[Vasu]

Begin being the keyword. BEGIN to describe the picture. But there's no way that can communicate the same thing as the picture itself. I am not revolted by those words the same way I am revolted by the picture.

Like I said, words cannot satisfactorily describe a picture. But simple direct words can definitely explain satisfactorily anything that was ever written in a poem.

[quote}But the meaning IS inherently different and deep. People experience different levels of happiness and sadness. But they most definitely do not quantify it. People don't go around say, "Oh, I'm twice as happy as I was yesterday." Or, "I'm sad plus two about the death of my dog as I was sad about the death of my cat." I mean, what the heck does that even mean?[/quote]


Oh so do they say, "my sadness was as deep as the ocean yesterday, and it's a bit deeper now." Even what you did was quantification of the emotion, even if it was rather vaguely quantified. If the meaning IS inherebtly different as you put it, then WHAT is the difference?

The reason we have analogies and metaphors and figurative language (and prose and poetry) is because these things can communicate to use better and in a way that direct phrasing cannot. Heck, I bet if you looked through your own writing, I bet you would find a ton of instances where you use metaphor or simile where you could have been direct. Why didn't you? Because the metaphor and simile communicated something better.

Yes they conveyed something more effectively to the reader than a direct statement. But they certainly didn't uplift anyone's spirit.

No one means to write law subjectively. No one goes to write a law and says, "I want this law to mean different things to different people so we can have lots of court battle over the meaning."

So they mean to do something and end up doing something else? I'd call that inefficiency.

Terrible, terrible analogy. You don't specify what you mean by inherent flaw. If a "human" was flawed enough (say he was made out of a different material--metal and wiring), then that most definitely does not make him human.

Yes that does not make him human. There fore you cannot state "This guy is human but he's flawed enough to not be a human." That's a contradiction.

And you are arguing in circles. You are basically stating:

"Law is objective because law cannot lack objectivity."

Circular argument. Not credible.

I'm not sure what you definition of law proves either since it doesn't mention anything about objectivity/subjectivity. But I do think there is an interesting part of the definition:

Quote:

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.

If law was truly objective, they wouldn't need to be enforced by a judicial decision

Once it is someone's decision, it is definitely not objective.

Applicable to all it's people, regardless of their interpretation of it.

I think all that is "enforced" is the sentence. The law states that murder is not allowed. So what to do with the murderer? That is the judicial decision.

I am not arguing about what the law should be or how the law should be interpreted. I'm talking about how the law is and how the law is interpreted.

Even in your modified law, we can splice it further. What is a house? Does someone have to be living in it to be considered a house? Is a trailer considered a house? What are extensions? What about basements? Do they count into the height of the house? Do they count as one of two stories?

Those are generally accepted definitions. What is a house? Come on. A house is a structure intended for inhabitation. But only "intended" for inhabitation. Even if no one is in it, it remains a structure intended for inhabitation. Basements go downwards not upwards, and since "height" and not "depth" were mentioned in the law, it is perfectly legal to have basements.

Wait. HOLD UP!

"whatever the writer has intended, should come out onto that paper."

Let's analyze this statement.

Whatever the writer has intended????? Really?? A writer's intent is objective now???

You even contradict yourself with this argument.

First you say that we shouldn't figure out what the intention of the writer was. And then you say that we should follow the intention of the writer.

Really? Really?!

And that doesn't even count the fact that there is no possible way to write a law "that covers all scenarios." Believe it or not, the world is not made up of black or white.

Law has to be written by someone. It doesn't pop out of the machine of objective fairness. If the law is written objectively, and the writer is a fair, objective thinker, then the everything the author intends is on the paper, and means the exact same thing to everyone.

What I'm saying is, we shouldn't have to sit in court and argue about what the law means, because it should mean the same thing to everyone. We shouldn't have to worry about the intention of the law writer, because he was being objective. If he wasn't being objective, then we discard those laws.