[guest39538]

Hello, sorry for so many post but my head is multitasking lots of different things at the moment.

I believe there is a science for everything including law.  One particular thing and law I want to discuss is swearing in a public place.  Now to me there is science behind this that could get any offender off the ''hook'' because the law is based on subjective thoughts .  The science and study of the semantics shows swearing to just being the use of ambiguity.

For example if somebody was to tell Mr police officer to xxxx off,  they are in fact just telling the officer to go away . The made up word context being ambiguous in meaning and only meaning go away,  it is only the ambiguity use by the practitioner ( officer dibble ), that makes it offensive.


Is semantics a science?

[trevorjohnson32]

not to use blasphemy goes back to old testament morality. Yes morality is more then just belief and is based on the science of victimizing people and being at there cost.

[guest39538]

morality

Morality, what a cool word, thanks for using it.

[trevorjohnson32]

Here's a list of 613 old testament commandments. A lot of it has to do with celebrations that aren't really in practice anymore but I tried baking a certain bread on Rosh Hashana which is new year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

[guest39538]

Here's a list of 613 old testament commandments. A lot of it has to do with celebrations that aren't really in practice anymore but I tried baking a certain bread on Rosh Hashana which is new year.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/613_commandments

Thank you for sharing that, I had no idea there was 613 commandments/Laws

[impyre]

The pure science that is closest to law is sociology. This science deals with studying behaviors and thoughts in the context of group dynamics. Government is a subject of particular interest in sociological study. The very ideas of morality and ethics come under scrutiny and study. The most common theories about law and morality often cite our evolutionary history. The most influential aspect of that history is demonstrably the social nature of humans. The "pack" or "tribe" structures in our evolutionary history have several other analogues in the animal kingdom. Most notably these include elephants, apes, and dolphins. Various experiments have tested whether animals in these groups have "ethics", primarily elephants and apes.
Capuchin monkeys (though they aren't apes) also have a similar social structure.

This video documents an experiment designed to show the idea of "equity" or fairness. This is an idea we often take for granted as being "programmed" into people at birth, and relates back to a sense of empathy. One monkey sees the other one being treated differently and is indignant at the unfairness of the situation. He responds by rejecting his "payment". We could easily see a person getting paid $10 for a job get angry when he learns that his coworker gets paid $20 for the same job.
Dr. Frans de Waal also does quite a bit of research on this topic. http://www.pnas.org/content/110/6/2070.full is but one of his published papers documenting experiments on the subject.
The established body of science on the topic suggests that high intelligence corresponds to highly social creatures (possibly because more complex interactions become necessary), and that highly social creatures almost always display a well-developed sense of morality and ethics. Further, the ethics and morality displayed often coincides with our own ideas about fairness and morals. This suggests that the systems of morals and ethics are evolved/developed as a way to help the animals create more effective groups where group interactions are important for survival.

[alancalverd]

It's all a bit subjective but the difference between"please leave" and "f*** off" is one of implied respect.

Policing by consent, rather than policing by cattle prod and gun, depends on the maintenance of public respect for a uniform, so whilst you can be as rude as you like to your mate when he is off duty, and it is an accepted risk of being on plain clothes duty, Their Worships (see how it all depends on respect?) take a dim view of anyone insulting a uniformed copper.   

[puppypower]

Hello, sorry for so many post but my head is multitasking lots of different things at the moment.

I believe there is a science for everything including law.  One particular thing and law I want to discuss is swearing in a public place.  Now to me there is science behind this that could get any offender off the ''hook'' because the law is based on subjective thoughts .  The science and study of the semantics shows swearing to just being the use of ambiguity.

For example if somebody was to tell Mr police officer to xxxx off,  they are in fact just telling the officer to go away . The made up word context being ambiguous in meaning and only meaning go away,  it is only the ambiguity use by the practitioner ( officer dibble ), that makes it offensive.


Is semantics a science?

The science behind law is connected to how the brain writes memory. Short term memory begins in the hippocampus, which resides in the core of the brain; part of the limbic system. There, an emotional tag is added before it is written to the cerebral matter. The net result is our memory contains both thoughts and feelings. Our strongest memories will usually have a strong emotional tone; marriage, birth of child, graduation, tragedy, etc.

This is useful to an animal since similar experiences will trigger the memory and the associated feeling. The associated feeling allows the animal to act without requiring to much thinking. For example, if one day he finds a new food item, the animal may skate around the food items, and then finally try it. If it is good, it will be tagged as emotionally satisfying. The next time he sees the same food, he will remember, feel satisfaction, and eat without hesitation.

Law is a unique form of memory in that it has two conflicting emotional tags; good and evil or right and wrong, which are sort of mutually exclusive. To know a law you not only need to know what to avoid to avoid punishment, but you also need to know the correct path for the social reward. The result is each law is not stored as a single memory but as two separate but connected memories, with each having a different attached feeling.

This is not natural to the brain, which is why in the bible it says the moment you eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil; law, the natural you shall die. In nature, things are morally neutral which results in the more natural one-to-one memory storage. Natural will not create dissociated storage. 

The binary nature of law memory storage poses a problem for the ego, which is the center of the conscious mind. The ego can only focus on one side of law at a time; feeling, with the other side of the binary more unconscious. This is why the preacher who tries to be perfect with the respect to the law; tries to do only good, finds himself unconsciously compel to pick up prostitutes.

The brain seeks to integrate the binary and can do so with unconscious compulsions. This was understood by the ancients, which is why Jesus symbolically did away with law; he taught that sin takes opportunity through the commandments creating sin of every kind. In other words, trying to do good by the law leads to unconscious compulsions; sin. 

There is one other consideration connected to the symbolism of heaven and hell. In heaven, only the good feelings are felt in symbolic heaven; love, happiness, rest, peace, while in symbolic hell all the bad feeling are felt; pain, suffering, hate, fear. This symbolism tells about how our long term law memory is store in bulk. The two sides of law, each consolidate based on their common underlying feeling tones.

As an example, say I asked you to list you favorite foods. These memories will all have the same level of satisfaction and will they will consolidate around a certain feeling tone. The reason this happens is there are only a limited set of emotions but endless memories to be stored due to the large variety in sensory reality. Emotions will be recycled and used again and again for tagging. This schema allows each emotion to access to a memory layer. It is like wearing red colored glasses and looking at red and blue dots; all memory. This color glasses; emotional tone, will filter out the red dots so we can focus on one layer.

The saying fear of god is the beginning of wisdom is connected this memory polarization induced by law being the foundation for logic or cause and affect. Both are 2-D ways of looking at reality, with good and evil the precursor of logic; cause and affect. Cause and affect does not lead to conflicting emotions, since both a cause and affect can have the same feeling tags.

Jesus took a different approach to this unnatural brain anomaly caused by law. He preached love your neighbor. His goal was to induce the hippocampus to tag all memory with love tags, so there was a  single consolidation of memory, without the unconscious polarization. That was very smart. This could work with fresh young minds, but centuries of law based polarization, built into long standing traditions, does not go away that easy. The result of doing away with law, in theory, was the unconscious dark side became more conscious; degeneration and persecution. Humans had to return to law with advance in logic and science helping to moderate highly polarizing laws.

[alancalverd]

Law should have nothing to do with religion, since religions survive by disagreeing with one another to the point of encouraging murder.

In a civilised country such as the UK used to be (and will become again soon) governments decide what behaviour is in general antithetical to social cohesion and cooperation, write statutes to proscribe it, and empower police and judicial authorities to enforce the bans. Good English law (which includes Scottish, Indian,....essentially all laws originally written in English)  derives from the Celtic principle that the state exists to serve the individual, so its statutes define wrongs, and these apply equally to the state itself as to its citizens.

Where, in less enlightened countries,the individual exists to serve the state, centuries of violent revolution have led in some cases to the definition of rights  that limit the power of the state e.g. to execute those it considers politically inconvenient or likely to worship the wrong god. The problem with rights is that every right imposes a duty on someone else, so we end up with prescriptive European legislation that says "thou shalt..."  instead of "thou shalt not..." and you need a veritable army  of Prodnoses to make sure that everybody does. It does solve a problem by giving inspectorial warrants to unemployables with no discernible grace, talent or intellect, but it is an insult to common sense and a pointless burden on every human activity.

[guest39538]

It's all a bit subjective but the difference between"please leave" and "f*** off" is one of implied respect.

Policing by consent, rather than policing by cattle prod and gun, depends on the maintenance of public respect for a uniform, so whilst you can be as rude as you like to your mate when he is off duty, and it is an accepted risk of being on plain clothes duty, Their Worships (see how it all depends on respect?) take a dim view of anyone insulting a uniformed copper.   

Well !  I do not personally think having no respect should be in no way a criminal offence.   Subjective interpretation of word use seems rather selective to the practitioner for their benefits rather than the benefit of law.  What I mean by this , scientific principle of semantics would indeed to show this ambiguity to be a form of extortion or racketeering.
The words are not offensive and have no other meaning than the ambiguity of use. i.e go away.   It is a form of slang language, different to English being of ambiguity.
I am not one to  point fingers but seemingly the government and the police commission are extorting billions of pounds a year in section 80 public disorder fines for swearing.  Not only is the waste of valuable police time, it is a crime in itself.  I accuse our government of extortion by using ambiguity to extort money out of people, an offence of fraud on the people. 

So how would my first case as a pretend lawyer do in a court of law as a defence for somebody?   Using science for everything works well i think.