Comment Re:THIS is science (Score 1) 309
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'.