Phat and low

Sorry for not writing for a while (again). Being home was very amusing and all, and I touched the computer for only about 20 minutes overall. Also, I forgot what I was going to write till I got back to school, so I guess it all works out. Anyways, if anyone wants to know what is up with the title, it was Chris' idea. So yeah...

Before I get started with the actual entry, it's important to know what Gricean implicatures are. These are things I just learned about in my Linguistics class a few weeks back. If you think the word "implicature" looks like "imply", that's because they are very similar. Implicatures are basically sentences that don't directly say something but mean it. So yes, it's basically like implying something, except implicatures aren't meant to be subjective, whereas implying things can fall into the realm of the subjective. So yes, the word "implicature" was specifically invented to avoid the subjectivity that may come with implying things.

For those who want an example, the example "Can you pass the salt?" is a great example. Even though this question is not actually asking if someone is physically able to pass the salt, even though it can mean that, it implicates that I want the salt. Thus, the sentence means something that it doesn't directly say. An example of messing with implicatures is a riddle actually. For those of you who have heard it, it's the riddle about having two coins adding up to 30 cents, but one of them is not a nickel. Note here that I said only one of them is not a nickel. This does not mean that the other cannot be a nickel, which is part of the answer to the riddle, but it implicates that neither coin is a nickel. Hopefully that's enough explanation for now...

Anyways, why this background relates actually goes bak to my Wednesday of running around for class and work. Basically, last week was election week, which is a huge thing here. There are two groups, Students First and Bruins United, and both were campaigning like crazy. I literally ran into about 10ish people each way I would walk. And yet, these people wouldn't just say something like, "Vote for Students First!" No, they were hardcore... They would ask if you've voted, then bombard you with information about why you should vote for their candidates and what not. Also, they would seek and follow people. I pulled out my phone a few times and walked around some people, yet they would still follow me and cut me off asking for my vote. By this point I hadn't actually voted since the online poll had been only open for one day and I was still thinking about who to vote for. Thus, I would feel bad and ethically violated if I just lied to everybody who would ask me if I had voted yet.

Well, this situation came to what I saw as a quick fix when I passed my friend Jonathan leaving Bruinwalk (No, not Jonny Chue, but a friend from CCM). Anyways, he figured he'd help me out and gave me a sticker that had "I <3 SF!" on it. I quickly caught on to the sticker idea and just wore it and waved it around to any political people asking for my vote. They saw that I had the sticker and totally left me alone, making the walk to class so much nicer.

I initially justified my conscience by reasoning that the sticker itself has no mentioning of my voting on it. It just mentions my support for a specific group, and thus I figured they would leave me all alone. But, Justice actually called me out on this, and I think he's right. The stickers were handed out in the later part of the day to those who said they had voted so that way they wouldn't be haggled anymore. And thus, the stickers were meant for those who actually had voted, not those who were still thinking about it.

Now, the thing is, one could argue that there is nothing wrong with having the sticker. Me displaying the sticker isn't lying in itself, for there's nothing on the sticker that says anything about me voting, but me supporting a specific group. Yet, now that I'm looking back, I think it's rather deceptive to use the sticker. Although it may not be directly lying, it is messing with implications. Thus, it was quite deceptive of me to use the sticker to make it seem like I had voted when I actually had not. Maybe I am just overly ethically sensitive, but I still feel that I am at fault here. Now, if I had known that the sticker wasn't meant to be a sing that I had already voted, then the situation would be different. But, I did know beforehand and thus I feel at fault.

I guess my whole justification for feeling at fault is the problem of being deceptive with implicatures. In fact, the riddle mentioned in the intro is a riddle due to the manipulation of implicatures. The main ethical fault would be in an attempt at deceiving another, and thus maybe an indirect form of lying. Or, I could just be overly sensitive to the use of manipulation, iono. Oh well, food for thought!