Word-definition based brainwashing

Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#1
***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.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#2
Murder : "A deliberate act that causes a life-form to be killed." In other words, murder = killing + deliberation. Makes sense, has no definitional faults. This definition is flexible enough to allow all arguments and opinions a fair go. We can say killing if it was an accident. We could say "justified murder", we could say "needless murder" in order to exactly specify what we want to mean.

Please note that I have a reason why I rejected the "official" definition of murder. I showed why it was false, and then gave a Truth-compatible definition. I did not just reject it without grounds.

However, society and even many so-called intellectuals will still demand that the "official" dictionary definitions must be used. They, however, cannot refute what I just said above. Nor can they provide any legitimate reason why that should be the case.

Another argument we see against such "custom" definitions is that we rejected the dictionary definition and "made up" an new one. Let look at that below :

1. Made up? All definitions are invented, or made up. The wording "made up" is just used to make it seem "childish" and unsound. The fact of the matter is that all definitions and words are "made up" by humans, they are only True by definitional accuracy about what they describe in the real world.

2. We had good reason to reject the dictionary definiton.

3. No fault exists in the new definition.

Ok. Lets look now at exactly how the word murder is used to rig debates and court-cases. Lets use abortion and axe-murders as an example :

The axe-murderer murders a human life. According to law, he is wrong, he is morally responsible. (Of course, I am not suggesting that this IS True, or it is not. This is just according to law).

Abortion is a murder act. (We can substitute the death penalty here)

Some abortionists will subbornly argue that abortion is not murder because "Murder is unlawful, abortion is lawful, therefore abortion does not meet the requirements to be labelled murder." Legally, you can murder 400 human children with no threat of legal penalty, and yet a single axe murder in a real dispute would render you a "murderer".

This drivel by society is no better than the "bannanas/Kranana" example we ssaw earlier on this page. It commits the masked man fallacy. We can see that the official murder word definition already contains the outcome to the matter inherantly. It also contains judgement on an arbitrary and subjective idea - "malice".

It is important to realise that "malice" is irrational as an objective property, in that it is not applied evenly and fairly by society. Again society is being selective. It simply announces that all "unlawful" murders are "malicious", "cowardly" and so on, even if the perpetrator of the murder remains unknown to police and the case is never "solved", or does not give an account of why he killed.

Automatically, society states that war, abortion, death-penalty murders are somehow not malicious, despite the fact that they clearly are murders, and no reason or test is given to accetain if they are done with malice. Society simply has no way of telling if the actions are maliciously motivated, in both legal and illegal murders, because we are dealing with subjective ideas in the minds of others.

Exactly how and why should illegal murders be malicious by default of the act of deliberate killing, and yet automatically presumed otherwise for "legal" acts of deliberate killing? This presumption is self-serving and makes not one iota of rational sense!

Another lame argument is "self-defence" is murder without the word "unlawful". Well, if not intentional killing, then it is not murder by My definition. If it is deliberate killing and self-defence, we simply still have a murder, but a justifiable murder. Notice that the word "unlawful" is not required. Notice that My definition was flexible enough never to exclude any possibility.

Society has been caught in its web of lies.

***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.
 
May 2009
225
0
USA
#4
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -that's all."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (1871)
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#5
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."

"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."

- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass (1871)
Well, Humpty is fairly accurate. What gives meaning to words is how we use them. However, in no way does that mean that a word definition of any words can just be false, as is the case with the societally-decreed version of the "murder" term.

The meaning by use of this term is simply to deceive, to apply a standard without equity.

I remember that book. I wonder whose imagination is the stronger - Carrol's or those who swallow the stories of society.

Example : If I invent the word "Gungo". I know what I mean when I say it. That does not render what I mean by "Gungo" to be True. What if "Gungo" meant "To kill using only a tree in such a way that no-one dies". If I was completely mad, I may know what I mean by that in My own mind. But by no stretch is this example legitimate or sensible for use.

Oh no, not you. May god help us all. :(
Yes, hello. I'm back. There is no such thing as a god creature, so expect no help whatsoever.
 
May 2009
225
0
USA
#9
"There is no ?redness? in nature, only different wave lengths of radiation."
- Alfred Korzybski, "The Nature of Language in the Perceptual Processes," reprinted from Perception: An Approach to Personality (1951)
. . . .

The difficulty is that we are learning that the world and things are not as we perceive them. The cited article that reprinted Korzybski?s first paper exposed the problems of our perceptions, which is a fault of language; and, more particularly, identity (viz. the meaning of words used to label things). In brief, language is the symbolic representation by which the mind interprets sensual perception. Language acts as the synapse, metaphorically speaking, through which we make sense of external stimuli. In this sense, language is critical to thinking; for without language, we have no means of distinguishing what our senses perceive. Count Korzybski, however, proposed a new, and highly original ("non-Aristotelian") approach to semantics, advancing the theory that language directly affects our consciousness and can change our perception of the world. Korzybski observed that removal of the verb form "to be" from language avoids the problems associated with identity which is structurally false to fact, and, if not checked intelligently, becomes a pernicious semantic reaction. See Alfred Korzybski, Science and Sanity, An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics (1933). His famous remark that "a map is not the territory" illustrates this point; however he also said that a map (and language) is "self-reflexive"; and, consequently, what may not be reflected in the schema, would nevertheless be part of the semantic reaction, albeit at another level of abstraction. Korzybski?s works are very influential, and serve as the basis of Gestalt psychotherapy theory.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#10
"There is no ‘redness’ in nature, only different wave lengths of radiation." - Alfred Korzybski
If I say "the pen is red", the all I claim is that I see it as red. I did not say "The pen is objectively red outside of My perception".

The Earth is round. That is just a fact, even if everyone only perceives it as round.

The difficulty is that we are learning that the world and things are not as we perceive them. The cited article that reprinted Korzybski’s first paper exposed the problems of our perceptions, which is a fault of language
This has nothing to do with this thread or the OP. If I say "Banannas grow on trees", I am correct. If I say "Bannanas are forms of bowling alleys" I am obviously incorrect.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#11
Another obvious flaw in the legal murder arguments is that society itself can only commit the murders via a societal agent. No individual may murder in the exact same case/scenario of murder.

Take this example :

A. Ted Bundy to be murdered under the smokescreen of a "death penalty". Agent acting on behalf of society carries out orders and murders Ted Bundy.

B. As per A, but a prison officer sneaks into the chamber when he was not officially supposed to do so. He murders Ted Bundy in the death chamber.

In A, we have a societally-sponsered murder. That is deemed "lawful" and this not a murder by society.

In B, we have a "crime" committed. It is deemed a "murder" by society. But the actions are exactly the same. Yet, its a crime of murder. In B, the exact same thing happened.

The only selector society used was the word "unlawful", which is not related to any attribute, property or intent of the murders and the individual who carried out the murder. Yet "unlawful" is just an arbitrary dictate or judgment.

It was only declared a murder because it was not done with the permission and sponsership of society/authority.

This is a ridiculous assertion. It is illogical and impossible. Its a masked man fallacy to compare any 2 things and conclude that they are the same or different based on non-objective properties such as the views or attitudes of a third party. Most certainly based on permission.
 
Last edited:
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#13
I have a theory that some languages are more lie-based than others. For example take the language like English with all its double meanings and compare it with German. German words are very specific in what they describe.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#14
I have a theory that some languages are more lie-based than others. For example take the language like English with all its double meanings and compare it with German. German words are very specific in what they describe.
I dont know german. Therefore, I cannot answer. This thread concentrates on the diseased and lie-based english language. However, I imagine that should I examine german language that I will find such brainwashing-based manipulation of language.

In fact, I might do just that.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#15
I dont know german. Therefore, I cannot answer. This thread concentrates on the diseased and lie-based english language. However, I imagine that should I examine german language that I will find such brainwashing-based manipulation of language.

In fact, I might do just that.
Right, that would be a really interesting exercise. For example. The Dutch are considered by those with an English culture and English language rather rude at times. They are "in general" (not all of them of course), quite outspoken in their views. The Dutch language is different to German, but close enough, and also quite specific in its meanings. Or should I rather say, more specific than the English language, that has to be one of the least specific languages on earth. The Dutch "in general" have a pre-occupation with the truth. Have you seen that quite a number of English sentences in the UK start with "perhaps"? Then there is "should", "may be", "ought to" etc. I'm not a linguist or expert, but what you say is right on for me. Except I think not all languages are equal in this and some are more honest than others by degrees, or should I say less dishonest than others?
 
Last edited:
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#16
The Dutch "in general" have a pre-occupation with the truth.
Incorrect. The dutch society is another lie-based and Truth-hating society that exists alongside others such as USA etc. Dutch society is not quite as malevolent and genocidal compared with USA, england and australian, but by any sane standard is still based on lies and myths and is utterly perverse in its operational structures.

.........or should I say less dishonest than others?
Slightly less lie-based, if that fits. I have not looked it up yet.

However, if german has a word for "murder", and a word for "war", and a words for "death penalty/execution", then the german language is utterly lie-based and used as a brainwashing tool.

I bet it has, too.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#17
Incorrect. The dutch society is another lie-based and Truth-hating society that exists alongside others such as USA etc. Dutch society is not quite as malevolent and genocidal compared with USA, england and australian, but by any sane standard is still based on lies and myths and is utterly perverse in its operational structures.
So can we call this a relative truth? I can accept that my perception can be wrong? I don't have any real fundamentals to back it up with. But can you? What are your fundamentals?

However, if german has a word for "murder", and a word for "war", and a words for "death penalty/execution", then the german language is utterly lie-based and used as a brainwashing tool.

I bet it has, too.
It definitely has. It has practiced war enough in its history.
 
Feb 2010
151
0
Australia
#18
So can we call this a relative truth?
No. It is a concrete and objective Forbidden Truth. You are using relativity as a dismissive tactic - a cloak for ignorance and failure to answer.

I can accept that my perception can be wrong? I don't have any real fundamentals to back it up with. But can you? What are your fundamentals?
Perception can be wrong. Concrete facts are not wrong.
Perception does NOT come into this issue.

It definitely has. It has practiced war enough in its history.
It has a word specifically for war, then that word definition MUST admit and contain the word mass-murder or genocide. If it does not, then that word definition is false and lie-based and is being used a a form of language-based brainwashing.

War, abortion, death penalty etc are all murders. Therefore there can be no legitimacy that there are different words for each unless they specifically state they are murder acts in the definition.
 
Mar 2009
2,187
2
#19
No. It is a concrete and objective Forbidden Truth. You are using relativity as a dismissive tactic - a cloak for ignorance and failure to answer.
That sounds like a judgment to me, not the truth.

Perception can be wrong. Concrete facts are not wrong. Perception does NOT come into this issue.
We are too limited to get to the absolute facts to the standard that you are calling for. For objective truth you need to be some sort of floating spirit or God, as you would have to be able to transcend yourself first. We are completely immersed in our physical beings with senses that are the equivalent of coloured lenses, all of which see the truth uniquely differently. To the equivalent of Plato's allegory of the cave. We can try for the approximate truth, and then fumble through the pretense of a democratic vote to settle for a majority truth, but I can't see how anyone can say that they have a corner on the absolute truth. That would be a sign of self-delusion for me.

It has a word specifically for war, then that word definition MUST admit and contain the word mass-murder or genocide.
No, it does not.
 

Similar Discussions