Off topic!!.. But kind of relevant to my last post, about shooting someone that enters your home and how the legal system may work against you, again nonsence but that is the legal language of the day!!. We hear about "the truth" very day, but most people do not speak the truth, they speak their "beliefs" here are the facts... By Robert A. Waters - 06.23.00 You're sound asleep when you hear a thump outside your bedroom door. Half-awake, and nearly paralyzed with fear, you hear muffled whispers. At least two people have broken into your house and are moving your way. With your heart pumping, you reach down beside your bed and pick up your shotgun. You rack a shell into the chamber, then inch toward the door and open it. In the darkness, you make out two shadows. One holds something that looks like a crowbar. When the intruder brandishes it as if to strike, you raise the shotgun and fire. The blast knocks both thugs to the floor. One writhes and screams while the second man crawls to the front door and lurches outside. As you pick up the telephone to call police, you know you're in trouble. In your country, most guns were outlawed years before, and the few That are privately owned are so stringently regulated as to make them useless. Yours was never registered. Police arrive and inform you that the second burglar has died. They arrest you for First Degree Murder and Illegal Possession of a Firearm. When you talk to your attorney, he tells you not to worry: authorities will probably plea the case down to manslaughter. "What kind of sentence will I get?" you ask. "Only ten-to-twelve years," he replies, as if that's nothing. "Behave yourself, and you'll be out in seven." The next day, the shooting is the lead story in the local newspaper. Somehow, you're portrayed as an eccentric vigilante while the two men you shot are represented as choirboys. Their friends and relatives can't find an unkind word to say about them. Buried deep down in the article, authorities acknowledge that both "victims" have been arrested numerous times. But the next day's headline says it all: "Lovable Rogue Son Didn't Deserve to Die." The thieves have been transformed from career criminals into Robin Hood-type pranksters. As the days wear on, the story takes wings. The national media picks it up, then the international media. The surviving burglar has become a folk hero. Your attorney says the thief is preparing to sue you, and he'll probably win. The media publishes reports that your home has been burglarized several times in the past and that you've been critical of local police for their lack of effort in apprehending the suspects. After the last break-in, you told your neighbor that you would be prepared next time. The District Attorney uses this to allege that you were lying in wait for the burglars. A few months later, you go to trial. The charges haven't been reduced, as your lawyer had so confidently predicted. When you take the stand, your anger at the injustice of it all works against you. Prosecutors paint a picture of you as a mean, vengeful man. It doesn't take long for the jury to convict you of all charges. The judge sentences you to life in prison. This case really happened. On August 22, 1999, Tony Martin of Emneth, Norfolk, England, killed one burglar and wounded a second. In April, 2000, he was convicted and is now serving a life term. How did it become a crime to defend one's own life in the once great British Empire? It started with the Pistols Act of 1903. This seemingly reasonable law forbade selling pistols to minors or felons and established that handgun sales were to be made only to those who had a license. The Firearms Act of 1920 expanded licensing to include not only handguns but all firearms except shotguns. Later laws passed in 1953 and 1967 outlawed the carrying of any weapon by private citizens and mandated the registration of all shotguns. Momentum for total handgun confiscation began in earnest after the Hungerford mass shooting in 1987. Michael Ryan, a mentally disturbed Man with a Kalashnikov rifle, walked down the streets shooting everyone he saw. When the smoke cleared, 17 people were dead. The British public, already de-sensitized by eighty years of "gun control", demanded even tougher restrictions. (The seizure of all privately owned handguns was the objective even though Ryan used a rifle.) Nine years later, at Dunblane, Scotland, Thomas Hamilton used a semi-automatic weapon to murder 16 children and a teacher at a public school. For many years, the media had portrayed all gun owners as mentally unstable, or worse, criminals. Now the press had a real kook with which to beat up law-abiding gun owners. Day after day, week after week, the media gave up all pretense of objectivity and demanded a total ban on all handguns. The Dunblane Inquiry, a few months later, sealed the fate of the few sidearm still owned by private citizens. During the years in which the British government incrementally took Away most gun rights, the notion that a citizen had the right to armed self-defense came to be seen as vigilantism. Authorities refused to grant gun licenses to people who were threatened, claiming that self-defense was no longer considered a reason to own a gun. Citizens who shot burglars or robbers or rapists were charged while the real criminals were released. Indeed, after the Martin shooting, a police spokesman was quoted as saying, "We cannot have people take the law into their own hands." All of Martin's neighbors had been robbed numerous times, and several elderly people were severely injured in beatings by young thugs who had no fear of the consequences. Martin himself, a collector of antiques, had seen most of his collection trashed or stolen by burglars. When the Dunblane Inquiry ended, citizens who owned handguns were given three months to turn them over to local authorities. Being good British subjects, most people obeyed the law. The few who didn't were visited by police and threatened with ten-year prison sentences if they didn't comply. Police later bragged that they'd taken nearly 200,000 handguns from private citizens. How did the authorities know who had handguns? The guns had been registered and licensed. Kinda like cars. Sound familiar? WAKE UP AMERICA, THIS IS WHY OUR FOUNDING FATHERS PUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT IN OUR CONSTITUTION. "..it does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds.." --Samuel Adams If you think this is important, please forward to everyone you know. Godless.
Godless being da first party, me bing da second party, and every one else being da third party do here by sue the English Government for da breech of tort to wit the duty of care in retrospect for all da confusion dat da English language of their creation has caused and inflicted upon the innocent uses of said language. To wit Godless being da first party, me being da second party and every one else being da third party. Where as and therefore to wit damages for trauma and self inflicted harm are clamed from da realm to da value of $10,000 per person (*) born and deceased since the year 1040AD where by jurisdiction passes to da Normans, dat being da French and others. This claim is without prejudice to any future claims infinitum. What say ye? * person being as described as being in article 2090 of the WE penisl code year 895AD 22:2:900834 Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Godless Is that relevant to anything? Are you for or against gun ownership? Your post doesn't make that clear. We don't like guns much in England and the Tony Martin case doesn't change anything. Are you suggesting it would be better if we were all armed to the teeth, and had as many shootings per day as you do, all in the name of freedom, or some amendement or other? Bollocks to that.
/The common context, wes, is the language. Language is not context in the sense that you say. I know I'm being an annoying stickler here, but it seems important to me. Context only exists in one's mind. You have a language, I have language. They are similar but obviously not the same. Maybe you're meaning "similar context"? Maybe I'm insane? /It is the shared context of the English language that allows you and I to communicate. Sort of and I do see your point, but its context is incorrect as I see it due to my annoying attachment to subjectivity. We both learned the same language for sure and we can communicate to an extent, but english is a tool we smash and grind into shapes that allow us to communicate. It is a shared tool that has no context until we invoke something from it, each context applied or established directly by our minds. Just because you provide a context, that doesn't mean I get it and vice versa. Even when I DO get it I only get it in MY context.. yours is lost to my own and vice-versa no? I'm not trying to be annoying I simply have a hard time getting past that. Blue summarized it well earlier no, with the contexts and the symbols and the bizness? /"Common context" was used in the sense of the people attempting to communicate-- a context shared amongst them. Which I think is somewhat of a myth. A shared context is simply something we project there, but how can it really exist other than as a projection?
Wes, We have been communicating thus far. Your thoughts have been expressed through a medium that we share-- the english language. It is through this medium that you and I can exchnage thoughts. Sure, had I not known or seen a computer, I wouldnt understand the meaning behind the symbol "computer". The implication of the fundamental context-- our somewhat similar cultural experiences, should be assumed. The langauge is the common context. Knowing you and your affinity for the philosphy of the subjective-- which I think is rather impractical and will hinder this discussion, I have assumed there is an objective reality. For instance, you see red as I see red. Therefore, you can project to me the notion behind the symbol "red" because I can interpret the symbol and acquire a meaning that at least approximates yours. Why? To learn the english language, you learn certain standards. For istance what red is. The assumption being that there is an objective reality-- red.
Canute My position on gun ownership is I totally support the second amendment of this country, the right to bear arms. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. I don't think guns is the problem here in America, that is just a matter of perspective. If guns were ilegal here, only criminals would own guns. Much as it is now in England. The problem here in America is attitude, we need here an attitude adjustment, from the president "gun-jo" on waring against nations that can't defend themselves, to the typical dumb ass redneck who owns one, and just shoots his friend for looking at his girlfriends ass. I personally now don't own a gun, though I have owned guns before, I do believe the public should not have access to wmd's, so the "right to bear arms" does not mean any one here can own a nuke, or a rocket launcher. We have here in America a unique breed of people, some own guns for sports, others are just collectors of antique guns, some arm themselves to the teeth, but never use them "paranoid militia men" the militia in this country is to keep our government on their toes, however they don't possess the wmd's and federal government wins any brawl they have had. Though America does harbor terrorist of their own, people who are opposed to government policies. This hardly gets covered in the media. But not long ago here in the visinity of Houston texas a white militia man got cought with wmd's he was not arab, he was a white male, man who had mailed some samples of chemicals to a northern militia man, three got busted and the way they got cought is that the delivery was mistakenly misaddressed to someone else, and these people opened the package by mistake. However you didn't see that on CNN.. Godless.
/We have been communicating thus far. Your thoughts have been expressed through a medium that we share-- the english language. It is through this medium that you and I can exchnage thoughts. Mostly at least. We can try and have some degree of success. I suppose it depends on the standard of measurement of successful communication. I have a propensity to see it as "the way it is represented in the individual's mind" and carry that through all instances of when I think about communication. By that measure, there is significant variance in your version of red and mine. By the measure "can you identify the same color that I can in a line-up" then it is can be 100% effective. /Sure, had I not known or seen a computer, I wouldnt understand the meaning behind the symbol "computer". sure. /The implication of the fundamental context-- our somewhat similar cultural experiences, should be assumed. I'm down with similar. /The langauge is the common context. I still have a problem with the term context like that. It seems like a misnomer. I'll drop it though for now, as not to hinder your ideas. I can't promise I won't bring it back up, but I won't be offended if ignored. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm a lil thick-skulled once I get something crammed into my brain it doesn't want to leave. I have probably bastardized the word context so badly that I have a hard time seeing it in a normal usage. /Knowing you and your affinity for the philosphy of the subjective-- which I think is rather impractical and will hinder this discussion, I have assumed there is an objective reality. Pardon, I didn't mean that there isn't an objective reality. I've long since assumed it. As you've noted, I tend to get hung up at the subjective take thereof.
Ok. monsieur wes, I have 3 hours to burn, so I will indulge. What exactly is your "problem" with my usage of context with reagrsd to language? An approximation of the ideal that is communicable. If we agree that an objective "red" exists, then shades approaching "red" can at least be considered red-- for communication purposes. This is too simplistic, but I will await a repsonse b4 proceeding. Realize that the longer you spend, the more drunk + udsgjkf I get, and my mental capability wanes.
/Ok. monsieur wes, I have 3 hours to burn, so I will indulge. What exactly is your "problem" with my usage of context with reagrsd to language? Like I mentioned, probably that I have bastardized the word with putting it into my own context, but I explained above why I don't see "context" as correct there: "We both learned the same language for sure and we can communicate to an extent, but english is a tool we smash and grind into shapes that allow us to communicate. It is a shared tool that has no context until we invoke something from it, each context applied or established directly by our minds. Just because you provide a context, that doesn't mean I get it and vice versa. Even when I DO get it I only get it in MY context.. yours is lost to my own and vice-versa no?" /An approximation of the ideal that is communicable. If we agree that an objective "red" exists, then shades approaching "red" can at least be considered red-- for communication purposes. This is too simplistic, but I will await a repsonse b4 proceeding. Realize that the longer you spend, the more drunk + udsgjkf I get, and my mental capability wanes. LOL. that and see the thing about measurement I referred to in my last post. what do you think?
Ack. context. because to me context doesn't exist outside a mind, neither does language. i've contemplated it long and hard and I see it all weird. i see context as exclusively POV dependent, as it can only be supplied by a POV, as that is the only place it can reside. You can put a record of it into the objective world and communicate it via symbols that way, but the only place it has any actual meaning or value is when activated in a mind. so "shared context" seems wrong to me. maybe i'm a wee slow. I should think of it as a set, shared amongst all people in their minds. with a x number of variants on any particular word. right, okay. now it doesn't bother me. thank me for clearing that up for me. wait, throw an s on it and it makes more sense to me. "shared contexts" yes I know, pardon, it's a pain in my ass too but this is the shit I think about. i refuse to stop thinking. *insult random joke here*
Ja. Yo have bastardized the word "context"-- which is essentially the frame by which we delineate anything. In any case, realize that your interpretation of what "red" is is shaped by how you learnt the language. Realize wes, that languages have standards, and so no matter how you contextualize or interpret a symbol, you still base i ton the fundamental. In that least, there is an approximation or a shared context. Well obviously, a medium such as language can never be 100% effective...
/how you contextualize or interpret a symbol, you still base i ton the fundamental. In that least, there is an approximation or a shared context. the 'fundamental' is approximate. some approximations are extremely broad. some are quite specific, but broad depending on the context you place them when under consideration.
no. the assumption in accepting the medium is that the fundamental is objective and not an approximate. were the fundamental an approximate, there would be no guarntee that communication can happen between two individuals knwoing the medium-- the context of a shared experiences that allow meaning to the medium implied.
but that assumption is false. take any two different dictionaries and see if you get the same definition. that there is more than one valid definition for a word renders the word approximate. that the word doesn't perfectly describe that which it was intended to describe - that is approximation. you're saying you just assume that out?
If you pick up a dictionary and you find multiple definitions for a word, that deviating def. is based on a fundamental. light as a phyiscal entity is a fundamental. Light as "pure" is based on the fundamental of light. Notions that need delineation and do not exist in the physical sense but must be explained through other symbols are not fundamental.
an example of context sharing abilities....a poem for you to find context with: How can you feel the warmth of a rainbow How can you know the moon high above How can you hear the symphony of a sunset If you know nothing of love? A simple little poem. What would be the normal interpretation if taken in the context of a love peom. And what would be the interpretation if taken in a critical, philisophical context? The attitude of the reader and motivation of the reader are essential. I write 1+1=2 and this is commonly accepted However in a philosphy forum there could be much deebate. If we are discussing with the purpose of finding common ground we have little problem but if we are discussing with the purposes other that of good will and wish to exert egoistic desires then we have problems mainly based on trying "to not see" the object of the discussion instead of "trying to see" the object of the discussion.
Quack, You make a good point. However, in trying to not see what is being said, isn;t the receiver or reader really seeing what is being said? One cannot purposely deceive themselves or at least present the farce of miscommunication without actually getting what is being communicated. Also, in this poem: How can you feel the warmth of a rainbow How can you know the moon high above How can you hear the symphony of a sunset If you know nothing of love? raibow, moon, sunset, are objective/fundamental... wamth, above, highm nothing, ... approximate the fundamnetal. love... depend on the context of the individual and must be delineated with the fundamnetal or those approximating the fundamental....
To me the poem simply means "To experience life in full one must know love and to know love one must experience life in full." The poem's message is clear in it's context and the more words you use to diseminate it the more detroyed the message is. Feeling the warmth of a rainbow is not a tactile feeling but an emotional one etc..... and this is also rather clear. How ever if you have never been touched by love then the poem has little meaning other than that of a possible ambition for future love and life. Now by writing the above I have lost the meaning of the poem. I have imediately qualified it's infinite nature and applied a subjective finite to it. The poems music is now digital instead of a live performance. and relegated to semantics and arguement............. Ahhh....such is life! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Scenario A guy comes on to the board and states: "life is nothing and I want to die"Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Do we go straight in to the philisophical debate about "Nothingness" and "death" or do we try and find out how we can offer support? Some may say "Stiff.....die then! Don't bore us with your problems I have problems of my own etc etc. But most will attempt to offer assistance to someone who has asked for help by posting his desire for suicide instead of lying in a gutter somewhere waiting for the medivac team. So a few people enter into a dialogue with this guy and he chats for a while and states at the end that he was habving every one on and just wanted to provoke a result. Pissed of you are maybe but you know you would attempt to help every time if you could even if it proves to be a fraud. Why? Because you give the words the benifit of the doubt, you allow a grace and you assume that close to the truth is being said because you know that if you assume that everything is false you may be the next peron being scraped up by a medivac team. So "good will" is assumed normally and with this in mind we post our questions and try to communicate. In the absence fo goodwill there is no context, no reference to allow communication. Motivation is the main source of context
