[Legal language] has certain functions. One is that it's a little bit confusing to the person who's listening and because you're confused it's a little bit harder for you to dispute what's being said. You think that the person who's talking must be really smart and sophisticated (...). It also drains the emotional force out of what's being said. (...) One function is to make it so that the people who read the laws don't feel emotional about them, so that they don't get upset about the fact that they're being coerced. The other function is so that the people who are writing the laws and the people who are enforcing the laws also don't have strong emotional reactions to it. Because normally when you're responsible for making coercive threats against other people and forcing them to obey your will, and especially if you're ordering people to be punished severly for not obeying, that would be an emotional experience.
