless), so any corn you gave me was a gift, and any hay I gave you was a gift.Simply because the contract can be interpreted in different ways doesn't mean we aren't bound by it.
For instance, if the person you're contracting with breaches the contract, in most cases you aren't legally allowed to also breach it.

Yes, and before you haul out an ambiguous sentence, let me add that both possible interpretations of that sentence will be wrong. The rational response to an ambiguous sentence is not to interpret it.But in many cases, an interpretation must be made.

They're both uncertain. Neither has drawn a conclusion. Neither holds a relevant belief. Neither thinks the evidence compelling.This doesn't mean that they can't discuss what the evidence suggests.

Whether the words I use accurately represent my intended meaning in unknowable to you, so you shouldn't concern yourself with it.Of course I should concern myself with it. I'm having a conversation with you.
If your words aren't representing your intended meaning 100% of the time, then by definition I must assume that they aren't doing so at least some of the time, and look for clues within the discussion to help me understand what your words represent.

We know he's asking for one. We don't know he wants one.If there's no such thing as a rhetorical question, then we do know this.

Nonetheless, as you just pointed out, questions contain the information that the asker is asking for an answer.

I have no control over that. All I can do is express my message - whether the listener comprehends it isn't something I can influence or predict.
Perhaps you specifically and personally cannot, but it certainly is possible to both predict and influence whether the listener will comprehend the message. The fact that we cannot predict with 100% certainty is more than balanced by the fact that it facilitates the capacity to influence comprehension. For most people the risk (of getting it wrong) introduced by the flaws, are more than balanced by the benefits generated.

It's a pretty simple case of you expecting the law to be changed because you lack and devalue certain skills that you openly disclaim any interest in acquiring. If you lack the skills necessary, then do what others do and call in a professional to explain it to you.

If there is uncertainty they'll tell you and it's up to you to choose whether you want to take that risk. While it's true there are areas of the law no one is certain of yet, it's also true that these areas are identifiable - you can know it's a risk before you take it if you go to the trouble of finding out.

Finding out the state of the law is your own responsibility, whether the answer is 'lawful', 'unlawful', or 'uncertain'. No one is screwed over by anyone but themselves if they dont bother to find out the possible consequences of their actions before hand, of if finding out 'illegality' was a potential consequence they went ahead and acted anyway. It still comes down to personal accountability in accessing and choosing the level of risk you want to expose yourself to.

The vat majority of people on earth don't understand it, either. They just don't seem to care, content to stumble along blindly be wrong with no warning.
Wrong buddy.


Without suficient evidence, no conclusion is reasonable.

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because reasonable conclusions can be drawn from incomplete evidence.

The conclusion may not be correct, but it was a reasonable one at the time it was made.

The Civil Law system is found most famously in France and Japan, and is based on legislated statute only. The judiciary has very limited power to disagree with statute.

* yes, I realise I've offered a very simplistic view of their differences

Indeed. You might have quoted the main source of the Civil Law system, that is, the Roman code of laws and judiciary system.

Anyway, Civil Law is for civilsed people. Common law is... for commoners. (meaning no disregard for commoners...;) )
Civil Law YAY!

You also have a ridiculous belief that the civil law system is free from judicial wrangling. Visit Quebec.

Or the infamous italian Cassazione court.

Simply because the contract can be interpreted in different ways doesn't mean we aren't bound by it.
It should. If it can be interpreted several ways, there is then no way to know which is correct.
For instance, if the person you're contracting with breaches the contract, in most cases you aren't legally allowed to also breach it.
If someone can breach the contract, the contract must have a true meaning. This is inconsistent with your previous example.
But in many cases, an interpretation must be made.
Never true.
This doesn't mean that they can't discuss what the evidence suggests.
Of course they can discuss it, but they hold the same opinion regarding it: none.
Of course I should concern myself with it. I'm having a conversation with you.
If your words aren't representing your intended meaning 100% of the time, then by definition I must assume that they aren't doing so at least some of the time, and look for clues within the discussion to help me understand what your words represent.
You have no evidence. Even thinking about it is a waste of effort.
If there's no such thing as a rhetorical question, then we do know this.

Nonetheless, as you just pointed out, questions contain the information that the asker is asking for an answer.
That's not the question containing information, that's the question being information. All you've demonstrated is that its a question. Gee, way to go. Things that exist in the world exist in the world. I applaud your tautology.

Wrong buddy.
They CAN'T understand it because there isn't enough information available to grant understanding. If there were, you could describe it to me.

Feel free.
Because reasonable conclusions can be drawn from incomplete evidence.

The conclusion may not be correct, but it was a reasonable one at the time it was made.
Explain that one to me. How can I use reason to draw a conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence? What system of logic are you using that leads to multiple contrary conclusions?

Whatever it is, its necessarily unsound.

That's fair.

Although you can influence it by trying to be clear and concise, which seems to be your objective.
This is basically my point. I don't see why took 400 posts for people to get it.

How can I use reason to draw a conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence?

Well - You can't. Which is at the core of this debate..

It should. If it can be interpreted several ways, there is then no way to know which is correct.

There are plenty of ways to know which one is MOST LIKELY to be correct however. Which, in a system of justice, is as best as you can get.

You seem to be under the impression that something is either 100% certain, or in no way certain at all.

This, frankly, is nonsense, and to believe it would shatter the foundations of justice because one can NEVER be certain of ANYTHING. I can not, with 100% certainty, know that you are not in fact a hyper intelligent rodent with opposable thumbs.

it is, I must say, POSSIBLE.

It's just not really probable.

This is basically my point. I don't see why took 400 posts for people to get it.

The only thing that stuck in my craw, is when you claimed that no-one communicates without being clear and concise. (Well, not those exact words, but that's the way it came across.)

For me, it came down to your definition of implication. I'm guessing you see it as 'understood communication between two people on an inexplicit level.' Which is why I could see why you would say implication doesn't exist, because nobody can be sure to understand inexplicitly.

However, I see implication as a product of someone implying; i.e. it only takes one person to make an implication. The detection of the implication is not a prerequisite of the implication. (Although it is the desired effect.) I haven't seen any definitions that claim implication is anything but an underlying theme in a message.

People don't 'try' to imply. They either imply, or they don't imply. Thus the statement, 'What are you implying?'. Ironically, the meaning of 'What are you trying to imply' is implied, and thus doesn't need much figuring out.

But I see what you're saying. (I think.)

There are plenty of ways to know which one is MOST LIKELY to be correct however. Which, in a system of justice, is as best as you can get.

You seem to be under the impression that something is either 100% certain, or in no way certain at all.

This, frankly, is nonsense, and to believe it would shatter the foundations of justice because one can NEVER be certain of ANYTHING. I can not, with 100% certainty, know that you are not in fact a hyper intelligent rodent with opposable thumbs.

it is, I must say, POSSIBLE.

It's just not really probable.
But you could create standards by which these questions are answered. Sports do this.

Formula One cars aren't permitted to have movable aerodynamic parts. But since there's no way for the FIA to know for sure if the aerodymanic parts move during the race, the test is whether specific parts deflect when subjected to specific forces by a specific device.

You could do the same thing to answer questions within the law, and then the results could be wholly predictable.

Well - You can't. Which is at the core of this debate..
Fine. How can you use reason to draw a conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence?

Notice I said "use reason".

For me, it came down to your definition of implication. I'm guessing you see it as 'understood communication between two people on an inexplicit level.' Which is why I could see why you would say implication doesn't exist, because nobody can be sure to understand inexplicitly.

However, I see implication as a product of someone implying; i.e. it only takes one person to make an implication. The detection of the implication is not a prerequisite of the implication. (Although it is the desired effect.) I haven't seen any definitions that claim implication is anything but an underlying theme in a message.

People don't 'try' to imply. They either imply, or they don't imply. Thus the statement, 'What are you implying?'. Ironically, the meaning of 'What are you trying to imply' is implied, and thus doesn't need much figuring out.
Not quite.

Implication would be the inclusion of inexplicit content in your remarks. But I don't think that inexplicit content exists, so you can't possibly include it. You might think you're including it, and you might try to include it, but its ultimately a futile effort.

But you could create standards by which these questions are answered. Sports do this.

Formula One cars aren't permitted to have movable aerodynamic parts. But since there's no way for the FIA to know for sure if the aerodymanic parts move during the race, the test is whether specific parts deflect when subjected to specific forces by a specific device.

You could do the same thing to answer questions within the law, and then the results could be wholly predictable.

how the hell do you suppose we could apply a scientific test to something that is man made and thus will always be imperfect?

Fine. How can you use reason to draw a conclusion in the absence of conclusive evidence?

Notice I said "use reason".
How the hell do you "use reason" without first having conclusions to serve as premises? You don't. You cannot begin to reason until you have a set of conclusions from which to reason.

Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the kind of reasoning where the conclusion is necessary implied by the already known relationships between the already known facts is not the only kind available to us.

This is really rather fortunate, else there'd be no premises from which to deduce and the deductive logic you claim such regard for wouldnt serve any purpose whatsoever. We have no use for deductive logic if we only conclude what there is proof (aka conclusive evidence) for, because we dont have a single premise until we've proven something and we cant prove a single thing if we dont have any premises.

It should. If it can be interpreted several ways, there is then no way to know which is correct.But you can frequently tell which is most likely to be correct.

If someone can breach the contract, the contract must have a true meaning. This is inconsistent with your previous example.The contract does have a true meaning, the meaning is simply unclear.

Never true.It's never true that an interpretation must be made from imprecise wording?

Of course they can discuss it, but they hold the same opinion regarding it: none.No, they would hold the opinion that the evidence suggests one thing or another.

You have no evidence. Even thinking about it is a waste of effort.I have no evidence that your words are precise, or I have no evidence that your words are not precise?

That's not the question containing information, that's the question being information. The asker wants an answer regarding the specific subject of the question. The question contains a subject, which is information.

Not quite.

Implication would be the inclusion of inexplicit content in your remarks. But I don't think that inexplicit content exists, so you can't possibly include it. You might think you're including it, and you might try to include it, but its ultimately a futile effort.

Okay. So why don't you think that inexplicit content exists? Is it because it is undetectable, and therefore defies existence until proven to exist?

how the hell do you suppose we could apply a scientific test to something that is man made and thus will always be imperfect?
Why does it matter that its imperfect? It will still produce a result.

How the hell do you "use reason" without first having conclusions to serve as premises? You don't. You cannot begin to reason until you have a set of conclusions from which to reason.
Apparently you've never heard of thought experiments.
Whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the kind of reasoning where the conclusion is necessary implied by the already known relationships between the already known facts is not the only kind available to us.
It is the only sound form available to us.
This is really rather fortunate, else there'd be no premises from which to deduce and the deductive logic you claim such regard for wouldnt serve any purpose whatsoever.
It would show whether certain facts require other facts. Whether those antecedent facts are correct might be unknown, but it does give us a demonstrably true conditional. It tells us where to look for truth, and fills in the gaps for us.

But you can frequently tell which is most likely to be correct.
Sometimes, sure. But is it ever necessary to act on that?
The contract does have a true meaning, the meaning is simply unclear.
How can it have meaning if it isn't clear? Where's the meaning if not in the text, and if the meaning is in the text why can''t we detect it?
It's never true that an interpretation must be made from imprecise wording?
Yes.
No, they would hold the opinion that the evidence suggests one thing or another.
Why would they hold that opinion without cause?
I have no evidence that your words are precise, or I have no evidence that your words are not precise?
Both. "No evidence" would cover both of those.

Apparently you've never heard of thought experiments.
Whether or not I've heard of thought experiments is irrelevent. The fact remains that you cannot even deduce that deduction is of any value without first you make assumptions.

It is the only sound form available to us.
It's also without value in the absence of any other form of reasoning.

It would show whether certain facts require other facts.
Not untill you've already established facts. You might for instance know that if A is true then B is true, and from there figure out A is not true because B is not true, but how do you know that if A is true B is also true, much less that B is not true (in order to deduce the falsity of A).

Whether those antecedent facts are correct might be unknown, but it does give us a demonstrably true conditional.
What makes you assume such a thing? From whence do you assume the soundness of logic? It's certainly something that no one has ever proven independent of unproven assumption.

It tells us where to look for truth, and fills in the gaps for us.
And never mind that you first have to assume that there is a truth, just one more thing you cant actually prove......:rolleyes:

I'm very sorry for not follow the precedent discussion. Actually, I've read until the 150th reply, and decided to write something about Civil Law, just because the are many misconceptions about it.
Civil Law is based on written law. But it's more difficult than that. The law, in fact, decide the conflict, and the judge is constrained to apply it to the particular case (as Montesquieu says, "the judge is the mouth that speaks the words of the law [as written law]). But it's everywhere a problem of legal interpretation. Alf Ross, a danish jurist, says that it's impossible to pretend that the interpretation of a word is quite clear. But there aremany concentric circles with a center, and the judge can't sustain an excentric interpretation. Nevertheless, we can say that a law is clear, because its content it's not in the dispute. I give you an example: the Chilean Commercial Code, § 2, disposes that "In the cases that weren't especially resolved in this Code, it will be applied the Civil Code rules". But, in Iberoamerican and European Civil Law, it doesn't mean that the judge is a big computer. Actually, the judge can go to the spirit of the law to resolve a particular case, but it doesn't generate a precedent. In fact, the Chilean Civil Code, § 19, says "When the law sense in clear, it can't be passed it's literal saying, under the excuse of consulting its spirit". The judge interpretation is considerated as authentic interpretation, using the Hans Kelsen's words, opposed to the doctrinal interpretation. The doctrinal interpretation is relevant in order to resolve the problems of interpretation, and many of them are taken as authentic interpretation when a judge decides like the opinion of a jurist.
The custom is not a source, even Ross, making a typology of the different legal systems, says that custom is merely accepted as a source in many legal orders as complement in Commercial Law.
I pass to a problem of Common Law. In Common Law we don't have a clear concept of public law. It's very difficult to me to explain that, but, in Civil Law, there are a big difference, because the relations between subjects are different. In Public Law, the subjects have relations of subordination. Public Law are related to Criminal Law, Administrative Law (the Common Law doesn't know what the hell is Administrative Law), Tax Law, Economic Law, Process Law, Constitutional Law, and a side of International Law. The problem in the examples of the legal system in Japan are related with that. In Criminal Law there is a principle that you can't punish if there is not a law that forbids that behaviour: that's why you can find a solution for not be punished. The Criminal Codes often are filled with complementary laws to avoid that; but, as a principle (a Dworkin say: Law is not only written law, it's principles too), it is recognized as a Human Right that you can't be punished if the behaviour is not forbidden before (in the French Déclarations des droits de l'homme et du citoyen we have: "Tout ce qui n'est pas défendu par la loi ne peut être empêchê " - All that is not forbidden by the law can't be forbid-). In Private Law, the things are very simmilar, there are many differences, but the doctrinal development is more continental (I mean, French and German).
One of the advantages of Civil Law is that prevents temerary litigation. I've heard about cases, like ex-smokers against cigarette companies, or the old woman that dried his cat in the microwave, and the cat exploded. That would not happened in Civil Law courts: in civil liability, du moins Civil Law is better than Common Law.
For last: justice is not a problem in Law since the XIX century. If you have read Bentham, Kelsen, HLA Hart, Dworkin, Ross, you will understand. Modern Law means that justice is other problem.

wow i wish this thread merited this kind of analysis. it would have been so much more interesting than the discussion of how mental quirks prevent people from understanding the basis of the law.

i hope you stick around.
Likewise. Although I am not a fan of civil law systems - hopefully Neesika will come to the defence of the common law. :p

I'm very sorry for not follow the precedent discussion. Actually, I've read until the 150th reply, and decided to write something about Civil Law, just because the are many misconceptions about it.

wow i wish this thread merited this kind of analysis. it would have been so much more interesting than the discussion of how mental quirks prevent people from understanding the basis of the law.

i hope you stick around.

Sometimes, sure. But is it ever necessary to act on that?In most cases, yes.

How can it have meaning if it isn't clear? Where's the meaning if not in the text, and if the meaning is in the text why can''t we detect it?Simply because the average person cannot detect the meaning doesn't mean that it's impossible to detect. The act of a trial for breach of contract is to attempt to detect the meaning. Usually this trial succeeds in doing so.

Yes.You mentioned that when people request data, you give them exactly the data that they requested, and not the data that they necessarily want. How does that work out for you?

Why would they hold that opinion without cause?Because they believe that they have cause - they view the majority of the evidence as being on their side.

Both. "No evidence" would cover both of those.So then it's perfectly fine for me to interpret anything you say in any way that I like, since I have no evidence that you mean anything else?

I forgot something: Sources of law.
The Sources of law are where the law come, as the name 'source' suggests.
In the Alf Ross' typology, we have five sources: the law (as written law, and it could be a law, as well as rules passed by the government only), the precedent, the costum and the 'tradition of culture'. In fact, in civil Law, the law is principal, the costum only when the law authorizes its use, and the 'tradition of culture', as principles, and when the law is incomplete. The precedent is prohibited by the law, as the relative effect of the judicial decision.

In contract interpretation there are two ways to clear a disputed meaning of the text. I say disputed meaning because the word say something (as referencial function of the word, see Jakobson for further info), and because the word has two interpretations, one for each contender (for sure, it could be three or more but for the example, is not important). If there is a problem with the contract, there are, there must be two contenders, because there is no problem with the contract if not, even, the contenders must be the people who signed the contract. Even if a person reads the contract and says 'that means something', there won't be any problem until that interpretation collide with other.
Well, I retake the way. For one side, we can read the contract with an objective approach. The word means that commonly means. This solution is adopted in many countries, like Germany (the first one, with the BGB in 1900). For the other side, we read the contract in order to understand what the parts intended to do at the writing. This means an subjective approach. This system is the Pothier system (XVIIIth Century!), and is adopted in France, and other Iberoamerican countries (with a deviation, of course, the judge is not a psycologist). So, there are rules to interpretate a contract.

Simply because the average person cannot detect the meaning doesn't mean that it's impossible to detect. The act of a trial for breach of contract is to attempt to detect the meaning. Usually this trial succeeds in doing so.

Because they believe that they have cause - they view the majority of the evidence as being on their side.
In both of these responses, you're completely abandoning the premise that we're dealing with reasonable people. When did average people enter into it? If the system works for reasonable people, then it will encourage people to be reasonale. Whether the average (unreasonable) person understands it is immaterial.
You mentioned that when people request data, you give them exactly the data that they requested, and not the data that they necessarily want. How does that work out for you?
Pretty well. It's a great way to cover my ass, because the only demonstrable errors take place on their side of the exchange.
So then it's perfectly fine for me to interpret anything you say in any way that I like, since I have no evidence that you mean anything else?
You only have cause to interpret me literally. You have no evidence that I mean anything other than what I said, but you do have evidence that I meant exactly what I said (because I said it).

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and treat them like they have a brain in their head, so I respond is if they used the words correctly.

In legal interpretations (it mean both legal interpretation and contract interpretation) you have to interpretate with an objective. Legal interpretation don't work as an abstract thing, as well as Law doesn't work in abstract. Because of that we have Law students: they are trying to understand how the law is applied to a particular case; not only in Civil Law, also in Common Law you have to do that.
So, as I understand from the discussion, there are two positions about that. But the word is meaningless. When I say something, you have to understand it with the things I've said before and later, and try to understand my mind. I can interpretate a word as I want, actually, with certain limits.
The last thing, is that the word have meaning only in a determinated culture. It works as 'gagavai', like the example from W. V. Quine. Each one understands a different thing.

In both of these responses, you're completely abandoning the premise that we're dealing with reasonable people. When did average people enter into it? If the system works for reasonable people, then it will encourage people to be reasonale. Whether the average (unreasonable) person understands it is immaterial.Fine, then let me rephrase. Simply because a random reasonable person might not be able to understand the terms of the contract does not mean that there aren't any. It could take specialized training in legal jargon for these reasonable people to understand the terms.

Pretty well. It's a great way to cover my ass, because the only demonstrable errors take place on their side of the exchange.True. Unless, of course, something bad were to happen to the company as a result of your giving them the information they requested and not the information they wanted.

You only have cause to interpret me literally. You have no evidence that I mean anything other than what I said, but you do have evidence that I meant exactly what I said (because I said it).

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and treat them like they have a brain in their head, so I respond is if they used the words correctly.So then in 100% of the cases when dealing with law, the law should be treated as saying literally what it says, with no variation in it at all?

So then in 100% of the cases when dealing with law, the law should be treated as saying literally what it says, with no variation in it at all?
Yes. That's what I've been saying all along.

If a thread has more than 20 pages, dost thy post spam.

Do you remember the ol' rules anymore???!?!?!?!?!?!?1?1?1?1?!?!/1/11/!/11/2/21/!/!?!?!@/@/!2/@/3552#e/#E%/23/1112!

Yes. That's what I've been saying all along.You think this would be more fair?
Very well, then.
Since you've said this, and you think most of the laws could be eliminated, why not rewrite the law for murder? Presumably, you would also want to have a law dictating the punishment for murder, so write that law, too.
(I'm looking for specific wording from you here, in case it's unclear.)

You think this would be more fair?
Of course. That way everyone could know exactly what the law was that governed their behaviour in advance of their actions.
Very well, then.
Since you've said this, and you think most of the laws could be eliminated, why not rewrite the law for murder? Presumably, you would also want to have a law dictating the punishment for murder, so write that law, too.
(I'm looking for specific wording from you here, in case it's unclear.)
Now this is something that probably does require significant legal training (some things do - Arthais would be so happy). And, the murder laws are something with which I'm generally pretty happy. They tend to be applied well (I referred earlier to a specific example in Robert Latimer, that I considered at the time to be a sort of litmus test for the system - the system passed).

The only real change I'd suggest to murder laws is I'd set the penalty for attempted murder to be equal to that of murder, since I don't want to reward failure, and the point of the penalty is to influence behaviour choices, and no one chooses to fail.

Plus, I'd need access to a ton of deterence and incarceration cost data to determine which penalties produced the outcomes I wanted.

Of course. That way everyone could know exactly what the law was that governed their behaviour in advance of their actions.

Now this is something that probably does require significant legal training If it probably takes significant legal training to write the murder laws, mightn't it take significant legal training to fully understand them, as well?

The only real change I'd suggest to murder laws is I'd set the penalty for attempted murder to be equal to that of murder, since I don't want to reward failure, and the point of the penalty is to influence behaviour choices, and no one chooses to fail.This isn't true. It's entirely possible to plan out a murder, but intentionally sabotage yourself so that you don't actually carry the murder out.

Plus, I'd need access to a ton of deterence and incarceration cost data to determine which penalties produced the outcomes I wanted.What outcomes do you want?

The only real change I'd suggest to murder laws is I'd set the penalty for attempted murder to be equal to that of murder, since I don't want to reward failure, and the point of the penalty is to influence behaviour choices, and no one chooses to fail.
This is about the only thing you have said so far in tihs thread I agree with, albeit for different reasons. I do not think a criminal should be rewarded for the strength of their victim - in all crimes.


Plus, I'd need access to a ton of deterence and incarceration cost data to determine which penalties produced the outcomes I wanted.

Incarceration does not really act as that much of a deterrent - criminals operate more on the belief they won't get caught. It is also very very very expensie to keep a criminal in jail. I think IIRC that it costs much more to house a single criminal for a year that an average family earns in a year.

If it probably takes significant legal training to write the murder laws, mightn't it take significant legal training to fully understand them, as well?
I don't see why that's necessarily true, at all. That's like saying only people who can paint are able to appreciate paintings.
This isn't true. It's entirely possible to plan out a murder, but intentionally sabotage yourself so that you don't actually carry the murder out.
Then you didn't actually attempt the murder, did you? I wouldn't even call this one a crime.
What outcomes do you want?
I want to approach the optimal level of crime.

Incarceration does not really act as that much of a deterrent
If that's true (and I'd need data to support it), then incarceration would cease to be my chosen penalty.
criminals operate more on the belief they won't get caught.
Well there's your problem. You can't study criminals to determine what deters them, because as a group they've already been filtered. Those for whom incarceration is a deterrent don't commit crimes under the current system. Incarceration certainly deters me.
It is also very very very expensie to keep a criminal in jail. I think IIRC that it costs much more to house a single criminal for a year that an average family earns in a year.
That needn't be true. There have been some low-cost prison experiments (the Arizona tent prison being the classic example).

Furthermore, if prison were less safe and less pleasant it should be an even greater deterrent.

Then you didn't actually attempt the murder, did you? I wouldn't even call this one a crime.


Seriously, would you want to live in a country where someone could sit down and form a carefully worked out plan to kill you, and they wouldn't be breaking the law?
In the UK, that would be 'conspiracy to murder', which is pretty serious. However, saying that you decided of your own free will not to carry the plan out would probably get you a reduced sentence.

Seriously, would you want to live in a country where someone could sit down and form a carefully worked out plan to kill you, and they wouldn't be breaking the law?
Yes. Nothing about his plan causes me or anyone else harm.

Maybe he does it to relax - to let off some steam. I'm not going to judge this guy's hobbies just because I think they're weird.
In the UK, that would be 'conspiracy to murder', which is pretty serious. However, saying that you decided of your own free will not to carry the plan out would probably get you a reduced sentence.
I was going to use my standard "thought crime" response, but this doesn't even reach the level of a thought crime. The court doesn't even know if I wanted to kill the victim at any step along the way, only that I was mapping out a detailed plan to do so.

I might really enjoy the planning, even though I'm no threat to anyone. How can a just system penalise me for that?

I don't see why that's necessarily true, at all. That's like saying only people who can paint are able to appreciate paintings.I disagree, it would be like saying only people who can paint know how to paint.

Then you didn't actually attempt the murder, did you? I wouldn't even call this one a crime.I suppose it depends on whether or not pulling the trigger of a loaded gun when its aimed at somebody counts as murder or not.

I want to approach the optimal level of crime.Wouldn't the optimal level be the lowest level? Or are you going for some social darwinist thing here?

Wouldn't the optimal level be the lowest level? Or are you going for some social darwinist thing here?
The optimal level is the level that produces the best outcomes. At some point reducing crime further costs more than it's worth, so lowering the crime rate below that is sub-optimal.

The optimal level is the level that produces the best outcomes. At some point reducing crime further costs more than it's worth, so lowering the crime rate below that is sub-optimal.How do you objectively determine what lowering crime is worth?

How do you objectively determine what lowering crime is worth?
Property crimes have an obvious cost, so those are easy. Violent crimes also produce obvious costs.

But, at some point, you'll be weighing things like security against liberty and life against death. I'm not confident I know how to determine the objective value of those things. Perhaps free market law enforcement would help there.

I am fairly confident, however, that the optimal level of crime is greater than zero.

Property crimes have an obvious cost, so those are easy. Violent crimes also produce obvious costs.

But, at some point, you'll be weighing things like security against liberty and life against death. I'm not confident I know how to determine the objective value of those things. Perhaps free market law enforcement would help there.

I am fairly confident, however, that the optimal level of crime is greater than zero.I'm sorry, this doesn't make sense to me. I mean, you could say that invasive methods of crime prevention outweigh the prevention of crime sure, but this wouldn't mean that the crimes shouldn't be prevented.

I was going to use my standard "thought crime" response, but this doesn't even reach the level of a thought crime. The court doesn't even know if I wanted to kill the victim at any step along the way, only that I was mapping out a detailed plan to do so.

I might really enjoy the planning, even though I'm no threat to anyone. How can a just system penalise me for that?

There's this thing called a jury, perhaps you've heard of it? It's the means by which the court decides whether you wanted to kill or not.

Under the system you are suggesting, at what point does planning to commit murder become a crime in its own right? When someone is walking towards you with a loaded gun, is it okay for the police to stop him? Maybe you'd like them to do something when they see him taking aim at you?
I ask because you seem to be saying that you'd prefer them to wait until he's actually opened fire.

Hey, he might just happen to enjoy going around with a gun, aiming at people. Can't go around arresting people for 'thought crimes', can we? That would be a world gone crazy.

Property crimes have an obvious cost, so those are easy.

I thought value was subjective?