Oh noes!! I am neither moral nor ethical!!
All you really said was “I donlt like you.” That’s it. I know you think Ýou have the ability to tap into the realm of the moral and the ethical and determine that which is and that which isn’t. But no such realm exists. Existence only involves us meatbags crawling around.
Please get over yourself and stop trying to elevate your likes and dislikes into some pronouncement from on high. Thank you.
You, Fucktard, would NEVER make in private practice…
If I were you, and THANK to TPTB that I am not, I would BOW to the organization that dared to hire an ASSHOLE like myself (you)…
I do more REAL uncompensated PUBLIC service in a week that you have done in a lifetime…
You, Range Rover,are the bile in Satan’s mouth when he pukes out assholes …
Just STFU and give a little bit back…think about it.
tsfr
[/QUOTE]
Doesn’t anyone remember 1970’s beer commercials anymore?
Here’s to good friends, tonight is kinda special?
Sorry…I was something like six years old. I don’t know if that was for a good beer or a lousy one…
Well, you’re wrong. For a start, I haven’t mentioned MRPC 6.1 - I’ve looked to the Illinois rules themselves. And as I said, the ethical violation is in not aspiring to do pro bono, as opposed to not not doing it. Rand Rover swore an oath to act ethically, and the rules define one part of acting ethically as including aspiring to do pro bono work. He does not aspire to do pro bono work.
Look back a whole bunch of pages - people (myself included) have linked to the Illinois rules, in particular the introduction.
Not doing the pro bono work isn’t the problem. It is the viewpoint of having no aspiration of doing it that is. Had Rand Rover’s point been that his firm was unreasonable sending an email asking him to do pro bono work when his schedule was already completely full with billable work that he was required to do, then this would be a different conversation. But that isn’t what he said.
So, before criticizing analysis, it might help if you read the thread.
Something you ought to know: if you embrace moral skepticism, you can’t pick and choose which moral pronouncements you will or will not endorse. Under moral skepticism, all moral pronouncements of all kinds go out the window, including these:
Et cetera. If you’re going to be a moral skeptic, you have stop thinking that anything is right or wrong, period. This includes acting on moral beliefs, because if nothing is right or wrong, there is nothing right or wrong about having moral beliefs and acting upon them.
I have an honest serious question for you, Rand Rover. I’m not sure if you’d like to answer it, but here goes:
Most folks I know have their own moral/ethical codes, and I suspect that at many times most of us find ourselves in a position where our own beliefs conflict with what is expected of us. Sometimes the law is wrong, or late catching up with the will of the people. Marijuana laws, for example. Sometimes, injustice is allowed. I’m thinking payday loans @ 259% interest might be pretty damn wrong, despite being legal.
So anyways, what’s been going on here seems to be a major rupture between your moral code, and the one most other folks who have been posting seem to agree on. I’m somewhat concerned that you might fail to see that there is ANY reason to act beyond pure right-away self-interest.
Any thoughts?
Also, really, when anyone cranks out fairly good verse with you as it’s subject, the polite thing to do is compliment them on their talent, appreciate their effort, and not to just fixate on their thighs.
Well, I’m just an old country chicken, but I don’t quite grasp how someone could ever be charged with conspiracy not to aspire, outside of a direct public testimony of total dickitude and interpersonal nullity. I mean, its not exactly a tangible thing, is it, aspiration? Its not like the candlestick in the library, next to the still-warm corpse of Colonel Mustard.
That’s the hilarious thing. It’s not hard to “aspire.” In fact, you have to work at not aspiring. You have to very specifically say “Fuck this pro bono bullshit and fuck the people who think I should be doing it.” Which is, in fact, what Rand has been doing.
What many here fail to understand is that RR presents a straightforward application of Objectivist ethics. Ayn Rand fanatics don’t just get their pants in a twist about those who use Big Guv to redistribute income. They also strenuously object to those using “Moral guilt” to “confiscate the accomplishments of society’s productive members”. Or so I understand from wiki’s entry on Atlas Shrugged.
You see, objectivists have hearts of delicate crystal: they are easily perturbed and don’t like to be subjected to moral suasion. It’s too much for them, so they lash out. Some may say that if you’re moral system is vulnerable to guilt tripping, then maybe there’s something about the human experience that you’re shutting out: maybe you’re screwed up. Krugman’s blog today didn’t go that far necessarily:
There is absolutely no ethical rule to aspire to, perform, or otherwise engage in pro bono legal representation in Illinois.
I don’t know what the fuck you’re reading. The words “pro bono” only occur in the comments section, which you should know are as binding as jack shit. And the usage of the term, in context, makes it impossible to arrive at any conclusion that one is obligated to do or aspire to do pro bono service.
that still isn’t a violation, for the mandate is that you “should” aspire, not “must” aspire.
you can perfectly well say “fuck this pro bono bullshit and fuck the people who think I should be doing it” and never run afoul of an edict that commands you to “should” do something.
What made you think I needed to be told this? You have any other obvious observations you want to lay on me?
Psst…I don’t think his intention was to make sure you were informed.
I have it set to show 40 posts per page. Don’t remember what the default is.
Well most tax lawyers go into because the hours are better than theya re for corporate lawyers and you actually come in contact with the law.
The sad thing is that there are a lot of things pro bono that I think rand would enjoy doing.
Its not all war crimes trubunals and microfinance. He could do stuff for his church or his community. He may in fact be doing this stuff already. He just seems to be against pro-bono requiremnts on principle.
He has some sort of mental roadblock that either says that its wrong to ask lawyers to do work for free OR he just doesn’t want to admit he was being a bit whiny when he complained about taht email.
So its “Rand is a fucking tard” AND “we can all see he lied”
Who’s Vent? (I’m horrible, I know, I’ll do more pro-bono to make up for it).
You think there aren’t penalties for breaking a promise to your wife (even one as picayune as “I will take out the trash”)? You’re not married are you?
Well, he never swore and oath to follow rules that include tipping guidelines.