[Vasu]

Can I suggest Goya's Saturn Devouring His Son? The painting is a LOT
more revolting than me just saying, "Saturn devouring his son."

Ah Ralath, I was comparing prose and poetry because both are written using text. A picture cannot be satisfactorily explained using words. However, if you started to describe "Saturn ripping his son's head off and causing blood to stream down to the floor", you would just about begin to describe the picture (And it doesn't matter if you said the blood was streaming down like a thousand rivers. It doesn't change things. Say it that way if you like it).

Here's the difference:
I am sad.
My sadness is as deep as an ocean.

Because you like to quantify so much, I think that's as quantifiable as it's going to get. There is an inherent difference in direct speech and the world of metaphor and lyrical language. How do people understand emotion better if all you say is, "I am sad." or "I am very sad." I can't tell you what the exact differences are between the two above quotes because they aren't quantifiable. But there is an inherently different, and deeper meaning in the second one.

Now, I think "I am sad" says about the same thing as "My sadness is as deep as the ocean". Only thing is that the latter shows that you have verbal/literary skills. It doesn't cause the meaning of the sentence to change in any way. If the meaning is inherently different and deep, it should surely be noticeable, if not quantifiable.

I think it's irrelevant whether you like the DoI or not. Disliking something doesn't mean it doesn't qualify as art. Or not "worthy of appreciation."

No, I was just explaining to Hraevelg why I disliked it. No, that doesn't discount it as a work of art. I just find it unfortunate, that something that needs to be as precise and doubtless as law, is written in such a roundabout fashion.

I would agree that law is meant to be objective. But I would also say that it is always subjective. A lawyer's entire job is to argue about what a law "means." That's why there's a Supreme Court in the United States that tells people what the law means.

The language of the law is interpreted subjectively because it is not precise enough to be objective (and that's an inherent flaw that isn't so easy to change).

The reason that a lawyer's job changed from proving that someone was guilty/innocent according to law to arguing what the law meant was because law was written so subjectively. Law should mean the same thing to everyone. Only then can justice be delivered.

There is no "inherent" flaw in law. That's like saying "This guy is a human. But he has this inherent flaw which makes him not a human but something else." Similarly, lack of objectivity cannot be an "inherent" flaw of law, because law itself is a set of objective, legally enforceable rules.

Law
–noun
1. the principles and regulations established in a community by some authority and applicable to its people, whether in the form of legislation or of custom and policies recognized and enforced by judicial decision.

A law states that people cannot build 2-story houses anymore.

That seems like a fairly straightforward law. But does that mean that people can't build 3-story houses anymore because to build a 3-story house, you have to build a 2-story house first? What about 1-story houses that are as tall or taller than 2-story houses? What about 1-story houses with an attic? Do attics count as a story? What about one-and-a-half level houses?

Obviously here the law is insufficient to explain the questions you posed. The next logical step to me would be to discuss and decide on a law to help explain these things. But instead, you are trying to bend the law to suit your means i.e arguing with what intention the law was written. The thing about law is, it should be unbendable. What shoulod be done here is further laws introduced such as "Nobody is permitted to build houses greater than 2 storeys, and the aforementioned house should not be taller than 20 feet (or whatever). Extensions to the house will not be treated as storeys." Let me give you an example.

"Nobody is allowed to murder others."

A direct statement? No. It does not cover instigating someone to suicide directly or indirectly. So we extend the law to cover all such scenarios. We do not sit in court and try to figure out what the "intention" of the writer was. The thing about writing law is, whatever the writer has intended, should come out onto that paper. That is true objectivity.