badger1

qed.

tandempower

How about understanding the discussion of meaning without reference to cited examples of other people discussing meaning?

Walter S

Because words and phrases are supposed to have meanings that are understood by both the speaker and the listeners. When you make up meanings that are inventions of your own mind for phrases that have been in use for hundreds of years you just look dumb and fail to communicate your thoughts.

There is no greater impediment to the advancement of knowledge than the ambiguity of words. ~Thomas Reid

I-Like-To-Bike

I disagree I think he quite clearly communicates the "meanings" of his "thoughts." The significance of the "meanings" of words/phrased that are solely inventions of an imaginative mind is also quite clear.

tandempower

You think I am the first person to use the word, 'liability,' to describe a physical risk outside of a judicial framework? Warning: you are liable to just look dumb if you say I am.

Mobile 155

Well that wasn’t the quote you used but because you may not have looked it up there is a case of the word liability used as you tried written down.

noun, plural li·a·bil·i·ties.
liabilities,
moneys owed; debts or pecuniary obligations (opposed to assets).
Accounting.liabilities as detailed on a balance sheet, especially in relation to assets and capital.
something disadvantageous:
His lack of education is his biggest liability.

tandempower

The phrase, "liable to fall if you trip," means that falling is a potential consequence/result of tripping. Consequences and results don't have to be dealt by a court or legal system. The laws of physics also deal out consequences in the form of direct cause and effect. In that sense, ignorance of the law really doesn't excuse anything because the law of gravity pulls your body to the ground whether or not you are ignorant of it.

Mobile 155

Now show us the alternate printed definition of you original contention.

I did for your secondary word. You cannot escape by changing the subject.

Alternative forms

• ignorantia juris neminem excusat
• ignorantia legis non excusat
• ignorantia legis neminem excusat

Etymology

From Latin ignōrantia factī excūsat, ignōrantia jūris nōn excūsat (“ignorance of fact excuses, ignorance of law does not excuse”).
Phrase

ignorantia juris non excusat

1. Ignorance of the law is not a valid excuse.

tandempower

Ok, I get it. You just cannot think about or discuss the meaning of words and phrases without cutting and pasting definitions.

Mobile 155

Perhaps but you have not changed the meaning of the quote for anyone but yourself. You use a specific quote that we all know and try to change the meaning to fit your argument. When confronted by others objecting to any such change you try to blame other for not understanding what you intended the universal statement to mean. I am simply posting recognized affirmation of my understanding of the phrase. you cannot do the same?

Is that hole getting deep yet?

tandempower

What basis is there for objecting to the way I was applying the meaning of that term? Everything you're saying amounts to squelching what I was saying, which is that the legal concept of ignorance not constituting an excuse applies to liabilities and consequences beyond legal systems and courts.

You always resort to the imagined fiction that if people don't want to believe something, then they can effectively wish it away, but that is exactly the opposite of Ignorantia juris non excusat in terms of physical laws that govern reality.

cooker

Yes, what you are saying make sense on a metaphorical level. If I am inspired from watching the Matrix to try to leap off a building, and I end up at the river Styx, and ask Hades to send me back to earth because I didn't realize I would die, he could rightly tell me "ignorance of the laws of physics is no excuse". However, the Latin phrase was specifically coined to refer to a legal principle on how the justice system operates, not to the more general sense that ignorance doesn't protect you from the natural consequences of your decisions.

tandempower

So what? Google says the following about Shakespear's "rose by any other name" line:
But you can use it as an idiom to refer to anything that the meaning applies to.

cooker

Yes and Shakespeare intended it to be used that way. However, the legal principle about ignorance of the law was never intended to be a generalization about natural consequences - it was specifically intended to refer to how the courts treat lawbreakers who claim ignorance. In reality the courts probably do make some allowance for ignorance if the jury or judge think the offender really was ignorant. and the maxim is probably mainly intended to discourage people from lying and pretending they didn't know.

Communication is a mutual effort. If other people don't get your allusion, you can't beat them over the head with it and tell them they are wrong.

tandempower

If it was that they just didn't get it, they would ask politely for explanation and really try to understand. Instead, what I get are critics who act obstinate as a tactic to squelch what I am trying to say. It's really not that complicated to understand a reference to ignorance of the law as being related to ignorance of consequences outside of codified legal systems and courts, but for some reason some of you just want to get me to agree with you that it doesn't make sense to apply the phrase in the context I did, but I can't and won't because it simply does make sense, and you would concur if you were honest.

KD5NRH

If I could find a good deal on one of the wagon versions they made around that time, it would be a good choice. I worked for a guy who had one, and it was a toss up between that and his custom rebuilt Cressida as to which was more fun on the winding farm-to-market roads. The Cressida had the sport suspension advantage, but the Camry was light enough you could match them up pretty well with some practice.

Mobile 155

You made a quote that has a specific definition. You paraphrased it badly using intentions and consequences where they are not indicated or used. Then you assume what others would get and what others would do in response to your using a false definition to an understood quote? Then you accuse those that understood the original idea as written and used for many years in common literature as not being honest?

Lets look at this again. Have you seen this quote used as you tried to use it anywhere else? Is it in common usage outside of what we use to indicate a legal principal? Look again a the etymology of the term :Ignorance of Facts excuses. Ignorance of the law does not excuse.

But I do believe you cannot and won't relent. That would be admitting to a fact. The others must be wrong you cannot be.

Maelochs

Everybody needs to take a big step back, take a deep breath, and then ask themselves, "What are the most important things?"

I bet none of this debate makes the list for any of you ..... I hope, anyway.

rumrunn6

oh yeah it's wicked pissa to whip around. so effortless. the driver sits so low, that must help. takes some getting used to & it only has 1 air bag. but a free car is a free car!

Mobile 155

Have you considered a Forester? Not as nimble as an outback but pretty good fuel mileage and lots of room.

tandempower

Where did you get this "ignorance of facts excuses" and what does it mean? Who published it as part of the etymological definition and why? What source of meaning is it derived from?

Further, what if my interpretation/application of the term/idea is original? Would that make it wrong? Wasn't the principle conceived originally by some individual? If everyone rejected it at that time, would that change the meaning and/or the validity? Do you think that culture is so subjective and relative that if everyone had agreed that ignorance of the law was an excuse, that would have been made into a principle and respected the way we currently respect the notion that ignorance is no excuse? Really, how much power do you think people have to make lies true by strength of assertion and pushing with numbers and definitions? Do you not believe in truth beyond whim and popularity contests?

Maelochs

Tandem .... give it up. You are wrong.

I am sorry but the idea is Entuitrley a legal concopet---that you cannot use the fact that you did not know that you were breaking the law to evade punishemnt.

That is not a "consequence" becaise the idea in most criminals' minds is that they Will evade consequences ... and most do.

The idea that a jury imposing a sentence is equivalent to getting wet while raining ... not the same.

What you are trying to say is "What you don't know, Can hurt you." And that is a nice, general aphorism which can be used in many situations.

You are using a phrase like "If you lay that screwdriver across those two terminals, you will short it out and probably fry yourself" and trying to make it apply to any situation where two people or things are brought together and cause a reaction.

You can go from the general to the specific, but going the other way you lose the meaning. If you bring together a rabid Republican and a raving Democrat, they might or might not get into a stupid debate over a stupid issue ... but nothing will "short out" even metaphorically, and no one will get electrocuted.

I am sorry but you know ... you can only be right all the time in one place, and that is in your mind and that is only if you are psychotic.

When you take an EXTREMELY specific phrase and try to pretend it has a general meaning, you are lying to yourself and confusing everyone else.

Just give it up.

If you don't just relax and be normal ... I will go out and kill a sapling. Do you want the sap of a baby tree on your hands (figuratively)?

Just chill out. There are better debates.

Mobile 155

You may be too late. I have contacted some of my family outside of Olympia Washington and asked if Weyerhaeuser had any part time openings.

I
Might even rent a car light Woody to drive up there.

(The statement above was in jest and not intended for serious communication.)

tandempower

And my point was that people take the same attitude toward less-direct physical/financial consequences of actions as criminals do to believing that ignorance of the law will excuse them. E.g. "I didn't know I was supposed to LCF to avoid running out of money, so now please excuse my ignorance and bail me out because I'm out of money."

You should really avoid hostage-execution metaphors. They are quite offensive.

cooker

I guess since we are beating the topic to death anyway, I will go another round. The difference is that that natural consequences occur independent of human discretion. If I jump off a building, I might die or I might not and it is out of anyone's control. And gravity certainly doesn't give you a second chance if you made an honest mistake. Also it treats you the same in all jurisdictions: the laws of physics are the same if you jump off the Louvre or the Guggenheim.

However, human-made laws are highly variable and inconsistent, so you could find yourself in a situation where you acted in what seemed like a perfectly responsible way, only to find yourself afoul of some bizarre local regulation. And in fact, judges still could use discretion and give you a break if you were an ignorant foreigner, like the English kindergarten teacher in the Sudan who didn't realize naming a Teddy Bear Mohammed after half the kids in her class would almost get her lynched, but ended up getting handed over the British consulate and pardoned after 8 days in jail. In fact, the "principal" of ignorance of the law being no excuse, is, paradoxically, probably mainly intended to be invoked when judges don't think you were ignorant, and are instead lying to try to get off.

So not a very good analogy.