|Originally posted by [Censored]
Make no mistake, I don't *want* to define it that way, I am only acknowledging the reality of the situation. It is impractical, if you are trying to codify relationships and implement policies a la Confucius, but it is still true.
I generally dislike metaphors, but try this one on: I am the chief structural engineer at Boeing. For the sake of expediency, I have implemented a "pi = 3.10" policy. Do you dare to fly in my 747?
But you are choosing to define it that way based on the facts and circumstances of life. To you it is "truth", but "truth" is only relative to what you know. Copernicus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstien all changed what was once proved as "true." So is the world still flat? From a certain point of view it still may be.
It is not impractical, codes of conduct are written all the time in all fields of life. It's not that difficult at all. Words in the law are defined in certain ways to make it more equitable to implement the rule. Very ofter the popular understanding of a word is different in law, and for policy makers.
If I tried to write a code of conduct based on your idea of what a teacher is, it would fly as well as you 747 implemented at a "pi = 3.10" policy.
What would result with your defintion is just what I said, you would date no one. Doesn't fly. Philosophically it does and that is where that definition should be used, not in law making. In law, we can make 1 + 1 = 3 or 4 or 5 or 6. We would even take is as a truth, based on case law and legal analysis. Because case law would say that the second number 1 actually is the number 2 in Scenario A. It is a number 3 in Scenario B. It is a number 4 in Scenario C. and it is a number 5 in Scenario D. (most lawyers were never good at math so this makes sense. )But to the structural engineer this would be absurd, and it would not work and your 747 would never fly.