Monday, 14 May 2012

‘Implications within Statements’ as a ‘Point of Prejudice’

‘Implications within Statements’ as a ‘Point of Prejudice’

The issue here is this: You are an individual therefore you are unique, so it is fair to argue that you see, experience and interpret everything differently to any other individual. You also define and quantify those experiences uniquely whilst projecting them distinctly and in an interpret way to you yourself.

In other words no one else experiences what you are feeling or can genuinely perceive what you experience since you are unique as an entity. It is therefore fair to argue that you transmit these thoughts and feelings through speech uniquely with any hidden interpretation being unintended (innocent).

            Other individuals may attempt to understand what you are saying and projecting by interpreting the information you are transmitting with this being put into context by themselves and in relation to how they perceive the content of what you are saying. This being a re-interpretation of your statement and not necessarily what you actual stated or implied since that would be speculative.

            The re-interpretation of your statement or comment is an attempt by most to perceive things from your perspective however in some cases it is distorted to project a point of prejudice. Within this the other person is re-interpreting the statement or comment to imply something other than what you stated or intended with them superimposing their own unique interpretation of that statement over yours. This may be perceived as a form of abuse with one person subjecting the other to a form of domination with this bringing the individuals (victim) credibility into question when the entire argument is prejudiced through bias.

Compounding this is the argument in law in as much as: are people being directed through bias to reinterpret statements via intent (as in an intention to re-interpret with the intention to discredit).

Ultimately it is the individual’s statement or comment and not the interpreters with them understanding the original projection, meaning or interpretation therefore their interpretation takes precedence since anything else would be a projection of bias through abuse and that is a crime.

For more on this read the 'State of Injustice' upon the paw-lew.co.uk website since I have investigated this issue in greater depth; I hope this clarification helps you or someone close to you.

Christopher © 14th may 2012

No comments:

Post a comment