Can monks get improved natural attack?

[pawsplay]

Actually, as it turns out, even a STOP sign presents some amiguity. A lawyer in California succesfully argues that it really does not mean STOP. More like slow wayyyy down and be safe.

Maybe that's a silly example, but I think it drives home my point.

Newspaper headlines, too, are very often ambiguous and you cannot tell what they really mean until reading the story. Of course, that's very often intentional.

GIANT COACH AIMS FOR NEW HIGH

has always been one of my favorites.

 

[Artoomis]

Link?

Sorry - I guess I was making a point more than anything else. I did hear this story told to me as true, but it could be urban legend.

It went something like:

A lawyer, arguing a case of running a stop sign where the driver almost, but did not quite stop (per the police officer) used a ball to illustrate a point. He tossed it in the air and challenged the officer (or the court, I am not sure which) to identify when it stopped. The end result was that STOP really ended up meaning "darn near stopping, but not necessarily competely."

It's hardly a perfect example and I cannot prove it, but it was merely illustrative of a point.

 

[Artoomis]

So, just for fun, let's go back to the original question of this thread:

"Can monks get improved natural attack? "

The answer is painfully obvious, is it not?
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
It depends.

 

[IcyCool]

Sorry - I guess I was making a point more than anything else. I did hear this story told to me as true, but it could be urban legend.

Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.

The description makes it sound like urban legend. How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken? And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".

I think someone was pulling your leg.

 

[Artoomis]

Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.

The description makes it sound like urban legend. How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken? And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".

I think someone was pulling your leg.

Could be. It does not really matter. It's a fun story and ilustrates how even a simple word like "STOP" might not necessarily have a universally accepted meaning.

 

[moritheil]

I would disagree. Often the only true agreement is that we all use the same words in the same way... we could agree one day, then disagree fiercely the next if it turns out my definition of one thing is not exactly the same as yours when applied to a certain context.

Only within a shared language is agreement possible. Life rarely indulges absolutes.

We have done just that. My point is that when we were doing that, we were discussing rules, and not the everyday "written word." To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP. It is nothing but dissembling to argue that people don't understand STOP (aside from literacy issues.) That example of the maverick lawyer - true or not - is passed along because of its absurdity, not because it constitutes an example of the commonplace.

People have come out of the woodwork left and right with unusual examples, but I did not state that interpretation of the written word is always a nonissue - just that it is generally so in everyday situations. It's absurd to suggest that just because everyone has a favorite example of when things were not straightforward, things are never straightforward, or that that somehow proves that things are not generally straightforward.

Also note that I have not stated that unraveling the INA rules is one of those situations. I would really appreciate it if people stopped behaving as if I was the one who made that statement in this thread - if it was made, I wasn't the one to make it. (Some suggest that glass meant to state that, but I'm not so sure.)

 

[Cedric]

Made up evidence isn't terribly useful, but it sure is handy.

The description makes it sound like urban legend. How did the lawyer prove that the officer was mistaken? And if he did, the lawyer would have a heck of a lot more luck in proving fault with the officer than trying to convince a judge that "stop" doesn't mean "stop".

I think someone was pulling your leg.

It is actually an Urban Legend, however, it is so common in California (and often overlooked by police officers) that the act of slowing down greatly, but not completely stopping, has become known as a "California Stop".

However, there are instances of people avoiding more severe penalties after an accident involving running a stop sign by claiming they slowed down.

Typically if you run a stop sign and cause an accident that invokes a Reckless Driving charge. People have successfully argued that down to a failure to yield or stop, because they slowed down first to acknowledge the stop sign.

 

[pawsplay]

To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP.

"I'm sorry, officer. I thought the stop sign applied to cross traffic, not to me."

Anyway, the lawyer example isn't absurd, and it hardly matters if you think it's a real event or not, because arguments like that happen in courtrooms all the time. In real life, things are often not clear.

What does stop mean? Does it mean to completely depress your brakes, even if the car is still rocking forward? Does it mean your car is not significantly moving, even if your brake pedal isn't depressed?

But all that's a tangent. Because we're not talking about a sign that says STOP. We're talking about a sign that says "FINES DOUBLE IN CONSTRUCTION ZONE WHEN WORKERS PRESENT" and the workers are at lunch.

 

[moritheil]

To take the STOP sign example, it's clear to everyone that the sign says STOP.

"I'm sorry, officer. I thought the stop sign applied to cross traffic, not to me."

Aha! That's not an example of the sign being unclear - that's an example of the context being unclear. The sign itself saying STOP is not contested - only the context. The person in your example is not saying that the sign does not say to STOP. The driver misinterpreted the conditions in which the written word appeared, not the written word itself.

Practically, the effect may seem similar, but it's an important distinction.

But all that's a tangent. Because we're not talking about a sign that says STOP.

I am.

I'm not talking about INA being clear or unclear. I'm not talking about rules in general being clear or unclear. I'm taking issue with a broad blanket statement made by Artoomis that the written word itself has no "broad, objective truth."

 

[pawsplay]

The written word has no broad, objective truth. A given word means whatever someone says it means.