The danger of prejudice. Thoughts about the Rittenhouse trial.
I did not prejudge the message offered by this individual.
I did not prejudge the message offered by this individual based upon previous experience with this individual, despite having experience with this individual's messages beforehand.
I gave this individual one more chance for me to judge if it is worth my time and effort, my cost, to risk that cost, once again, without finding any benefit whatsoever concerning the messages originating from this individual.
The meaning of any word is an agreement between those using the word as to the meaning intended by the one using the word originally in the original intended message.
To suggest that there is a common, official, one size fits all, monopoly, top-down, enforcement of a meaning of a word by someone upon someone else, as the only possible meaning allowed ever, is a prejudice. Call it Prejudice A for now.
(1863) Boston, Mass.
"Constitutions, statutes, rules, axioms, and all verbal formulas are subject to various and conflicting interpretations, all growing out of the inherent and indestructible Individuality of different minds. A compact between parties who do not understand it alike is null and void, because they have not consented to the same thing, even if they have signed it! What is to be done with this fact? We can do nothing with it but accept it as an irrefutable truth, and provide means of dispensing with whatever conflicts with it."
Discussion in a free market of shared messages, free from willful deception, can free people from error, since people can see anything from many diverse viewpoints, and people can freely choose the best viewpoint they can get from more than their own narrow, limited, viewpoint.
The meaning of the word Law means that which someone claims to be the one and only one used by people in America.
There are at least two opposing claims of what is or is not law in America.
A: Roman Civil Rules or also known as Civil Law, Admiralty, Equity, Family, Traffic, and many other claims of authority under the word "law" that are, in fact, merely suggestions, or worse, these are Orders to be Obeyed Without Question.
B: Common law or also known as The Ancient Law, The Law of the Land, and due process of law, held in a Court of Law, involving private prosecutors, defendants, presumption of innocence, expediency, accuracy, independent grand jurors, independent trial jurors, and jurisdiction afforded to The People who constitute these independent, lawful, agencies, including executors such as a county, elected, coroner, sheriff, justice of the peace (pool from which a grand jury is selected), magistrate, posse or other form of militia.
To prejudge so-called Civil Law with common law, as if one was the same as the other, when they are in fact opposites, is to potentially confuse, distort, delay, corrupt, debase, discredit, weaken, or render impotent one or the other directions intended with either of the two directions these opposing processes are used by those using them.
Top-down Civil Rules, which are not laws in the natural law sense, move people into the haves and the have nots, as directed by those that have this as their tool to accomplish their ends with this tool.
Bottom-up common law, which is based upon natural law, therefore credited accurately with the original meaning of the word law, moves people as far away from human conflict, humans willfully destroying humanity, as is humanly possible, given the natural laws governing humanity.
Survival of a Fitting Quotation. "There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation."
Does one confuse risk assessment with prejudice? If so, it could be me doing so.