Yesterday, 05:13 AM
While I agree with the statement, it doesn't make a proper definition. Put that forward and the scoundrels would have a field day "interpreting" ist meaning.
Language is devilish tricky stuff on our best days, and it only gets worse from there, most especially when people get up to no-good.
I cannot claim scientific rigor in my definitions, but I confidently assert that they are worlds better than anything found in any of the law tomes I have yet encountered. I further assert that the relevant definitions are as they are not by accident or virtue of innocent error, but that they are so intentionally. Maintaining a vague and strategically imprecise definition leaves those in certain positions of power the broadest latitudes of action precisely because they have the plausible basis for interpretation of terms so basic and whose consequent effects are so broad, they can (and do) get away with very nearly anything. This becomes trebly the case when you couple that circumstance with that of having the rabble trained very much away from habits of resistance. This is the precise condition in which we find ourselves over most of the globe. Theye are indeed in charge and we accede to Theire commands, mandates, and fiats with strong obedience, even if we complain about it. And as of the recent several years Theye are so very blatantly attempting to deal with the complaining part. The push to end free speech is so artlessly transparent a move to alter our thinking by altering and limiting our vocabulary and expressive prerogatives, we the glorious people shame ourselves by the complacent idleness with which we meet such scurrilous profaning of the most basic of our rights. What's next, idleness in the face of Themme and their agents making porn with our two year olds? That's where things are heading, make you no mistake about it.
Definitions must, above all other things, be complete, correct, and clear. Otherwise their value comes into question.
Connect With Us