It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Legal Reference Defines Human Being As Monster, Child As Bastard

page: 1
1

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 1 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Wasn't sure exactly where to post this...







Link...




posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
worst. dictionary. ever


surely someone in printing having a laugh?



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:27 PM
link   
reply to post by SaturnFX
 


Having a laugh no, just being American, yes.

But seriously, Oxford is the only way to go as far as a English dictionary is concerned.



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 03:31 PM
link   
well if someone in court said, that man is a monster, then it have to be made clear that they do not mean goat or lobster, but a bad human being.

i don't know about natural child



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:24 PM
link   
A Natural Child being labeled a bastard is the way to indicate the child has been born outside of marriage. Bastard is an insult in the sense of saying to someone they had no legitimacy to their possessions. It's all about lineage.

The monster reference was for those born with birth defects. Again, if born into marriage, it could be heir, given it "looked human"... It is a harsh word to our ears, but those were the words of the day, namely 1948, as is written on your book picture.
It wasn't a way to equate ALL humans as monsters, nor EVERY child as bastards. But it can be misleading when viewed at first glance.

I find it historically interesting, seeing language has changed dramatically with this Politically Correct attitude where you can't call a cat a cat as it could be perceived insulting.

Like we can't call a black person a black person. Their skin isn't black, to begin with, just like a white man has beige skin. But that is still OK to say white...

It's language evolution in motion...



posted on May, 1 2011 @ 04:49 PM
link   
reply to post by NowanKenubi
 


Correct. They're not attempting to define human being in general, but to establish the legal boundary for who could be considered a human being for purposes of property and other laws. It is pretty nasty, but it's not sinister, just dependent on its context for its significance.




top topics
 
1

log in

join