No, this is not a vodka advert. Although it should be.

I just had a slightly inebriated moment of clarity. Absolute truths do exist. Within context. Or, more specifically, within mutual context. Think of it as a Venn Diagram of two sets. Two sets of contexts, or truths. Of course, we can definitely go ahead and assume that the resulting subset could be one of of three things:

  1. absolutely empty;
  2. encompassing both sets; or
  3. a minor subset

And, not unnaturally, my intuitive reaction was to think about how the legal system addresses this.

The first thought in my mind: PLEADING INSANITY. Now, how does someone who slaughters their entire family manage to get away with just a few years of intitutionalized therapy and medication, as opposed to the lethal injection (with the disinfectant swab included)?

And only as clear rum (courtesy of Bacardi) would explain to me, it’s a simple case of Subset #3: Absolute truths. Or at least, a subset of them. In other words, the defendant claims insanity, claiming that, in their state of mind, slaughtering their entire family is absolutely a-okay. Then there is a series of psychiatric examinations that affords said defendant the appropriate platform to proclaim exactly how fucked up they are … without, of course, claiming that they’re fucked up, but, quite on the contrary, very right (because claiming that one is insane practically defeats the purpose of insanity, no?). This gives the District Attorney enough room to cross examine, and upon doing so, agree that the defendant is, indeed, quite fucked up. So, the ultimate subset becomes that of “insanity.” One side claims what feels absolutely true to them. The other side claims what feels absolutely true to them about how truly fucked up the opposing side is, based on said psych evaluation. And the judge smacks the gavel, and BAM! 5 years in a mental institution with strict supervision … as opposed to, of course, the death sizzle, ya dig?

So … having said this, where do subsets 1 and 2 fit in? Quite simple: Subset #1increases the odds of the defendant being found guilty of mass murder. And Subset #2, quite the opposite: i.e., the D.A. has probably done the same thing and, accordingly, sees nothing wrong with slaughtering family members.

Of course, this is all inspired by Bacardi, from someone whose legal experience does not go past filling out tax return forms, so all you lawyer folks can feel absolutely free to vilify me for over-simplifying your entire industry.

On the other hand, if I’m right … then I’m officially going to have to decline taking the LSATs to end up being $200,000 in debt in a few years.

And believe me … debt is a whole other rant … for a whole other blog session.

That’s all for this one, though.