• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Semantics, quit crying about people using them. The practice of law too.

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics?s=t
semantics
  Use Semantics in a sentence
se·man·tics
[si-man-tiks] Show IPA
noun ( used with a singular verb )
1.
Linguistics .
a.
the study of meaning.
b.
the study of linguistic development by classifying and examining changes in meaning and form.
2.
Also called significs. the branch of semiotics dealing with the relations between signs and what they denote.
3.
the meaning, or an interpretation of the meaning, of a word, sign, sentence, etc.: Let's not argue about semantics.

http://freedom-school.com/law/law_license.shtml

AS PER THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT;
The practice of Law CAN NOT be licensed by any state/State. ( Schware v. Board of Examiners, 353 U.S. 238, 239 )

The practice of Law is AN OCCUPATION OF COMMON RIGHT! ( Sims v. Aherns, 271 S.W. 720 (1925))

The "CERTIFICATE" from the State Supreme Court:
ONLY authorizes,
To practice Law "IN COURTS" As a member of the STATE JUDICIAL BRANCH OF GOVERNMENT.
Can ONLY represent WARDS OF THE COURT, INFANTS, PERSONS OF UNSOUND MIND (SEE CORPUS JURIS SECUNDUM, VOLUME 7, SECTION 4.)

"CERTIFICATE" IS NOT A LICENSE to practice Law AS AN OCCUPATION, nor to DO BUSINESS AS A LAW FIRM!!!

The "STATE BAR" CARD IS NOT A LICENSE!!!
It is a "UNION DUES CARD".


You enjoy cooking friends and family.
You enjoy cooking, friends, and family.

It's all, semantics.

Punctuation changes meaning in everyday use why do people on here seem to believe that it does not change the meaning in law?

Also who here claiming to be an attorney, who is licensed to practice law, can produce their license to practice law?

I cannot find a single state that issues such a license. Plus, how can you license that which is a right?

As for semantics, we all advocate following the laws, but without semantics, how can we hope to understand the law?
 
Last edited:

Citizen

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2006
Messages
18,269
Location
Fairfax Co., VA
Just semantics ???.. lol

Oh, I see. After I posted, I thought maybe your grandma was mushed by a hoard of panda bamboo that fell out of a loft or something.

:p:)

The thing that is too coincidental is that I have a not-immediate relative who whored. A madam, in fact. She didn't die from it, though.
 
Last edited:

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/semantics?s=t


http://freedom-school.com/law/law_license.shtml




You enjoy cooking friends and family.
You enjoy cooking, friends, and family.

It's all, semantics.

Punctuation changes meaning in everyday use why do people on here seem to believe that it does not change the meaning in law?

Also who here claiming to be an attorney, who is licensed to practice law, can produce their license to practice law?

I cannot find a single state that issues such a license. Plus, how can you license that which is a right?

As for semantics, we all advocate following the laws, but without semantics, how can we hope to understand the law?

Yeah, it's definitely an over-used dismissal. But I think there are some circumstances where people try to turn an argument into one of semantics just to escape some other argument that they've begun to lose, and sometimes some other situations where there is a legitimate complaint at the semantic angle of an argument.

I think the "semantics" at least need to be understood and agreed upon by both parties so that effective communication can take place, and then once that occurs stick to arguing substance/ideas. If the "semantics" are not hashed out, though, effective communication can't happen.
 
Last edited:

Superlite27

Regular Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2007
Messages
1,277
Location
God's Country, Missouri
Punctuation changes meaning in everyday use why do people on here seem to believe that it does not change the meaning in law?

As for semantics, we all advocate following the laws, but without semantics, how can we hope to understand the law?

I've pondered the following atrocity of a sentence(s?):

Semantics, quit crying about people using them. The practice of law too.

After careful inspection of this mass of words discordantly attached with the seemingly random placement of commas and periods apparently determined by coin flip, I have arrived at a conclusion:

Basically, the entire heap of jumbled words seems to be a complaint about people who complain about semantics. However, the irony begins to pile upon itself exponentially. Not only is this a complaint complaining about people who complain (irony#1), it is doing so using the most ....er......"F'ed-up" punctuation and sentence structure I've ever seen. Oddly enough, (irony #2) it appears to be complaining about the incorrect usage of punctuation.....in which the most atrocious use of punctuation is used to do so. To my amazement, (irony #3) the OP completely attributes the problem of incorrect punctuation to semantics, the arbitrary determination of the meaning of language.

Somehow, there is also a rant about the licensure of law practitioners tossed in for good measure.

If any more irony were jammed into such few sentences, it would cause a disruption in the space/time continuum. Given several years, I couldn't attempt to jam half as much irony into double the space on purpose.

This was probably typed by pure genius in only a few moments.

What we have here, folks, is an expert troll wielding his craft in flawless precision. It hit every one of my buttons with a sledgehammer. I bow to the supreme genius of its perfect construction.

Well played, sir. Well played.
 

Freedom1Man

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
4,462
Location
Greater Eastside Washington
Yeah, it's definitely an over-used dismissal. But I think there are some circumstances where people try to turn an argument into one of semantics just to escape some other argument that they've begun to lose, and sometimes some other situations where there is a legitimate complaint at the semantic angle of an argument.

I think the "semantics" at least need to be understood and agreed upon by both parties so that effective communication can take place, and then once that occurs stick to arguing substance/ideas. If the "semantics" are not hashed out, though, effective communication can't happen.

I've had conversations with people and the subject of law comes up. I ask if we are in-fact discussing law to make sure we are clear. I then point out that the laws often use a different definition of a commonly used word than is used normally. It's then that people get upset over semantics.

I point out that driving and traveling are different legally. I point out that a right cannot be licensed (cars, guns, law practice, etc) and then they whine about semantics.

I've seen plenty of this type of thing happening here and figured I would create a thread for people to discuss semantics, legal use of words, etc.

So, I hope people can use this to vent rather than bashing each other the head, so to speak, in other threads.
 

stealthyeliminator

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2008
Messages
3,100
Location
Texas
I've had conversations with people and the subject of law comes up. I ask if we are in-fact discussing law to make sure we are clear. I then point out that the laws often use a different definition of a commonly used word than is used normally. It's then that people get upset over semantics.

I point out that driving and traveling are different legally. I point out that a right cannot be licensed (cars, guns, law practice, etc) and then they whine about semantics.

I've seen plenty of this type of thing happening here and figured I would create a thread for people to discuss semantics, legal use of words, etc.

So, I hope people can use this to vent rather than bashing each other the head, so to speak, in other threads.

Ahh I see what you mean. Yes, all perfectly valid examples of where "arguing semantics" is legitimate and necessary.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
I've pondered the following atrocity of a sentence(s?):



After careful inspection of this mass of words discordantly attached with the seemingly random placement of commas and periods apparently determined by coin flip, I have arrived at a conclusion:

Basically, the entire heap of jumbled words seems to be a complaint about people who complain about semantics. However, the irony begins to pile upon itself exponentially. Not only is this a complaint complaining about people who complain (irony#1), it is doing so using the most ....er......"F'ed-up" punctuation and sentence structure I've ever seen. Oddly enough, (irony #2) it appears to be complaining about the incorrect usage of punctuation.....in which the most atrocious use of punctuation is used to do so. To my amazement, (irony #3) the OP completely attributes the problem of incorrect punctuation to semantics, the arbitrary determination of the meaning of language.

Somehow, there is also a rant about the licensure of law practitioners tossed in for good measure.

If any more irony were jammed into such few sentences, it would cause a disruption in the space/time continuum. Given several years, I couldn't attempt to jam half as much irony into double the space on purpose.

This was probably typed by pure genius in only a few moments.

What we have here, folks, is an expert troll wielding his craft in flawless precision. It hit every one of my buttons with a sledgehammer. I bow to the supreme genius of its perfect construction.

Well played, sir. Well played.

On the last day of the year, we have a new candidate for Post of the Year! Brought to you by Webster's Dictionary, where "semantics" is not just another word.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
Might "such a license" be a bar card documenting ones admission/permission to address the court as peer? Either we are equal or we are not.

If I am wrong, I hope one of the lawyers here corrects me, but doesn't the admission to the bar allow one to represent others in court? All are still free to represent themselves.
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
If I am wrong, I hope one of the lawyers here corrects me, but doesn't the admission to the bar allow one to represent others in court? All are still free to represent themselves.

When did the license start?

Seems the legal and the medical and so many other professions were hurt by the cartelizing of it by the state and the educations system.
 

eye95

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 6, 2010
Messages
13,524
Location
Fairborn, Ohio, USA
When did the license start?

Seems the legal and the medical and so many other professions were hurt by the cartelizing of it by the state and the educations system.

I was reacting to the implication that one had to be a lawyer to argue in court (or at least the failure to recognize that even non-lawyers have access to the courts). Since your reply ignores that, I will not respond.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
I was reacting to the implication that one had to be a lawyer to argue in court (or at least the failure to recognize that even non-lawyers have access to the courts). Since your reply ignores that, I will not respond.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

<o>

Interesting cry of semantics.....:p

And I was reacting to the portion of your post that talked about licensing, I wasn't "ignoring" anything. :rolleyes:
 

sudden valley gunner

Regular Member
Joined
Dec 13, 2008
Messages
16,674
Location
Whatcom County
No prob. Maybe someone else would be interested in discussing the issue.


From what I recall, Being a lawyer at one time was more of an apprentice program, steeped in the study of common law. Jefferson represented a slave if I recall who he felt his common law rights were being violated, I don't recall him having a license to do so.
 
Top