Yes, I know that debating concepts is difficult for you since you live in a black and white world that you have all figured out (eg, poor people good, rich people bad). But pay attention and you may learn something.
This thread just keeps getting more entertaining all the time. It’s even better than going to the monkey house at the zoo to watch them jumping and screeching and hurling feces.
Try going after a more desperate class of golddigger.
We don’t think you only do things that are required. We think that you think that the only reason to do something that you don’t want to do but will benefit society as a whole is if you will be directly and immediately affected in a negative way if you don’t do it.
No we haven’t. I’ve always though you were an insufferable little tard.
Hahaha, you actually mean so little to me that I’d actually forgotten that. But thanks for reminding me that you want to bone me.
Also, what the fuck is up with your accented y’s?
He thinks liberal chicks go for foreign accents?
Why is that a relevant distinction?
Yet another thing that fails to work for me. Damn it I am a failure.
Well. Apparently, you’re wrong about all that, too. We do think all that, and worse, about you. Or at least, I do, and I’m kinder and more charitable than some of these other assholes. (I say that with love, assholes.)
Try flashing some cash, like a hotshot tax attorney would.
Look at the speeding example.
You seem to be using this as a gotcha. You think that I must be arguing that a rule does not impose a requirement unless a sanction is imposed for an infraction 100% of the time. But I’m not saying that at all.
To return to pro bono, it would have been very easy to erite a rule saying that a lawyer shall try to do pro bono and to provide a sanction if a lawyer doesn’t try. The fact that a lawyer doesn’t do any pro bono would be evidence of the lack of trying. But the rules don’t say that. The rules themselves provide no sanction for not trying to do pro bono. The fact that in reality there is also often no sanction imposed in situations where the rules do impose a sanction is completely irrelevant.
Call me crazy, but aren’t you the one who created the speeding example? And aren’t you the only one who keeps referencing it? And aren’t you the only one who’s making any reference to an idea that a sanction must be imposed 100% of the time?
Christ, you’re a moron.
SFG, I think it would benefit society as a whole if you were to post naked pictures of yourself. If you don’t, then you are clearly a sociopath and are only not doing it because there’d be no immediate bad consequences to you for not doing so.
Society may be better off if sad men like you could fap to pictures of me, it’s true, but neither is there any *detriment *to your not getting your clammy sausage fingers on photos of my tits, in the grand scheme of things. Especially considering that there’s plenty of free porn for you to masturbate to, or you could buy your wife another tennis bracelet in exchange for letting you climb on top for another 90-second ride. (And there certainly would be negative consequences for me personally, vis. nausea.) Whereas our society *is *broken when the rich have all of the access to our judicial system and the poor have none.
To him, that’s not broken; that’s “working as intended”.
It’s not a bug–it’s a feature!
SFG, you can safelÝ leave that discussion in Bricker’s capable hands. But thanks for trying to help out.
Huh. I never realized that Rand Rover worked for Blizzard.
Hot.
Just because you have identified a problem does not mean that all possible solutions to that problem are morally required or even OK. In the present situaÞion, there’s a lot of ground between “poor people can’t afford lawyers” and “all lawyers are required to donate labor to poor people.”
Also, your opinion that I should or am required to work for free does not impose any actual obligation on me to work for free. So, framing the discussion in terms of me not living up to my obligations misses the point of determining whether I have an obligation in the first place.
What amuses me, and is probably the result of you being a tax attorney, is that RandRover isn’t capable of noticing that there is at least some sanction attached to a failure to do pro bono work as expounded in the Illinois Rules. It may not be a lot, but it is certainly at least a peppercorn’s worth of sanction.
But seeing as it isn’t expressed in financial terms, it doesn’t register.
Wow. That’s beautiful!
That may be one of the most eloquent slams I’ve ever read!
SBG… YOU are my new heroine! 