View single post by Joe Kelley
 Posted: Fri May 17th, 2013 06:31 pm
PM Quote Reply Full Topic
Joe Kelley

 

Joined: Mon Nov 21st, 2005
Location: California USA
Posts: 6398
Status: 
Offline
Mana: 
Sergey,

Again, possible wrongly, I feel as if I am the target of a witch hunt, and you are doing the targeting.

It can be established that we do not share the same meanings of words, and from that established agreement in that view of that state of being that way, we can either move in a direction that establishes agreeable meanings for words, or we can move away from that goal, or we can just argue for the sake of it.

It takes two to tango.

I prefer not to argue.

If a crime is perpetrated by a criminal upon an innocent victim, and words exist so as to describe such things actually happening, then the crime is defined by the criminal, and the victim fails to avoid that definition.

As this phenomenon is being defined by you, this parasitim, defined in such a way as to accomplish a task of conveying that perception you have of that phenomenon to me, where that phenomenon makes sense to me, we may find exactly where it makes sense to me, in such a way as to agree with you.

It sounds like crime to me.

Criminals define what crime is, not me.

When I can observe a criminal perpetrating a crime, I know one, I can see it, the communication of it, in progress, is definite, precise, knowable, understandable, as it occurs in time and place. If there is any confusion as to what it is when it is what it is as it is done by the criminal upon the victim, then it is either not a crime, or there are conditions, factors, realities, things, going on that confuse it, and make it unrecognizable as a crime, yet is remains to be a crime.

If a person says these words: "Quantitative Easing is the method by which The Federal Reserve accomplishes their dual mandate."

I know those words to be inculpatory evidence reported by the speaker concerning a crime in progress.

The speaker may not be the person who is willfully employing English as a tool used to deceive the targeted victims. I understand that some people are victims of deception, and their power of will is adversely affected by the deception, or fraud, in progress.

I don't know if that helps in removing any confusion concerning the crimes that fall under the heading of deceit.

Terms are vague.
When I use terms, such as deceit, I am not intending to convey any vague reference at all, instead my intent is to convey a precise identification of the employment of false information to accomplish the goal of taking power away from the targeted victim.

Examples can be as precise as my power to be precise is limited.

Terms are symbols, how can a "term" be vague?

Here is an example of the use of language so as to "be vague," which to me is merely a use of language so as to accomplish the goal of deception.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4XT-l-_3y0


You say 'violence'. Yet any forceful projection can be described as violence. Terms are vague. You might have them nailed down to the sharp, precise, effective... And I even might totally understand what you mean, but! The book will require more 'intuitive' explanations if you desire to convey what you mean to broader audience. At least that would maximize your chances I feel.
It is understood by me that there are many people alive today, who may be alive tomorrow, where today they prefer not to compare their viewpoints competitively with any other viewpoint, and that use of their power of will may, understandably, persist. I do not intend to target those people, to gain anything from them, and my goal is to gain feedback from the Novel, as if I am asking for help in judging the validity, the accuracy, of my current viewpoint.

I hope that the words I just offered to you are words that work as a reply to your last quoted paragraph.

Now how big of system of terms regarding 'tools' of social parasites do you really want me to lay out for you. How much sharp, precise, effective... should it be?
What could help in getting that which I ask to get would be one tool, for a good start, just one tool.

I offer an example of tools to you, and I think these are the necessary tools used by criminals. If you know of one tool used by a parasite in parasitism, then I can compare that tool used by a parasite in parasitism with the 3 essential tools that I understand to be essential tools used by a criminal when a criminal defines the meaning of a crime.

1.
Deception (very specific and not at all ambiguous)
2.
Threats of violence (not at all ambiguous like porn, you know it when you see it)
3.
Violence (accurately measurable violence, not something misunderstood in the least)

Examples of each on a scale of examples can be more effectively understood when using the worst examples of each instead of trying to convey the accurate meaning of each with examples that are marginally belonging to criminals who use those tools to accomplish those goals.

Examples of each on both ends of the scale:

Worst examples of each
1.__________
2.__________
3.__________

Least examples of each
1.__________
2.__________
3.__________

I can fill in the blanks after the numbers if that may help.