***Article Copyright 2009-2090 Seer Travis Truman, webmaster of www.Truthmedia.8k.com. All rights reserved, except the permission to post unmodified quotations within this debate thread for the sole purpose of debate.
Hello. This thread is all about dictionaries, and how they are used to manipulate thought and argument. I had considered posting this in the philosophy section, but in the end it seems at home here. Dictionaries are literally used to hide and deny the Forbidden Truths of life, to brainwash the masses into acccepting the endless stream of malevolent lies that their society inflicts upon them.
What are dictionaries? According to society, dictionaries are books that contain the meaning of common words. Is that Truth-based? No!
The first part is accurate. Dictionaries are books. However, they do no mearly contain the meaning of words, they facistly dictate what society wants the meanings of certain words to be. Dictionaries are used to control thinking, and use of words in conversation and debate in such a way that the outcomes are rigged in favour of the false and malevolent societal policies. This is done by making the avilable words insufficent to accurately express certain Truths using those definitions.
They are in effect brainwashing tools. They presuppose lies inherantly in the definitions of words.
Legitimate definitions follow this structure/guideline :
1. Some new or unique thing/group of things, ideas etc is discovered/sought to be defined for use in communication of ideas.
2. It is then defined into a description of that thing, with the objective to make it clear what is being referred to.
3. A word is invented to refer to said thing, as a shortcut, or linguistic macro, to save time in having to repeat the big description/explanation of that thing.
4. The definition cannot contain the word that it itself defines.
Example : A "tree". "Tree" is used as a shortcut to describe an actual and real thing. It describes the tree, and defines it objectively. It does not claim to do anything than point to what we refer to. It does not make any comment on human views about trees. Even if the definition does not contain some detail of what a tree is (such as the detail of how sap moves throughout the tree), a tree is still a tree, and we still know what a tree is.
Sap still moves through the tree and to claim that actual trees do not contain sap because the definition of a tree does not specifically mention sap is insane. Sap exists in trees. That is just a fact. The definition in the preceeding sentence would mearly be wrong, the actual tree was always the same. In the case of "trees", we get a reasonable and honest definition. Why? Because the definition of what constitutes a tree is not revealing any Forbidden Truth.
To recap, the word and its definition is just a description to tell us what we refer to. Words are shorthand versions of concepts or things that are used in verbal communication.
However, society is so illegitimate and lie-based it does not honestly define certain words. These words are related to Forbidden Truths. Society creates false and lie-based definitions of words in order to try and "rig" debates and generally control and distort rational thinking. It does so to support the endless stream of lies it tells it's citizen-slaves. So, lets look at one such case below.
Lets take the word "murder". Murder is defined as the "The unlawful killing of a human being, with malice and intent."(D1) or words to that same effect.
The key word here is "unlawful". Unlawful has no legitimate nor fixed definition, and is arbitrary and capricious. Further, "unlawful" does not describe any objective property or thing related to what is being attempted to be described. It adds nothing legitimate. It leaves the definition open to selective dictates via legal authority. So the definition is not fixed and defined, it is in flux. Therefore, the "definition" remains undefined - so it is not a legitimate definition of anything real.
What is "unlawful" seeking to describe? How can it be legitimate? It can't be! We already have a word for killing, we already know what deliberate, intent and malice are. We could also add further words if need be. Surely these words in the above definition(D1), excluding the word unlawful, should describe any killing action, and the mental intent, perfectly. In fact, they do. The word "unlawful" is arbitrary and therefore has absolutely no legitimate place in the words' definition.
In terms of the word "murder" being used in an application, we have a sort of "masked man" logical fallacy, or a comparison between two things using a non-objective arbitrary judgment of those two things. To compare things by people's view of them is irrational. You can compare two oranges by weight, because weight is an objective property of oranges. We can compare a bannana and an orange by shape, and conclude they are different things by those concrete and real properties.
What about an arbitrary judgement, though? That is not an objective property. What if I (as Person 1) ate an orange, and I did not like the taste of that orange. Another person compares what I ate to what he thinks or judges about oranges. Person 2 could try "That was not an orange, because I judge that oranges are delicious, and what Person1 ate was not appealing to him". That is illogical. And it is the same as comparing two deliberate actions that take a human life. Both must be murders, or else neither are.
You cannot just personally judge one as "unlawful" to compare them. You must use concrete criteria. If war is not murder, then reason dictates that serial killings are not murder. Of course, both war and serial killing are murder. Reason cannot be selective.
There is no legitimacy to the definition society offers to the word "murder", yet society literally demands that you use the word murder (D1) exclusively with that exact definitional fault. The reason why society does this is simply because it wants to allow certain forms of murder, while making others "unacceptable" and wrong. Societal leaders knew (and still do) that illegal and legal murders are exactly the same thing, just as two bannanas are exactly the same thing.
Imagine we are on a deserted island, there are 5 of us, and one leader. That is 6 of us in total. Imagine that we had 12 bannanas a day in total, and a law was passed that we all got an equal share of bannanas no matter what. That's two each. The law might say "Any one taking more than two bannanas a day is guilty of the crime of Kranana". However, lets just say that the rule was made "Any one unlawfully taking more than two bannanas a day is guilty of the crime of Kranana." Note : This is not to say that taking bannanas should or should not be a crime, but to show the difference between the two versions.
The leader then observes someone taking 4 banannas on a certain day. He says "Look, he has unlawfully taken too many bannanas. He has broken the law. He has commited Kranana". And also imagine that those on the island are angry and feel cheated by this act. They all agree that he ate too many bannanas.
The next day, another 12 bannanas are ready. The leader promptly orders a citizen to fetch him 4 bannanas and then eats them. A film-maker studying the tribe points out "Hey - your leader just ripped you off. He took too many, just like they guy did yesterday. Your leader just committed the crime of Kranana against you".
The leader : "Oh no, that was not an act of Kranana. It is the unlawful act of eating too many bannanas. I lawfully ate those 4 bannanas, because I deem that I was extra hungry and really wanted them. Thats a lawful eating of bannanas, so I did not commit Kranana".
Citizens-slaves : "Oh, of course. That film-maker must just be an idiot. He does not understand that it is only the unlawful taking of bannanas that is a crime. Its only unlawful taking of bananas that constitutes a Kranana act."
What we have here is really a "masked man"-like fallacy. Obviously, the citizens are completely stupid. Why can't the first example be deemed lawful? And yet, that is exactly the same thing you all accept each day with the lawful/unlawful killing of human beings with intent and malice word-game. Society tries to suggest that just because it arbitrarily decides a particular deliberate killing of a human being is "lawful", that it cannot be murder. This is just ridiculous!
Of course you should all reject the ridiculous dictionary's/legal definition of "murder". It makes no sense and is fallacious.
Killing via war, abortion, death-penalty and all the other "legal" murders are all exactly the same thing as the "illegal" murders. The law is simply pretending, because it has contradicted itself and exposed a hypocrisy. If it is wrong to murder, then the death-penalty and abortion are also wrongful murder acts, carried out with the sponserhip of society.
It just does not make sense. In order to avoid this (especially legally avoid), society his simply included a loophole in the definition. This loophole acts as a cowardly escape hatch. Every time an action society promotes is a murder, and its hypocritical policy is challegned, it simply wheels out its bogus definition of "murder" to pretend that somehow these things could be different.
Somehow, the exact same thing has become different simply because a different word, or shortcut, was used, even though these are both exactly the same thing. So what some illegitimate word is different?
There is simply no definitional difference between what illegal and legal murders describe.
Through out this website, the word "murder" (unless otherwise specified) is used under the following legitimate definition :
Part II forthcoming.
Hello. This thread is all about dictionaries, and how they are used to manipulate thought and argument. I had considered posting this in the philosophy section, but in the end it seems at home here. Dictionaries are literally used to hide and deny the Forbidden Truths of life, to brainwash the masses into acccepting the endless stream of malevolent lies that their society inflicts upon them.
What are dictionaries? According to society, dictionaries are books that contain the meaning of common words. Is that Truth-based? No!
The first part is accurate. Dictionaries are books. However, they do no mearly contain the meaning of words, they facistly dictate what society wants the meanings of certain words to be. Dictionaries are used to control thinking, and use of words in conversation and debate in such a way that the outcomes are rigged in favour of the false and malevolent societal policies. This is done by making the avilable words insufficent to accurately express certain Truths using those definitions.
They are in effect brainwashing tools. They presuppose lies inherantly in the definitions of words.
Legitimate definitions follow this structure/guideline :
1. Some new or unique thing/group of things, ideas etc is discovered/sought to be defined for use in communication of ideas.
2. It is then defined into a description of that thing, with the objective to make it clear what is being referred to.
3. A word is invented to refer to said thing, as a shortcut, or linguistic macro, to save time in having to repeat the big description/explanation of that thing.
4. The definition cannot contain the word that it itself defines.
Example : A "tree". "Tree" is used as a shortcut to describe an actual and real thing. It describes the tree, and defines it objectively. It does not claim to do anything than point to what we refer to. It does not make any comment on human views about trees. Even if the definition does not contain some detail of what a tree is (such as the detail of how sap moves throughout the tree), a tree is still a tree, and we still know what a tree is.
Sap still moves through the tree and to claim that actual trees do not contain sap because the definition of a tree does not specifically mention sap is insane. Sap exists in trees. That is just a fact. The definition in the preceeding sentence would mearly be wrong, the actual tree was always the same. In the case of "trees", we get a reasonable and honest definition. Why? Because the definition of what constitutes a tree is not revealing any Forbidden Truth.
To recap, the word and its definition is just a description to tell us what we refer to. Words are shorthand versions of concepts or things that are used in verbal communication.
However, society is so illegitimate and lie-based it does not honestly define certain words. These words are related to Forbidden Truths. Society creates false and lie-based definitions of words in order to try and "rig" debates and generally control and distort rational thinking. It does so to support the endless stream of lies it tells it's citizen-slaves. So, lets look at one such case below.
Lets take the word "murder". Murder is defined as the "The unlawful killing of a human being, with malice and intent."(D1) or words to that same effect.
The key word here is "unlawful". Unlawful has no legitimate nor fixed definition, and is arbitrary and capricious. Further, "unlawful" does not describe any objective property or thing related to what is being attempted to be described. It adds nothing legitimate. It leaves the definition open to selective dictates via legal authority. So the definition is not fixed and defined, it is in flux. Therefore, the "definition" remains undefined - so it is not a legitimate definition of anything real.
What is "unlawful" seeking to describe? How can it be legitimate? It can't be! We already have a word for killing, we already know what deliberate, intent and malice are. We could also add further words if need be. Surely these words in the above definition(D1), excluding the word unlawful, should describe any killing action, and the mental intent, perfectly. In fact, they do. The word "unlawful" is arbitrary and therefore has absolutely no legitimate place in the words' definition.
In terms of the word "murder" being used in an application, we have a sort of "masked man" logical fallacy, or a comparison between two things using a non-objective arbitrary judgment of those two things. To compare things by people's view of them is irrational. You can compare two oranges by weight, because weight is an objective property of oranges. We can compare a bannana and an orange by shape, and conclude they are different things by those concrete and real properties.
What about an arbitrary judgement, though? That is not an objective property. What if I (as Person 1) ate an orange, and I did not like the taste of that orange. Another person compares what I ate to what he thinks or judges about oranges. Person 2 could try "That was not an orange, because I judge that oranges are delicious, and what Person1 ate was not appealing to him". That is illogical. And it is the same as comparing two deliberate actions that take a human life. Both must be murders, or else neither are.
You cannot just personally judge one as "unlawful" to compare them. You must use concrete criteria. If war is not murder, then reason dictates that serial killings are not murder. Of course, both war and serial killing are murder. Reason cannot be selective.
There is no legitimacy to the definition society offers to the word "murder", yet society literally demands that you use the word murder (D1) exclusively with that exact definitional fault. The reason why society does this is simply because it wants to allow certain forms of murder, while making others "unacceptable" and wrong. Societal leaders knew (and still do) that illegal and legal murders are exactly the same thing, just as two bannanas are exactly the same thing.
Imagine we are on a deserted island, there are 5 of us, and one leader. That is 6 of us in total. Imagine that we had 12 bannanas a day in total, and a law was passed that we all got an equal share of bannanas no matter what. That's two each. The law might say "Any one taking more than two bannanas a day is guilty of the crime of Kranana". However, lets just say that the rule was made "Any one unlawfully taking more than two bannanas a day is guilty of the crime of Kranana." Note : This is not to say that taking bannanas should or should not be a crime, but to show the difference between the two versions.
The leader then observes someone taking 4 banannas on a certain day. He says "Look, he has unlawfully taken too many bannanas. He has broken the law. He has commited Kranana". And also imagine that those on the island are angry and feel cheated by this act. They all agree that he ate too many bannanas.
The next day, another 12 bannanas are ready. The leader promptly orders a citizen to fetch him 4 bannanas and then eats them. A film-maker studying the tribe points out "Hey - your leader just ripped you off. He took too many, just like they guy did yesterday. Your leader just committed the crime of Kranana against you".
The leader : "Oh no, that was not an act of Kranana. It is the unlawful act of eating too many bannanas. I lawfully ate those 4 bannanas, because I deem that I was extra hungry and really wanted them. Thats a lawful eating of bannanas, so I did not commit Kranana".
Citizens-slaves : "Oh, of course. That film-maker must just be an idiot. He does not understand that it is only the unlawful taking of bannanas that is a crime. Its only unlawful taking of bananas that constitutes a Kranana act."
What we have here is really a "masked man"-like fallacy. Obviously, the citizens are completely stupid. Why can't the first example be deemed lawful? And yet, that is exactly the same thing you all accept each day with the lawful/unlawful killing of human beings with intent and malice word-game. Society tries to suggest that just because it arbitrarily decides a particular deliberate killing of a human being is "lawful", that it cannot be murder. This is just ridiculous!
Of course you should all reject the ridiculous dictionary's/legal definition of "murder". It makes no sense and is fallacious.
Killing via war, abortion, death-penalty and all the other "legal" murders are all exactly the same thing as the "illegal" murders. The law is simply pretending, because it has contradicted itself and exposed a hypocrisy. If it is wrong to murder, then the death-penalty and abortion are also wrongful murder acts, carried out with the sponserhip of society.
It just does not make sense. In order to avoid this (especially legally avoid), society his simply included a loophole in the definition. This loophole acts as a cowardly escape hatch. Every time an action society promotes is a murder, and its hypocritical policy is challegned, it simply wheels out its bogus definition of "murder" to pretend that somehow these things could be different.
Somehow, the exact same thing has become different simply because a different word, or shortcut, was used, even though these are both exactly the same thing. So what some illegitimate word is different?
There is simply no definitional difference between what illegal and legal murders describe.
Through out this website, the word "murder" (unless otherwise specified) is used under the following legitimate definition :
Part II forthcoming.
