A “Learned opinion” is frequently one that supports one’s views. I don’t know why.
Life is full of ironies. For the stupid.
I have no idea what the article says because I don’t have Lexis, for fuck’s sake. It’s a learned opinion because it is actually in a real law review and it appears to be cited often and reputably. This is why I suggested that one of the lawyers read it. They’ve put in enough time in this thread already. There is apparently a real debate in the legal world, so it makes sense to try to situate oneself in it instead of arguing from a vacuum.
That’s why we must make up our own minds about issues instead of taking something as “Learned” just because ts cited often and supposedly reputable. (Doesn’t matter who’s side it supports)
Our own beliefs don’t spawn from vacuum.
And sometimes our opinions are retarded and ill-informed. Which is why it pays to educate oneself on the state of the debate before wading in with reflexive and inchoate beliefs. One doesn’t have to agree with the experts in all things, but one should at least see what they have to say and engage with the ideas.
That’s why you shouldn’t call them “learned” before you’ve actually read their ideas and they make sense to you.
On planet earth, this is not the criterion for something being learned. But you know what? It doesn’t make the slightest bit of difference. Learned, shmearned, who the fuck cares. I would just love to see what the article actually says and to see what the current state of the debate is among people who are probably better informed.
Unfortunately we usually perceive someone as learned who’s ideas make sense to us. Otherwise this thread would have been a short one.
By all means, nothing wrong with consulting the “better informed” for new ideas.
Generally, people who know enough (and can articulate their views well enough, and in the proper format, and have the right qualifications) to get published in Academic or Peer Reviewed (or even Reputable Professional) Journals are Learned.
I printed out the (93 page) article. I may share some tidbits at some point if I get some time (definitely won’t be for a couple of days).
Takes that long to cherry-pick, these days?
Depends on if there are any cherries available to pick. Don’t expect anything further from the kid about it.
(Don’t lawyers tend to call other lawyers “learned” as sarcasm?)
One of the many reasons why I try to avoid using law review articles in my own work. 
93 pages, good god.
Double spaced, wide margins, 12 point type, though, right?
“Generally” is the key word. Considered learned, not are, and even then they get things wrong many times, so we must withhold praise until we actually read the article.
Iin other words, if they agree with you, we should consider them learned, and if not, then they’re just dumbasses like the rest of us here.
While I dont know much about Rand Rover or the pit in general, a few of the posts on the first page were clearly people envious of what he pro bably makes. Most of the others just seem to be people who have nothing better to do than pick at certain people on the internet daily.
Umm…no, it’s disbelief about random crap coming out of the mouth of some prick on the internet.
95% of the internet seems to be ex-marines with top secret security clearance, eighteen inch cocks, full heads of hair, and the ability to run a double marathon without even getting winded.
“I’m so rich I could buy all your houses and turn them into maggot farms so my opinion is important and yours is worthless!!!” is unimpressive in real life, and it’s totally meaningless on the Internet.
-Joe
(emphasis added)
Good grief, Redpill! Where did Maegin ever “praise” the work or the author? He only suggested that it was likely to be helpful here. You know, light rather than just more and more heat (although it sounds odd to say that in a Pit thread). Take a look back:
So, it just might have some good effect.
Incoming hijack.
36 pages! Imagine where we would be if curlcoat had gotten her tenacious talons into this mess.
It is time for the mods to put this thread out of its misery.
Thanks for sharing, may_be. It’s useful from time to time to get a fresh perspective from someone who knows nothing about the topic of discussion.
And thanks for the taxonomic breakdown on the opposition. I’m not sure which category I personally fall into—I guess I wouldn’t mind pulling in Rand Rover’s legendary salary, but if it required being a tax lawyer I’d probably commit suicide before I could enjoy spending it. So I guess I’m in group 2, the general hater group.
Unless there’s a third classification you neglected to mention, for people who object to the specifics of what he’s saying because it’s objectionable.