>
>>>And the reason why the criminal underworld uses the metric
>>>system is because the science world uses the metric system,
>>>because they use the same tools to measure their substance
>>as
>>>the scientific and medical world uses to measure there
>>>substances.
>>>
>>
>>1. It's not that important. It's just showing consistency
>>2. Where I live people measure drugs in ounces. Maybe for
>>heroine they exclusively use grams though
>>
>
>Have you ever heard of the expression "a key"? Short for a
>"kilo"? Which I'm pretty sure doesn't stand for "kilo-ounces"?
>There are ounces too, but grams is also fairly acceptable for
>measuring drugs, especially larger quantities.
>

(i take it you meant to say kilos instead of grams)

and? what would that show? that out of two systems Tarantino chose one, the pertinent one

to be honest for something like heroine for personal usage they probably only ever say grams, because it's so powerful (unless they say grains, which they would in the opium days).

but that doesn't really matter either, it just means there's a real life reason

>>>Secondly, no, requiring a metaphor to actually be a
>metaphor
>>>is not requiring it to be a "full blown analogy."
>>>
>>>Again, a metaphor typically describes a concrete
>>>phenomenon'object, and dicusses elements of that
>>>phenomenon/object that are similar to a relatively
>abstract,
>>>non-descript object/phenomenon.
>>>
>>
>>not exclusively. you often hear phrases like "gallons of
>fun",
>>"acres of knowledge"
>>Shakespeare frequently used metaphors between two
>>abstractions, it's practically his trade mark
>>
>
>But see, those make sense. If you said "she has gallons of
>fun", then she has a lot of fun. If you said "she has acres of
>knowledge", then she has a lot of smarts. Gallons and acres
>are more or less concrete in the sense that everyone knows
>"gallons" and "acres" are BIG to the point where we can't
>really understand the "bigness" of what we're being
>described.
>
>The metric system as a metaphor doesn't really cut the
>mustard, because it's not specific enough. If morality is a
>metric system, what does that even mean? How much is 100 grams
>of morality? A lot? Are there also measurements of the level
>of a person's immorality, or is that just "0 grams"? Or is
>immorality the low end of the metric system, and there's a
>median where immorality switches to morality, around, say 543
>centimeters. THIS DOESN'T MAKE SENSE, CAN'T YOU SEE?
>
>The blind Justice lady holds the scale because it's supposed
>to be fair and balanced. That's why she's blind, because sight
>makes her imbalanced. Since the scale is straight, it shows
>she's not partial. It's not a metric thing.
>
>You're thinking WAAAAAY too much into this.

"here's an equivocator (a lawyer), that could
swear in both the scales against either scale" - from Macbeth

what COULD you use as a metaphor for law or morality?
it has to be a SYSTEM with RULES
I suppose you could have the rules of a game
like chess, but then there's only ever 1 set of rules for chess
maybe poker, since there are different sets of rules for poker
but then what's an "ace high" in moral terms? what's the small blind?

metric/imperial weight are both systems/rules for measuring the same thing, simple as that

if you want to expand the metaphor (which Tarantino doesn't do), you can make it good or bad. a good idea that one essay said is that units are just arbitrary terms slapped on things, that don't alter subjective ideas of "light" and "heavy" - laws are arbitrary and don't alter subjective ideas of good and evil (necessarily)