We'll simply have to agree to disagree. Saying "we accept they are fruits" but then judge they don't fall under fruits when it comes to taxation just does NOT make sense. I could re-iterate and make bold what I said before, but what's the use. I think I've explained to you more than enough what my point is.

The only way this is accepted, is because it's of minor import to most people. If it was something of large importance, no-one would actually accept such a thing. Imagine a law about whether blacks should be considered people or animals with a law saying "you can shoot an animal without any punishment" in the 50ies. And if one would shoot blacks and then claim "but the lawmaker back than regarded black people as animals" - quite possible back then - would anyone now really be following the same reasoning you're upholding here? Would one say: "no, no! The court made no mistake, they just followed the 'intent'! See? The court AGREED with you that blacks are not animals, they just followed intent."

And when I would point out that that DE FACTO means they regard blacks as animals, you could argue; "Not at all. They acknowledge *the fact* that blacks are people, and then just go on to say "we don't think that's what the author of the law meant when he said humans vs. animals.""

Following your reasoning, this would be a perfectly valid reasoning, and the court made the right call that blacks could be shot, without this meaning they didn't acknowledge blacks are humans.

But one can easily see this is BS. *The differentiation ITSELF* of the judgement means you're *de facto* MAKING a distinction between the two. I just can not wrap my mind around you not comprehending this. The court SAYING they acknowledge it, but then not applying it, means they're NOT acknowledging it where it matters most; not in their words, but in their actions. The reason for that is immaterial. Intent does not change reality. Humans have also a very clear biological definition. Whether one wants to acknowledge this or not, or invoke 'intent' or 'common parlance' is aside the question. If the court would deem it allowed to shoot blacks, regarding the question whether one could consider them humans or animals (aka, vegetables or fruits), you de facto consider them animals if you allow blacks to be shot, but not 'humans' - this is true, EVEN if the court says it acknowledges blacks are humans as well. Do you understand what I'm saying, here?

For some reason, you seem to think what the court says about it ways heavier than how they actually have judged it to be. I disagree. You would too - presumably - if it was a case of high moral stake as the example I gave - but now you're just content arguing differently.

It is contradictory. It makes no sense. Saying "The world is round, but because people think it's flat (or the lawmaker thought it was flat) we're going to agree to a flat-earth tax" is stupid, wrong, and nonsensical, and grates with what one first said, namely that the Earth was round. If they KNOW the Earth is round, or a black a human, or a tomato a fruit, they need to be consistent and logical, REGARDLESS of intent or what trade-people think about it, and make a judgement in accordance with reality, as they - in fact - know it is. Again: "Fiat justitia ruat caelum".

So yes, I agree that the court knew fully well it were fruits, but *in reality* they judged it were not fruits - not by saying it, but by their judgement, in this case. Which makes it twice as worse, in fact. You're looking at what they 'say' about it, and conclude they judged tomatoes as fruits. You do not consider the logical consequences and implication of the judgment itself they actually made, which means they do *not* consider tomatoes fruits because it doesn't suited them in this case (aka, because of 'intent' or 'common usage'). But denying reality because of convenience, is still denying reality. Saying you acknowledge this reality, but then make a judgement that goes against it, makes it hypocritical on top.

That IS my point. I've been saying this over and over now. I understand you do not concur with this, but it is as it is. For me, facts, reality, logic and consistency trumps considerations of 'not rocking the boat' or 'being easy on traders', or 'to cater to the intent, ignorance or wishful thinking of people or lawmakers'.

?

Ermm.. you just gave the normal definitions, that one can find in all dictionaries... which pretty much say what I said. I was well aware of THOSE, since that was my whole point. The scienitfic defintion is there, all right. My question was for the 'trade-definition' that apparently was as logic, concise and clear as the scientific the scientific one, as you claimed. (or, at least, some commentator here claimed - the comments are getting a bit too much in quantity, so excuse me if I bring something up that you didn't even allude at, in this regard ;-)).

Basically, you've proven that the scientific definition is readily available and clear to all. what I don't see is any definition of some 'trade-dictionary' where it is otherwise defined to explain why tomatoes are not to be considered fruit - even though you (or someone else here) has said it is 'well documented'. Apparently so well documented, there is no trace to be found in any official dictionary of any repute. I guess they just all missed this widely adopted and used definition, then? Or... maybe... there isn't one to begin with. Well, in that case, if you want to define something, I would say it makes more sense - certainly in regard to clarity - to use an existing definition to define something, than a non-existing definition.

As for the 'real' one; I get what you're trying to say. But clearly, the definitions are made in order of importance, and while it may change slightly, they ALL say more or less the same, and they ALL have the scientific definition as one of the first definitions. Of course there can be other meanings, I said so myself. The 'fruits of labor' for instance. But all that has no bearing to this case. A trade-definition explaining why tomatoes are not fruit WOULD have been relevant, but as you can see in your examples, is nowhere to be found. One can throw up 'common parlance' again, but that's not a definition, and, indeed, while "correct" is an ambiguous word on itself, I would want to make clear that science is always going to be MORE correct than an non-scientific definition, in the sense that it better describes reality.

" respectfully disagree"

Well, at least you're being respectful, contrary to some others.

No sweat, that's what civil discussions are for. Each can give his/her arguments, but in the end one can only agree or disagree to the different points made - or at least agree to disagree, if nothing else. ;-)

"Yeah, you think so? What if the law sets different tax rates for berries, drupes, pomes [snip]"

Then he's making it harder for himself. I fail to see your point, if that point was a counter to what I said. I didn't say there are no other ways to make things more complicated, I said using inconsistent and arbitrary and illogical definitions and interpretations of laws are a sure want to complicate it further, while being concise and consistent lessens this.

"You keep getting that wrong. The court did not say "tomatoes are not a fruit."

you used that statement before, but it's logically inconsistent. If the question is between taxation or non-taxation of fruit and vegetables - which was the point: fruits were exempt - yet you judge tomatoes must pay the taxes contrary to, well, the fruits, you DE FACTO claim that tomatoes are not fruit. that is the implicit claim made in the case of those taxes, even if they don't *directly* said as such. Now, the *reason* they give for that is, granted, that they assume the intent was different for the lawmaker who made this law in ignorance or incompetence. And my point is, that that shouldn't supersede reality, namely that tomatoes are fruits.

"Here's something else to consider: if 100% of laws were non-ambiguous /snip"

I often hear that counter, and it always baffles me because it makes no sense at all, in determining which way one should *strive* how society (and in this case, the courts/laws) should go. Look: did I say all laws are 100% non-ambiguous? Or that that all people are rational and logical? Or that lawmakers are all competent and wise?

No.

So why act as if I did? It's very close to a straw man fallacy what you're using here.

I'm saying concise and consistent laws that are clear and non-contradictory drastically improve things. Whether it IS this way now, was not the question. Clearly, since I argue the law and judgement makes little sense, and the lawmaker ignorant or incompetent, already shows I'm aware of people's faults and societies' shortcommings. Obviously. ;-) However, it changes *nothing* to my above statement. So, seen we're never going to be 100% perfect, one should leave things as they are and not impove, and keep things illogical and inconsistent? Strange reasoning. If we had judges that actually would follow logic and be consistent and not cater to ignorance - even ignorance in parlance - and force the lawmaker to make clear, concise and consistent laws, we would need LESS courts and judges and have less courtcases in general. Yes, true. And? I would think that a good thing.

That we would never attain it fully because people never are totally, does nothing to repudiate what I said. no; that's why we would always have some courts and judges and courtcases. But the lesser we have/do, the better. So one should go for that, obviously.

"No it's not, it's people trying to do their best."

No, if they had done their best, they would have concluded tomatoes falls under fruits and are exempt from taxes, and if the lawmaker wanted it differently, he should make a law that is more logical, clear and consistent - aka: better.

" I'd assume you could notice that from the view up there on your horse."

Here we go. Always an indication of strong counterarguments, if people start to play ad hominem in their rebuttal... Why not go all the way and say 'up there on your horse on the rooftop of your ivory tower'? ;-)

"Oh, well, then apologies indeed good sir, perhaps the gentleman would consider fucking off to a society /snip"

Apologies accepted, but I'll decline the suggestion, polite and amicable as it may be. It's sufficient if our current societies (including courts and judges) would *strive* to be more rational and logical, when they make or apply laws that govern people, instead of catering to ignorance of the populace - even if that ignorance is the current 'best they can do'. If you never teach anyone why what they think makes no sense or what they feel is correct in 'common usage' is wrong, or laws are inconsistent, etc., you only perpetuate this ignorance and foolishness. Sometimes they do, btw. Strive, I, mean. But this case clearly wasn't one of those times.

That people aren't 100% logical and consistent should not be an excuse, nor hamper or lessen the need for being MORE logical and consistent, if you want less conflict in your society (as you yourself actually acknowledged, since, as you state, if we'd be able to do it 100%, we'd need NO courts and judges anymore.) That ultimate endgoal is not possible, but the principle is clear, thus, even to you.

"We were not discussing science, we were discussing tax law."

And the link to that was, since science is more concise, you are better of with the scientific definition, also in law. And, btw, the next sentence said exactly the same about language, so 'science' was only one of the examples.

"But even in science it is in fact extremely common /"

Yes, and those are always well defined, and everyone knows what is meant by it. and in the rare cases it isn't we DO get a mess there too, so this rather strengthens the case I made.

"The usage in question is not arbitrary at all, it is well established common usage and this is easy to document."

The usage is vague and inconsistent, which makes the *distinction* arbitrary. As for 'documented': I'm still waiting on a link to a dictionary of any repute with a completely different 'trade-definition' of the word fruit that involves tomatoes, but not other fruits.

"As does yours."

I beg to differ. Mine certainly is more consistent and concise. Only if you ADD things to it, and want to make more distinctions, does it need any elaboration. you gave the examples of flour and what not, but do note that the original definition says nothing about that neither, so you'd need even more additional (and far less logical) elaboration of the law as well, if you wanted to include differentiation between those distinctions as well.

For THE SAME thing, thus, my law is both more clear, concise, consistent and logical. It's immediately clear what fruits are, and when and why they're exempt from taxes - also for tomatoes.

Granted, it says nothing about flower, but so didn't the other law. that is purely a question of how complex the world is, and even more how complex you want to want to make the laws to have influence on that complex world. This does not diminish by making vague and inconsistent laws, however, rather the contrary.

"I agree that the law should be sent back to the drawing board"

Well, at least we're agreeing to some things, then. ;-) It's becoming increasingly rare in discussions, especially on slashdot. :-)

For the rest of your paragraph I - again - have a slightly different opinion. What we see happening now, is that it's NOT being revised, but the law, in all its inconsistency, is applied and continues to be applied. Which will happen almost in every case, when you do so with a law, because it it becomes a case for precedent, NOT for revision that way.

I also disagree with the catering to ignorance, as I've said before. Even if all trade-people would start bowling their eyes out because they realize they should adapt their misinformed and highly inconsistent idea about tomatoes and fruits - used as they are in their parlance, the court should have gone through with it. "Fiat justitia ruat cælum" as said before. In reality, traders would adapt really quickly, I assure you. They really don't care. If the court had said tomatoes are fruits, that would be that. And if the lawmaker didn't agree, he would be FORCED to make a better, more logical law. all advantages, as far as I'm concerned.

Then, as a lawmaker, IF you want to make a distinction, you can say: for all fruits, except when peeled or any sort of treatment has been done on the fruit.

The world is, indeed, not as simple, that's why simplistic arbitrary laws that are not consistent does not do justice to the complexity of the world. If the world is complex, and you want to make complex distinctions, your laws must be reflect that as well, if you want to be concise. The clarity does not come from simplistic laws, but from internal logic and consistency in the laws.

The law, however, dated from the time we already had the scientific definition, so the lawmaker was either ignorant of this, or incompetent, or both, as I said.

"Because you're asking for a world where laws need to be so specific as to not be understandable by common people"

On the contrary; it's by using DIFFERENT ad-hoc interpretations of the same word without regard to consistency or logic that things become not understandable.

This very example proves it.

1)The court says 'Tomatoes are fruit, and therefor should be exempt from taxes'. "Huh?", say the common but ignorant people 'I always thought tomatoes were vegetables and not fruit." "Well, you're wrong about that, because THIS is the primary definition of a fruit, and as you can see, tomatoes fall under it." "True." the common people can't but agree, when remaining logical and consistent.

2)The court says 'Tomatoes are not fruit, and therefor should not be exempt from taxes'. "Huh?", say the less common but intelligent people 'I always thought tomatoes were fruit." "Well, you're wrong about that, because THIS is the primary definition of a... no wait, it isn't. It's what the ignorant people think, and therefor we must interpret it on equally ignorant basis. It's because fruit is sweet and as you can see, tomatoes don't fall under it." "Not true." the less common people point out, because not all fruit is sweet, and some vegetables are also sweet, yet you don't consider *those* vegetables and fruit in reverse. So that can't be the characteristics for defining a fruit or a vegetable." The court now scratches her many blindfolded heads and tries something else: "Well, it's because vegetables are usually cooked. That's the different characteristic.See how that makes more sense than using the proper scientific defintion?" "What?", answers the not common people; that makes even less sense, because tomatoes are usually NOT cooked, so with that definition it should certainly not be considered a fruit!" Etc, etc.

One can clearly see what is causing the most nonsensical inconsistencies here, and it's NOT using specific and logical interpretations and clear wordings. Rather the contrary.

Ultimately, since there is no *inherent* logic in it, they can only resort to: it's not factual correct, nor logical, nor consistent, but we're using it anyway because most of the common people are ignorant and are used to it that way anyway.

It's an attitude based on ignorance and laziness thus, as I've said before. And I do simply do not concur with such a thing.

I disagree. The dictionary definition should be the most valid one. (Btw, I didn't search for 'one', I searched for five ot he most common dictionaries, and they ALL had that very same definition at the very top and thus as primary definition. And none gave a 'trade'-definition, as you've been postulating.)

On the contrary, it's very scientific to use precise words and convey exact meaning to what one says. What a mess one would be in, if in science everyone used his own meaning of a word, and interpreted everything fully arbitrarily! In fact, even in normal usage of language it is of paramount importance to use commonly defined interpretations, and, indeed - certainly when in doubt - to refer to the dictionary definitions as the defining one.

Can you imagine what bable of babylon any talk or discussion would otherwise amount to. Imagine every word I or you utter we both interpret in our own, unique way. Ah, but *I* mean with the word cat a species of canine! Ah, but I mean with cat a vehicle one can drive with! Ah, but I interpret 'canine' as being only applicable to snakes.

etc.

One could not have any decent conversation whatsoever, if everyone interprets the meaning of words in another way. Common language wouldn't even exist.

So, no, I refute the notion that any interpretation is as as good as the next ones. You personal (or my personal) interpretation is superseded by that of a dictionary one, for instance - whether I or you like that or not. Because going the other route makes (and devolves) into nothing sensible at all.

The very fact that we can have a sensible discussion is due to the fact we DO NOT interpret each word differently. In fact - which proves my case in regard to what gives the most trouble/causes the biggest mess - one of the major causes of misunderstandings and endless disagreements is exactly the fact that both parties interpret something differently. Start with agreeing to use the primary dictionary definition - or explicitly mention the secondary/third if applicable - when in doubt, and much of that goes away.

You've not understood my point completely. If there actually IS suich a huge concern for the intent of the lawmaker, it's even more reason to resend the law to the drawing-board so he can make one which makes logical sense. The law was made when the definition of a fruit was already known - not a vague common-parlance-in-trade definition that actually never was a real definition, as I, presume - but the scientific definition. So, he either was ignorant, or he was incompetent, and consequently, also the law he made. Reason the more to not cater to some inconsistent, self-invented/interpreted, illogical law, but to actually follow the law in the most logical and consistent way.

That the lawmaker meant something else is HIS problem, the courts should not try to second guess any ill-informed intent, especially one that is based on ignorance or incompetence, but should apply direct logic and scientific scrutiny and strive for consistency to the utmost of their abilities. And follow a more strict and consistent interpretation of the law. It's also well established in law that they can do so as well. My point is: and they equally should have done it here as well.

I disagree. I checked 5 dictionaries: they all basically give the same definition as the prior definition as I gave. There is NO such a thing as a 'trade' definition where a tomato would be a vegetable but not other fruits. Provide me ONE link to a dictionary of any repute where there is a seperate 'trade' definition. there is NO SUCH THING. It's only in common parlance based on ignorance one find this notion back, as said. The only other definitions being allegorical in nature, like 'the fruits of labor', which, obviously, has no bearing on the case. Thus the argument that it has another definition, as it has ACTUALLY been defined, holds no value, and even if it were true: the most scientific definition is the most correct one, and by the time the law was made and it came before the court, that definition was already there. That people in their ignorance and in 'common speach' refer to other things of 'fruit' is no reason to suddenly cater to that opinion. In fact, one most definitely shouldn't. That's the same f- problem with people whining and complaining (and trying to make courtcases) out of the fact that Tesla uses the word 'autopilot' and they don't know what that actually means.

No. No catering to ignorance. It's just *because* people that know better, like judges, cater and pamper to this sort of nonsense that it perpetuates even more and you keep getting this sort of BS cases. Use the correct definition, and if there is none, or there is doubt (aka, 'there are more than one', and both are relevant) write down which one you mean. It's not that difficult to do, now, is it? And remains consistent herein, and everyone soon will understand it's not their own invented definition that counts, and a lot less time will be wasted on such cases.

"It is perfectly logical to assume a law regulating trade uses the language of trade."

I disagree, it's far more logical to use the definition that is used AS a definition. And if there is more than one which may apply, and where there is doubt within the definitions, to explain which one you're using. There is no such thing as a 'trade dictionary' that has definitions that a normal dictionary hasn't. That's just something that you invented. I'll repeat: you claim it's differently defined; well, give me a link to a dictionary where the definition I gave isn't the at the top of the list, and where you can conclude tomatoes aren't fruits. don't say so, show me. We'll talk further after that.

"For your interpretation to hold up the tax rules for fruit would also automatically apply to whole nuts but not shelled nuts."

You've lost me there. Everything that is a fruit, would be considered a fruit. Whether it's peeled or not.

It's not 'my' interpretation, btw, it's the scientific interpretation. Which is the most logical and most correct of all interpretations in regard to reality. And certainly the most consistent. If you deny that, I'm curious to see your 'trade definition' to 1) actually be a *definition* anywhere to be found on the internet let alone scientific papers or dictionaries, 2)to make more logical sense why tomatoes should not be considered fruit, but other fruits do - on what logical basis is that distinction made, since you claim that 'my' interpretation is not more logical or rational? I would like to see that famous consistency and logic that trumps the scientific definition in making the distinction. It's certainly didn't pan out with the self-invented conditions of it being 'sweet or not' or 'usually cooked or not', as I've shown the many contradictions when applying those in a logical manner, in earlier posts. So I'm really curious to see a 'trade-definition' which will be more logical and consistent in its application than the normal definition.

Also: " What would be the point?"

Clarity and consistency. Both in the law as in its execution. For example, if the actual definition of fruit and vegetables would have been applied from the start, tomatoes would not have been exempt from the taxes on fruit, and there would have been no courtcase to begin with.

In contrast, we now have to consider that any fruit could be considered a vegetable on subjective and arbitrary definitions and conditions, such as: being sweet, what people think about it in their ignorance, what the intent of the lawmaker was, if it can be cooked or not, etc. This leaves the door wide open to a plethora of similar cases, where not one of any of the variables is consistently used and contradictions are bound to happen because there is no internal logic to it. True justice needs logical laws applied correctly and consistently. The less arbitrary judgements based on subjective grounds that are contradictory, the better.

I don't think I'm being unreasonable in stating this principle. Yes, yes, you can argue it will never be thus 100%, and you would be right, but that shouldn't stop us from *striving* to do it that way.

Let's agree to disagree.

A fruit is a fruit, period. Saying it has nothing to do with whether it is a fruit or not, when the taxation is for vegetables OR FRUIT, makes no sense at all. In your view, it has nothing to do with reality... but any judgment about whether something is applicable or not HAS to deal with reality, that's just the point. If a flat-earther makes a law that ordains the world is not spherical and none may contradict this, and someone says it's a cube, the court could say he still gets fined because the original maker of the law wanted to say the Earth was a flat disk. That's basically what you're saying. And what I'm saying is, that the court should have stuck to reality in any case, and concluded people are right if they say the Earth is spherical, and thus the fine void. Reality is not about what one wants, intents, or the majority of the people - lawmakers included - wrongly think of something - but just is. And courts should always look if a law is in accordance with that reality. An observable reality is best described by science and through the scientific method, using logic and rationality. Conclusions of the court that deal with intent vs reality, should let reality supersede. Always.

My point is, we - justice included - are better off with the latter instead of the former attitude. It would be quite nefarious to let mere intent, with no regard to reality, determine justice: there would be - literally - no reality-check on the things claimed and any intent would go unchallenged, then.

And if your stance is that a court can't do anything else BUT go with the presumed intent of a lawmaker, you would be wrong; there's enough jurisprudence where the courts have not followed the law, also in it's intent. So yes, you're right that the lawmaker made a bad law, if his intent was to allow some fruits like tomatoes to be taxed like vegetables, but that doesn't mean the courts have to go along with it, if the logical interpretation - and not an assumption of the intent - is used. I get that you want to say they did the latter. My point is, they should have done the former, and that logical and rational reasoning based on the factual reality needs to supersede (guesses of) ill-informed intent based on ignorance.

And yes, the lawmaker was either ignorant or incompetent, if he made that law. Which is exactly why the court should not have gone along with it, but instead followed it consistently with logic and conclude, correctly, that tomato's are fruit, and thus exempt from the tax. This would have send that lawmaker - if he was really 'intent' on it - back to the drawingboard, and come up with a better, more consistent law that does not contradict itself: another advantage of such an approach! Ad infinitum if necessary, until you have a proper law based on reality and adequately formulated and logical consistent, as best one can. Something, I would claim, which should be strived for, in any jurisdiction or lawmaking.

I've seen the flat-earthers conspiracy theories, so yes, no doubt this, in comparison, will be a piece of cake for the same kind of nutcases to ignore the truth, yes.

Reading your text I found myself a bit puzzled about the seemingly randomness and off-topic sidetracks in your comment. I suspect some irony and (self?)mockery were at play here too, and/or wild-associative thoughts on the matter, which, I must confess, I didn't fully manage to follow.

But.. I'll go with your last paragraph, and agree with you there.

Basically, it's a miscategorisation learned from infancy and perpetuated by ignorance.

But a tenacious one.

I know this. However, what they're actually doing is claiming that reality is subservient to what people *think* about something, and this is a very dangerous or at least foolish thing to do.

The court, fully well KNEW that tomatoes are, in effect fruits. We seem to both agree on this. However, they decided that it actually being a fruit is of no importance because people consider(ed) it to be a vegetable. The precedence this creates is, that it doesn't matter what something *actually* is, what counts is what people think of it, EVEN if that's faulty, comes from ignorance, laziness or is arbitrary and is utterly inconsistent. I simply do not subscribe to this pretty dangerous and foolish viewpoint. It undermines the believability of the court (due to it's arbitrary and inconsistent nature of the ruling), and sets precedent for similar justifications - which might do more harm than just unjustly demanding taxes - in matters that are of greater import. It's the principle that is at play here. If one makes the decision that whatever most people wrongly think and assume is what should count for a ruling of the court, than basically you have no true justice anymore.

This whole concept and viewpoint flies in the face of the age-old adagium "Fiat justitia ruat cælum" which is what the courts have tried and should try to follow, exactly for the reasons mentioned above. The maxim signifies the belief that justice must be realized regardless of consequences or whatever people 'feel' about it.