# Abysmal judgement gene rears it's ugly head again-Kennedy stupidity **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 5, 2006, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510 "2006-05-05T08:02:01Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 3:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/201 "2006-05-10T15:25:10Z")
Right. Bricker defended Kennedy, based on the possibly unknown or unpredictable effects of Ambien. He did so in an answer to my questions, according to how the law would treat it, and his answer sounded right and fair. I’m no Bricker fanatic, neither am I a Bricker enemy. He gave an honest answer. Don’t trash him for that. He said, if Kennedy did not know of the effects of Ambien, and was not conscious and aware that he was driving (just like sleepwalking), he is not at fault. He said if Kennedy did know the effects, and was aware he was driving under the influence, that would be a different story. Funny though. If my memory serves, in general the people damning Kennedy are the same group who defended Limbaugh, and demanded that he should get some slack, and some “wait until the facts are in” something or other. If you just want to go down the “smash the druggies” road, why not be more consistent and condemn them both? ---
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 8:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/202 "2006-05-10T20:22:04Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > Heh. The old “I know you are but what am I” riposte. I haven’t heard that since I was in the fourth grade. Oh good, you can remember back at least a year. There may be hope for you yet. 😃 Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![UncleBeer](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/977dab/32.png) [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 8:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/203 "2006-05-10T20:32:23Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > So what, exactly, is “Bricker disease?” Dunno exactly what it might be, but apparently displays of critical thinking and logical thought patterns are symptoms. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/204 "2006-05-10T22:07:26Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > There may be hope for you yet. ¯ _Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words will never hurt me_. ¯ 😃 ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/205 "2006-05-10T22:12:46Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > Excuse me - but I am in this thread defending Rep. Kennedy, which is certainly contrary to the position I would take if motivated by partisan concerns. > > Woiuld you care to point out, anywhere on this board, a time when you have taken a position that would be fairly described as contrary to your partisan concerns? > > So what, exactly, is “Bricker disease?” Here’s my guess: Often times laypeople accuse lawyers of finding a distinction without a difference. **Merijeek** has dubbed this supposed “lawyerly” tendency "\*_Bricker \*\* disease."_ Here **Airman** has argued that when **Shodan** expresses the opinion that PK has gotten some breaks because of family ties and then cites the LAX incident **Shodan** is not “wrong” even if the cited incident doesn’t support the opinion; rather the proper criticism to lodge at **Shodan** would be that he is unintelligent for having arrived at the conclusion based on the evidence (this is of course assuming the evidence doesn’t support the opinion).\*\* I think **Merijeek** is calling him for recognizing a distinction without a difference. In this instance, I think **Merijeek** is probably correct.\*\*\* **Shodan** hasn’t stated an opinion of preference (e.g. PK smells funny) rather he has stated an opinion concerning a question of fact (PK has bought his way out of tight spots). One can be wrong about such “opinions,” though often times we never really know. The OJ example \*\*Airman \*\* cited is perfect, though it works against him. I can think OJ did it – that’s my opinion, but it’s also either right or wrong, I’ll just never know. \*In reality, I think there is often a very material difference some folks just don’t see, whether it be due to a lack of knowledge or a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what is or is not relevant to a conclusion \*\* I have no dog in this fight, so if I have gotten it wrong or mischaracterized an argument, I apologize in advance. \*\*\*Not with respect to the epithet or the correctness of **Shodan** ’s opinion, but the falacy in **Airman** ’s argument ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 10:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/206 "2006-05-10T22:18:43Z")
> [@UncleBeer](#): > > Dunno exactly what it might be, but apparently displays of critical thinking and logical thought patterns are symptoms. emph. mine Were it appropriately named, I would agree. I don’t think I made that clear in my last post. Not that it matters to you, Bricker, but having read many of your posts, I don’t think it’s fair to accuse you of pedantry or dwelling on meaningless techinicalties. Your posts are well thought out and logically consistent. ---
**Author:** ![whole\_bean](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/96bed5/32.png) [@whole\_bean](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/whole_bean)\ **Post date:** [May 10, 2006, 10:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510/207 "2006-05-10T22:21:07Z")
> [@whole bean](#): > > Here’s my guess: > Often times laypeople accuse lawyers of finding a distinction without a difference. **Merijeek** has dubbed this supposed “lawyerly” tendency "\*_Bricker \*\* disease."_ > > Here **Airman** has argued that when **Shodan** expresses the opinion that PK has gotten some breaks because of family ties and then cites the LAX incident **Shodan** is not “wrong” even if the cited incident doesn’t support the opinion; rather the proper criticism to lodge at **Shodan** would be that he is unintelligent for having arrived at the conclusion based on the evidence (this is of course assuming the evidence doesn’t support the opinion).\*\* > I think **Merijeek** is calling him for recognizing a distinction without a difference. > In this instance, I think **Merijeek** is probably correct.\*\*\* **Shodan** hasn’t stated an opinion of preference (e.g. PK smells funny) rather he has stated an opinion concerning a question of fact (PK has bought his way out of tight spots). One can be wrong about such “opinions,” though often times we never really know. The OJ example \*\*Airman \*\* cited is perfect, though it works against him. I can think OJ did it – that’s my opinion, but it’s also either right or wrong, I’ll just never know. > > \*In reality, I think there is often a very material difference some folks just don’t see, whether it be due to a lack of knowledge or a fundamental misunderstanding concerning what is or is not relevant to a conclusion > \*\* I have no dog in this fight, so if I have gotten it wrong or mischaracterized an argument, I apologize in advance. > \*\*\*Not with respect to the epithet or the correctness of **Shodan** ’s opinion, but the falacy in **Airman** ’s argument dammit, change wrong to lying and I think it can still work. If you say, “this supports that conclusion” and it clearly doesn’t then you’re lying. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/abysmal-judgement-gene-rears-its-ugly-head-again-kennedy-stupidity/355510.md?page=10)