Dear themilum:
As a former member I do not think I can post here and remain consistent with my principles, but you seemed to have appealed to a higher principle, at least with respect to this particular exchange. :)
I don't think I can add much to this discussion which hasn't already been said, themilum, but it seems disrespectful to say nothing at all, especially in reply to you, considering your record for speaking out boldly in defence of your principles. [Some may think you were defending Plutarch, but I know better. :) And I hold you in higher esteem for that, themilum, than if you had been defending me and not your principles.]
re "To what degree can words be definite in meaning across cultural and individual interpretations?"
So, let me give it a try, at the risk of being tautologous. Or worse. :)
Lawmakers can try to nail down the precise meaning of words, of course. The problem is they can't foresee every contingency. That's why tax attorneys and accountants get paid so much to find loop-holes in taxation laws. And that's why taxation laws are so hopelessly dense and complicated to the ordinary, educated reader. [Nothing new in this observation, I agree.]
But no lawmaker has tried to nail down, in precise statutory terms, what a general term like "cruel and unusual punishment" means. Judges have taken a whack at it, and they continue to take a whack at it, but the words are wide open to subjective, individual interpretation.
And such interepretations vary from individual to individual, even amongst high-minded individuals, and, of course, they vary from culture to culture [say from the 'blue' culture to the 'red' culture] within the same country.
So that's why I said "the era of one's judgment" is a relevant consideration here, and why I suggested that Anu's AWAD on "presentism" could also be relevant.
I don't think that adds much to the discussion, themilum. But it adds something to the completeness of the high regard I have for you. I hope. :)
