Ryze - Business Networking Get a Coderbuddy developer now
www.coderbuddy.com

"I Highly Recommend Them" - Magnitude.io CEO; US timezone; affordable rates; Silicon Valley leadership
Get your software built!
Buy Ethereum and Bitcoin
Get started with Cryptocurrency investing
Home Invite Friends Networks Friends classifieds
Home

Apply for Membership

About Ryze


Legal Needs
Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics
The Legal Needs Network is not currently active and cannot accept new posts
Defining an Idiot !! The Supreme Court defines an IdiotViews: 931
Oct 23, 2008 4:19 pmDefining an Idiot !! The Supreme Court defines an Idiot#

Rudy
The Supreme Court of India in one of its quirky judgements has defined the term idiot.. So beware, in all probability you could be sued if you call someone an idiot and they dont meet the conditions for being an idiot.

Here are the conditions for being an idiot

1) is unable to count up to 20.

2) is unable to list the days of the week.

3) is unable to remember the names of his parents.

Further reading can be done here

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/Supreme_Court_defines_whos_an_idiot/articleshow/3426579.cms

Private Reply to Rudy

Oct 23, 2008 5:24 pmre: re: Defining an Idiot !! The Supreme Court defines an Idiot#

Ritu
Sudheendra...we've already had some discussions on the idiocy of the new definition(/elaboration) of the term 'idiot' here http://www.ryze.com/posttopic.php?topicid=988150&confid=1578

Private Reply to Ritu

Oct 24, 2008 12:51 amre: re: re: Defining an Idiot !! The Supreme Court defines an Idiot#

Vijay Nair
Sudheendra,

As Ritu says, the post on that link does have an elaborate discussion on "Idiot"

Legal definitions should better be kept away from common modes of conversation. Not only "Idiot", there are many many more terms defined by Statutes and Courts, which are relevant only in the context that they are being defined. A particular term might have been defined differently across several statutes and many terms may have the same meaning in one statute. Therefore, quirkiness of such definitions have to be analysed contextually.

While this is being discussed, let me give you an example. The definition of "kidnapping" and "abduction" is different. In common parlance, these two words are used inter-changeably and liberally.

Similarly is the case or "criminal breach of trust" and "cheating".

A glossary of such usages would make an interesting reading.







Vijay Nair, Partner
KNM & Partners, Law Offices
http://www.knm.in/

Private Reply to Vijay Nair

Oct 24, 2008 12:22 pmre: re: re: re: Defining an Idiot !! The Supreme Court defines an Idiot#

Rudy
yeah, this is what happens when you do not visit a network regularly :).... its all done and over :p

Private Reply to Rudy

Oct 24, 2008 3:56 pmre: re: re: re: re: re: Defining an Idiot !! The Supreme Court defines an Idiot#

Ritu
Nahi meine aisa tau nahi kaha...maybe you can add more perspective on the issue...i quite liked the way you called the decision 'quirky' (very polite form of saying that the decision is more idiotic than any idiot can ever hope to be, eh???)...but then again maybe there is only so much perspective when it comes to issues involving idiots etc....marriage, live-ins n divorce are different matters...one can go on n on n on on those......i can keep adding there till everyone stops listening or caring.

Private Reply to Ritu

Previous Topic | Next Topic | Topics

Back to Legal Needs





Ryze Admin - Support   |   About Ryze



Ryze Android preview app

Testing Gets Real: blog on A/B testing, building businesses with feedback loops, by Adrian Scott

© Ryze Limited. Ryze is a trademark of Ryze Limited.  Terms of Service, including the Privacy Policy