Pro bono bullshit

[villa]

I think you mean taking.

[jayjay]

o/ This is the thread that never ends, it just goes on and on, my friend... o/

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Rand_Rover

Maeglin and Damuri, I think you are taking what I said for more than I meant by it and are therefore getting hung up on unrelated concepts.

Here’s a conversation to illustrate what I’m saying:

Liberal Douche: RR, you don’t do pro bono or give much to charity. That shows that you are a sociopathic parasite because all you do is take from society instead of giving anything back.

RR: when you look at what I give and take from society, you are not considering the fact that I perform services for people that they are willing to pay a lot for. Under your line of thinkinbg I would be giving more to society if I performed much less valuable services and did charity work. Therefore, your model of whether a person is only takibg from society and not giving anything back is flawed because you don’t count enough activityu in the “giving back” column.

I think you are mistaken. Noone is saying that you don’t provide value to SOMEONE. Obviously someone thinks your time is worth whatever your billable rate is but you were (at least I thought you were) equating billable rate to social value and there is absolutely no connection between the two. I have no doubt that I have worked on deals that have absolutely no redeeming social value whatsoever unless you believe that starving the beast is a redeeming social value.

The criticism isn’t that you aren’t devoting your life to running orphanages in Calcutta, the criticism is that you are neglecting your professional responsibility with such impunity. Most people would be a little embarrassed to admit that they haven’t met their professional responsibility. Heck some people are even sheepish about fulfilling their Pro Bono by donating to legal aid (I’m not, if the bar thinks that a few hundred bucks buys me an indulgence, who am I to argue).

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fear_Itself

Clients are not ‘society’. Taking fees for services rendered is not ‘giving back’.

Well it can be. Cousin is a teacher in a low income area, she gets paid and I think she’s giving back. My neighbor’s kid is in the Marines, he gets paid, I think he’s giving back. I have several neighbors that serve in the government and they all get paid and I think they are giving back (to varying degrees).

[Fear_Itself]

@Damuri_Ajashi

@Fear_Itself

Clients are not ‘society’. Taking fees for services rendered is not ‘giving back’.

Well it can be. Cousin is a teacher in a low income area, she gets paid and I think she’s giving back. My neighbor’s kid is in the Marines, he gets paid, I think he’s giving back. I have several neighbors that serve in the government and they all get paid and I think they are giving back (to varying degrees).

The difference is the people receiving services in your examples are not paying for them, at least not directly, if at all.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Rand_Rover

FI–you are illustration my point. You look only at how much I make and chalk that up as something I take from society. But you don’t look at what I provide to society in exchange for that.

Maeglin–start advocating fiscally conservative positions and that will change for you right quick.

Your clients are not society. If you are a tax partner, you will by this point have worked on several deals that have no redeeming social value other than to reduce someone’s taxes. Sure its worth $500/hour+ to the taxpayer to have you structure that transaction or product but it doesn’t have any more social value than a drug dealer selling heroin.

BTW, people are not repulsed by your fiscal conservatism. People are repulsed from you because of who you seem to be as a person. Part of me think you are taking the piss out of us exaggerating your opinions.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fear_Itself

@Damuri_Ajashi

Well it can be. Cousin is a teacher in a low income area, she gets paid and I think she’s giving back. My neighbor’s kid is in the Marines, he gets paid, I think he’s giving back. I have several neighbors that serve in the government and they all get paid and I think they are giving back (to varying degrees).

The difference is the people receiving services in your examples are not paying for them, at least not directly, if at all.

You know I never realized that until just now. You’re right. Somehow in my mind there is more “giving back” if the people you serve don’t pay you directly. Hrmm go figure.

In any event I think that my uncle who has a chain of grocery stores “contributes to society” by buying groceries cheaply at the distributor and selling them locally. He gets paid directly but at least he provides a useful societal service.

There are definitely some transactions (the ones that command the most premium) that serve no useful societal purpose other than to reduce someone’s tax burden beyond what congress intended but within the bounds of the law.

[Rand_Rover]

Lots of people receive benefits for what I do, and they don’t pay me a cent. I help people make investments and operate businesses, which creates jobs and increases the GDP.

[Zakalwe]

@Rand_Rover

Lots of people receive benefits for what I do, and they don’t pay me a cent. I help people make investments and operate businesses, which creates jobs and increases the GDP.

Ahhh…the old trickle down theory. I thought that died with Ronnie. Guess I was wrong.

[Fear_Itself]

I see how that works. I don’t pay income taxes, but I buy my Mad Dog at the bodega, and they pay income taxes, so that makes me a taxpayer.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Rand_Rover

Lots of people receive benefits for what I do, and they don’t pay me a cent. I help people make investments and operate businesses, which creates jobs and increases the GDP.

You must be reading something into what you do that most people would not.

[elucidator]

And if its their money that is doing all the good, what do we need them for?

[Colibri]

`I don’t know what you mean by “glory”,’ Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant “there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!”’

`But “glory” doesn’t mean “a nice knock-down argument”,’ Alice objected.

When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.’

The question is,' said Alice, whether you can make words mean so many different things.’

The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, which is to be master – that’s all.’

Through the Looking Glass, chapter VI.

[Rand_Rover]

Luci–yeah, that’s right, money just invests itself. It doesn’t need an owner to decide how to invest it.

Colibri–thanks for more non sequiturs that don’t add anything to the discussion. You’re really racking up the points in that category.

[VinylTurnip]

The “discussion” had its death-rattle on page two or three of this thread. Since then, it’s been:

---

Rand Rover:*** So, [Poster X], you think I have an obligation to do pro bono?

Poster X: Yes.

Rand Rover: Well I don’t, as I “proved” somewhere back upthread.

40 GOTO 10

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Fear_Itself

I see how that works. I don’t pay income taxes, but I buy my Mad Dog at the bodega, and they pay income taxes, so that makes me a taxpayer.

No, no, these arguments are only valid when they benefit RR’s point of view.

Nitpick: If you’re breathing, you’re almost certainly a taxpayer. Not paying *federal income tax *in no way means that you pay no taxes.

@VinylTurnip

40 GOTO 10

^C

[Shot_From_Guns]

@Rand_Rover

SFG–OK, so wekve narrowed down the issue. You believe I have an actual obligation (my term) to do pro bono work. As I’ve demonstrated above, that’s simply not the case. I agred to uphold the rules, and the rules don’t require pro bono. The preamble to the rules just says that lawyers have a responsibility to do pro bono; however, since the rules don’t require it (and even explicitly state that they don’t require it), the rules don’t actually impose that responsibility. Therefore, the preamble is clearly referring to only a “moral responsibility” that’s out floating in the ether. So, if I don’t do pro bono, I’m not failing to fulfill a promise I made or failing to uphold rules that govern me. I’m just failing to do something that the preamble to some rules say I have a responsibility to do.

Here we go again–you keep insisting that you only have a responsibility or an obligation if something is a requirement, and that’s just not the case. That is not the meaning of the words. Obligations and responsibities ARE NOT REQUIREMENTS, or they’d be *called *requirements.

Loving your daughter is a responsibility, not a requirement; you won’t be thrown into jail for not doing it. But I’m sure you’re not going to post in the Pit five years from now whining about how everyone’s expecting you to not treat her like shit and you don’t understand why they have this expectation of you.

[elucidator]

Ha! Vinny does BASIC! Not even Visual Basic, just BASIC! That is sooooo Motorola 8086! Probably connects via AOL. Geek pile on Vinny! Geek pile on Vinny!

[Scuba_Ben]

@elucidator

Ha! Vinny does BASIC! Not even Visual Basic, just BASIC! That is sooooo Motorola 8086! Probably connects via AOL. Geek pile on Vinny! Geek pile on Vinny!

Nah, not worth it for what he did. Now if he’d written:

40 GOTO 40

I’d happily join the geek pile-on.

[Shot_From_Guns]

@elucidator

Geek pile on Vinny! Geek pile on Vinny!

Knowing old programming languages, especially obsolete ones, is a sign of geek cred. The fact that you fail to understand this has outed you as a complete non-geek. Turn in your card, if you bothered to fake one.