I think that I could say that some people have insufficient information to form a valid conclusion, or their skill set is incomplete for logical analysis, or even that they are driven by an emotional / personal gain in selecting a conclusion that does not conform with the laws of the universe or process. I could also say that they are "full of shit". In this context, the word has a separate meaning as it is combined in the concept. Saying that a person is "full of biological waste" is not the same concept. It is as bad as removing "swear" words from inside words. "Hello" becomes "purgatorio". The concept of morality in words is so medieval and sophomoric that it reeks of unicorns and witches. I guess we could even have a set of special phonemes that were immoral and thus a swear word could not be spoken, as the sound to produce it would not be included in the vocal abilities of a huMan Entity.
Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater has nothing to do with speech at all. I could make a noise like machine gun fire and I can bet it would cause some movement. I could also produce a smell that was like smoke and that would also cause some alarm. Words are in and of themselves just raw symbols and when you start ascribing some motive force to inanimate objects, you have really gotten to the point where you just want to screw around with people for the sake of being an ass.
I imagine there is a document in the FCC somewhere that has a list of swear words on it. If you assume that the nature of words is absolutely profane, then possessing that document is a violation of censorship of the FCC. This seems to imply that the evil nature of the words is transformed by their ownership.
0 comments:
Post a Comment