Lawmakers create Law X. Law X corresponds to meaning X. Law X => Meaning X. Meaning X is the specific original intended meaning of Law X as defined by the law maker. Therefore, meaning X is the correct meaning for Law X. Judge interprets Law X for Case A. There are 2 possible interpretations the judge may arrive at: 1. ‘Meaning X’ Or 2. ‘Not Meaning X’ If the judge comes up with an interpretation corresponding to #2, the judge has misinterpreted. [Speaker has a message that is concrete and specific. Speaker uses language to create a statement that expresses the message. Listener hears the statement, and interprets it. The interpretation of the statement is correct if it aligns with the speaker’s intended message.] A judge cannot create laws. Only set precedents which is not completely the same thing. Something is either legal, illegal, or undefined. Judges are not politicians. They do not represent any groups of people. A judges decision is solely based on what he believes is the correct interpretation. The objective of the judge is to apply the law as intended by the lawmaker. If the judge has interpreted the law in a manner inconsistent with the intended definition of the lawmaker, the judge has failed. The judge’s objective is not to redefine the law to suit a case. Wrong. This is completely absurd. THE DEFINITION DOES NOT IN ANY WAY DEPEND ON THE LISTENER. The meaning behind any statement is defined as the indented message of the creator of the statement. Not the interpretation of the listener.
Go cry elsewhere. You have zero idea what you are talking about and have no regard for proper logic. EVERYTHING you are about is adhom. Every post you make reeks of nothing but adhom all over it. This whole rant is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT TO ANYTHING. The only reason you made this joke of a post is because adhom is the only thing you know anything about. You try to prove you point by throwing adhom tantrums. Adhom sentance after adhom sentance is how worms operate. They do not operate on logic. If a worm cannot prove their point logically they either: A. Attack the person's credentials. B. Boost up their own credentials. Either way, the adhom worm has proven nothing. Stay focuesed on your worthless meandering because it only makes you look dumber and dumber and dumber and dumber. As I stated in my previous post in more ways than one: COME BACK WHEN YOU LEARN HOW TO USE POINTS RELATED TO THE DISCUSSION INDEPENDENT OF THE PEOPLE HAVING THE DISCUSSION. WORM!
On the contrary, it is not so absurd. You may have every intention of capturing your meaning in a statement, but there is no guarantee that the person reading it will think it means the same as you initially intended. All reading or listening is interpretation. There is no true and perfect communication system. If there were, most of the arguments on sciforums would not take place.
There are 2 parties in communication. Messanger and listener. It doesn't matter how many different definitions of words there are. The correct definition is equal to the intended definition of the messanger. If the the listener defined the message as something different from the messanger's intended definition, the listener misinterpreted the message. The message is defined by the none other than the creator of the message which is the messanger. I NEVER once said that there is a guarantee that the listener will intepret the message to correctly. To say that most arguments would not take place if the definitions were correct is debatable. A proper argument can only take place if each party fully understands the eachother's message. If you give me an assertion, and I interpret the assertion incorrectly, and argue against an incorrect interpretation of your assertion, I am not actually arguing your assertion. The argument is about 2 different things. That is why it is important for each party to understand eachother's intended position.
I agree with most of what you just said, but answer this, is it possible to craft a complex message that cannot be misinterpreted? Why are there different definitions in different dictionaries? While they may all attempt to define a word in a similar way, few are exactly the same. Because we use words to define law, the laws need interpretation. They need a human to determine the original meaning, since often the person who drafted the words that comprise a law often aren't around to explain the original meaning above the dictionary definitions of the words. Even if one understands the dictionary definition of all the words, the meaning of them all put together is often elusive. This goes beyond law into philosophical territory. As Lao Tzu said, The way that can be spoken is not the way.
In fact there is a story about Lao Tzu or Confucious, where a government official tacked up the laws of the land in the town center. Lao Tzu was greatly against this, since as soon as you write the law down, people will be able to subvert it.
It is impossible to craft the most simplest message that cannot be misinrerpreted. Much less a complicated one. Any message can be misinterpreted.
Well, there ya go. As long as laws are made of words, we will need people to determine the orginal intention of the law.
Point? Of course the dictionary has many differnt definitions. Nobody is saying that the meanings are not elusive. What exactly are you getting at? You are simply restating everything I said as if it was an argument. You have argued my assertion by elaborating on irrelevant aspects. It doesn't matter if all the people on the planet can easily misinterpret something. In order for something to be misinterpreted, there has to be a correct interpretation to begin with. That correct interpretation is the original intention of the creator. Plain and simple.
To hell with the law. Them govvie boys ain't gonna fuckin' control me! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
yes they are, and if you dont, theyll come around and arrest you. and you wont do jack Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I'll answer your statements in order: No, no, no, and a gun. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
OK, We need people to interpret laws, but what happens when the application of that original intention to a modern situation is unclear? In this case, judges do have the responsibility to add meaning to the original laws in the context of modern society, such as the application of privacy rights to the abortion issue.
