Quote:
Originally Posted by roachboy
i suspected that at the core of strict construction was some version of luther's notion of reading through grace that by-passes interpretation.
it's a very protestant way of thinking.
seriously.
catholics dont think this way about scripture, which is the paradigm that's at play here.
but there's a way in which i like communing with the framers. i like the idea of a thomas jefferson finger puppet: you can stuff your index finger up its ass and then say: what do you think of THAT one, thomas? and the thomas jefferson finger puppet will say: what are you asking me for? the words are plain.
it'd be fun theater.
but as an approach to law, it's insanity.
|
in other words, more derp?
---------- Post added at 10:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:27 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by filtherton
The act of interpreting isn't a choice. It is a necessary step in converting the image of the words into ideas in your head. You are interpreting this sentence as you read it, combining the words I've written with the things you already know. The resulting mixture of ideas resulting from your reading of what I'm writing are likely different from the mixture of ideas someone else might get from reading the exact same thing.
|
which makes life so much more complicated. I mean, how does one wake up in the morning. it takes so much interaction between brain and muscles just to open up your eyes, so yeah, i can see how most people are far short of the capability of reading plain text because one must interpret everything. stop signs should be made bigger since interpretation is required, making stopping distances longer.