Curt Doolittle updated his status.

(FB 1552425214 Timestamp)

Teaching people GRAMMAR so that they can DECODE speech is not the same as teaching people to speak exclusively in decoded speech.

We have been teaching people grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music, and astronomy since the medieval era.

Written speech is more rigorous than spoken. contract language more rigorous than written. P-speech more rigorous than contract. And the purpose of this speech is to construct law that is not open to ‘interpretation’ and therefore closed to ‘legislation from the bench’.

—“In my experience one only need set about resolving oneself to use honest and clear wording to express one’s points/stance while being as factually based as possible. “—

And so what’s the difference other than a formal method for doing so that also defends against error, and bias? And how would I hold you accountable for speaking honestly without some method for testing your speech – rather than just depend on your OPINION as to whether you speak honestly.

What you MEAN is that you don’t want to be forced to learn how to do such a thing. And you don’t want such a thing embodied in law, because you don’t want to be accountable for your words.


Leave a Reply