BT–the point is that just because the preamble to some rules say that a group I am a member of has a responsibility to do something doesn’t mean that I have an actual obligation to do it. The rules don’t impose that responsibility–the preamble just says I have it. Therefore, it is clear the rules are referring only to some sourceless responsibility–ie, a moral responsibility, which means nothing. It means as much as me saying you have a moral obligation to send me money.
It doesn’t mean anything like that, but I’m getting real tired of listening to this broken record. I get it, you’re splitting extremely fine hairs to get out of a job duty you don’t like. It’s not me you’ll eventually have to answer to, so whatever.
Yes, because that’s clearly the kind of thing you do here.
Those grapes I wanted but can’t reach are sour, sour, sour, sour, sour! I never wanted them anyway.
I hear that pronouns out of nowhere are useful for communication. Who should apologize to whom? **Rand **should apologize to the world for being a douchebarge? 100% correct there, but it ain’t going to happen. I should apologize for calling **Rand **a baby raper? Ain’t gonna happen, either.
Well, sort of. In the same way that cupcakes are still cake. Only not exactly, because espresso involves completely different grinding and brewing from normal coffee, and often uses beans that are roasted differently (though there is no standard “espresso roast”). They both start from the same product, though.
DNFTT doesn’t work. Ever. I love your phrasing, though.
It only “makes no sense” if you’re someone who has completely idiosyncratic definitions for the words “job” and “duty,” insisting that while he has no comprehension of what the vast majority of the rest of society means by them, while still maintaining that his beliefs are normal and in line with the rest of that society.
Some day, I can only imagine that the sheer amount of cognitive dissonance you must live with on an everyday basis will set up an actual physical resonance in your brain. I suspect that one of the symptoms will be you bleeding out of your eyes and ears. So if you notice yourself crying blood, you may want to stop being such a retard.
Rand Rover, you strike me as the kind of guy who might have been a Boy Scout back in the day. I was too, so can we do this together?
The Scout Law:
A Scout is:
* Trustworthy,
* Loyal,
* Helpful,
* Friendly,
* Courteous,
* Kind,
* Obedient,
* Cheerful,
* Thrifty,
* Brave,
* Clean,
* and Reverent.
The Scout Oath (or Promise):
On my honor, I will do my best
To do my duty to God and my country and to obey the Scout Law;
To help other people at all times;
To keep myself physically strong, mentally awake and morally straight.
But the sections quoted above are only in the preamble to the rules, not in the rules themselves, so they are not binding. or at least that’s how RR seems to be interpreting it. Plus, of course, the fact that there is no mention of any punishment for not doing pro bono work, which negates any possibility of responsibility for doing it in his world.
It’s not in the rules themselves precisely because they didn’t want to put lawyers unable to meet the requirement in trouble. Given that the preamble is referred to in the rules later, though, I don’t see that it can be tossed out entirely:
We’re only trying to teach a pig to sing at this point, though.
SFG–nice job with the cutting and the pasting and the bolding and the underlining and the big-texting, but you failed to include any actualk analysis. You know, the stuff that connects up the definitions and the preamble and your conclusion. I’ve repeated my analysis several times and you’ve addressed it only by calling me a baby raper.
BT–the comments, not the rules, refer to the preamble. I’m not sure why you think that helps your case.
Also, the text in question doesn’t do shit on its own. It takes some analsis to connect it up with a conclusion. So far you and sfg have got nothin’–you both haven’t even tried to put some analysis together.
And you haven’t barked like a dog. Your argument fails until you’ve barked like a dog.
Look, the question is, “Do you have a responsibility to perform pro bono work?” The professional conduct rules say “You have a responsibility to perform pro bono work.” Therefore, you have a responsibility to perform pro bono work.
There. I have analyzed the text. And I need to stop jumping at your bait.
But, but… If if there is no punishment for not meeting your responsibilities, then you can do whatever the fuck you want.
Which ironically, explains why pure libertarianism can never work - because there will always be assholes that will not do what is right unless they are coerced by the threat of punishment.
Think about this: If there were no Rand Rovers in the world, libertarianism might actually work!
