Yep, the soapbox has been taken out of the closet, dusted off and I’ve jumped onto it again. It amazes me when someone chooses to uses a word or phrase and thinks it means something and it really doesn’t mean what they believe. An example of using a word or phrase out of context is quid pro quo. I’ve seen where some people have utilized that term in the past and I say they used it out of context. Oh crap, now someone is going to jump on me and say I used “out of context” incorrectly. Well, here is what out of context means so there will be no question amongst the bloggers – informed and those who may be uninformed: The practice of quoting out of context, sometimes referred to as contextomy, is a logical fallacy and a type of false attribution in which a passage is removed from its surrounding matter in such a way as to distort its intended meaning. Contextomies are stereotypically intentional, but may also occur accidentally if someone misinterprets the meaning and omits something essential to clarifying it, thinking it non-essential. An example would be to mention someone’s voting record and saying it is wrong, especially if someone crossed party lines to vote. Well, if that vote that was cast and crossed the party lines, but is good for the people in general, that I say who gives a crap. I believe someone who always votes “party lines” can be deemed a blind less sheep being led by another. And of course to mention someone’s voting record and omit the parts that are good for all is basically an out of context statement. Here is the definition of Quid pro quo for those who haphazardly use the term by mistake or specifically on purpose: What for what or something for something. It is the mutual consideration that passes between two parties to a contractual agreement, thereby rendering the agreement valid and binding. In common usage, quid pro quo refers to the giving of one valuable thing for another. Quid pro quo has the same meaning in the law but with varying implications in different contexts (hey, there is that word again - contexts). Quid pro quo, or the exchange of valuable consideration, is required for the formation of a valid contract between individuals who are not merchants. This requirement of mutual consideration, or the exchange of something of value, indicates the sincerity of the parties intent to adhere to the contract between them. An example of using quid pro quo correctly would be if an elected official accepted a bribe to vote a certain way on an issue or something (hey I’ll vote for your project if you vote for mine – the bridge to nowhere in Alaska) materialistically was provided to a friend of someone to sway their vote. So for someone to utilize the term quid pro quo in reference to District 5 Supervisor Steven Moss and Arizona State Representative Doris Goodale in the same sentence, it is completely off basis and verges as some of the typical verbal and written maneuvers I’ve seen some individuals do in order to attempt to mislead people, impress others and/or themselves by what they say. With everything in a perfect society, everyone must realize being positive about things and subjects is much better than being negative about most everything. Being negative can cause stress and that stress can lead to health issues and/or death. I would hate to see anyone drop dead because of some superfluous cause or self-perceived mission to right things they consider wrong. And in closing, to quote the great Forrest Gump, “Stupid is as stupid does,” which could directly relate to those who choose to mislead, embellish, twist facts and at times, downright lie. Many of those aforementioned attributions qualities occasionally seep from some people’s personalities and as previously said, is probably being done for self-serving purposes of attempting to make one’s worth more value than it might be.
Posted on: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 17:06:20 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015