4 ms·

> Supposed tables with three legs, or Japanese tables, aren't tables by this definition; they are something else. Perhaps this is a problem, or perhaps it isn't

> Supposed tables with three legs, or Japanese tables, aren't tables by this definition; they are something else. Perhaps this is a problem, or perhaps it isn't. > Perhaps this is a problem, or perhaps it isn't. Eh? If you're talking about defining a 'table' but something that is clearly a table doesn't fit in your definition, than you failed at what you're trying to do. That is a problem.

fluoridation 2y ago
There's a difference between what is a "table", and what is legally a table. As an equivalent example, someone who is legally blind may not be blind in the colloquial sense of the word. There are practical reasons why a legal definition may be broader or narrower than the colloquial definition. For example, the legal definition of blindness is broader, to accommodate disabled people who for the purposes of earning a living are as good as completely blind. My definition of table is narrower because I'm just making an example, but if we suppose it to be a real definition, it might be because the government wanted to tax the sales of the most common variety of tables sold, without bothering to deal with the uncommon cases, so it made a simple definition but effective definition without ambiguous cases. The fact that someone might call a table something that is not legally a table is not in itself a problem. It's only a problem if it goes against the purpose of the definition. Like I said in a different reply, the government might want to tax something that is legally not a table as if it was. In such an event, the definition would not be perfectly useful for their purposes.
- legacynl 2y ago
  The problem is that you might be right in the case of this theoretical example, but it doesn't transfer to the real world, because the legal definition is actually meant to represent the real world thing. Raising tax on 'regular' tables leads to the obvious effect that next all tables will be sold with one extra leg, making them irregular. Therefore people are still selling and using tables except they don't pay any tax on it (which was presumably the point of raising taxes on tables). Also what happens with the definition of 'regular' when the 5-legged tables becomes the norm, and 4-legged rare? Do we amend it to reverse the definition? this would obviously not work. In the case of a tax on tables you should be unspecific in your definition of a table so that the interpretation of the law becomes simple. There is a tax on tables, no matter what size, what kind, how many legs, etc. It is clear to producers, traders and consumers. This ultimately makes everything much simpler for everybody. And this also allows lawmakers to only think of the 'spirit' of the law, without having to endlessly debate about what would be a perfect definition for a thing. All I'm trying to say is that although I kinda think you're right, in that it would be useful if we could reduce law-things to super strict definitions, it would obviously be great if we could do away with lawyers and judges, and replace them with a simple decision trees, but that's just not realistic. Realisiticaly it works the other way around. It starts of vague, and only gets debated and amended when and if edge-cases show up. Nowadays lawmakers know so much about previous cases and laws that they kinda figured out how to write laws that are resistant to all the likely edge cases that might pop up, so even simple laws might nowadays start out as relatively complex documents that are strict in the things they can be strict about and loose when that is more advantageous. Another point that is mildly related is that I personally wonder if it's possible at all to perfectly capture everything about a thought/feeling/concept in writing. Is it possible at all to put something in English on paper, and not have the interpretation of that thing be different for each person reading it?

fluoridation 2y ago

There's a difference between what is a "table", and what is legally a table. As an equivalent example, someone who is legally blind may not be blind in the colloquial sense of the word. There are practical reasons why a legal definition may be broader or narrower than the colloquial definition. For example, the legal definition of blindness is broader, to accommodate disabled people who for the purposes of earning a living are as good as completely blind. My definition of table is narrower because I'm just making an example, but if we suppose it to be a real definition, it might be because the government wanted to tax the sales of the most common variety of tables sold, without bothering to deal with the uncommon cases, so it made a simple definition but effective definition without ambiguous cases. The fact that someone might call a table something that is not legally a table is not in itself a problem. It's only a problem if it goes against the purpose of the definition. Like I said in a different reply, the government might want to tax something that is legally not a table as if it was. In such an event, the definition would not be perfectly useful for their purposes.

legacynl 2y ago
The problem is that you might be right in the case of this theoretical example, but it doesn't transfer to the real world, because the legal definition is actually meant to represent the real world thing. Raising tax on 'regular' tables leads to the obvious effect that next all tables will be sold with one extra leg, making them irregular. Therefore people are still selling and using tables except they don't pay any tax on it (which was presumably the point of raising taxes on tables). Also what happens with the definition of 'regular' when the 5-legged tables becomes the norm, and 4-legged rare? Do we amend it to reverse the definition? this would obviously not work. In the case of a tax on tables you should be unspecific in your definition of a table so that the interpretation of the law becomes simple. There is a tax on tables, no matter what size, what kind, how many legs, etc. It is clear to producers, traders and consumers. This ultimately makes everything much simpler for everybody. And this also allows lawmakers to only think of the 'spirit' of the law, without having to endlessly debate about what would be a perfect definition for a thing. All I'm trying to say is that although I kinda think you're right, in that it would be useful if we could reduce law-things to super strict definitions, it would obviously be great if we could do away with lawyers and judges, and replace them with a simple decision trees, but that's just not realistic. Realisiticaly it works the other way around. It starts of vague, and only gets debated and amended when and if edge-cases show up. Nowadays lawmakers know so much about previous cases and laws that they kinda figured out how to write laws that are resistant to all the likely edge cases that might pop up, so even simple laws might nowadays start out as relatively complex documents that are strict in the things they can be strict about and loose when that is more advantageous. Another point that is mildly related is that I personally wonder if it's possible at all to perfectly capture everything about a thought/feeling/concept in writing. Is it possible at all to put something in English on paper, and not have the interpretation of that thing be different for each person reading it?