I once met this guy and he … and then a different time I had this experience with another guy and he … and then there was this one time that …
I don’t think that would be meaningful in terms of evidence that other people can use. And that’s even assuming that you remembered every such instance, which would be highly atypical.
FWIW, my experience is that most cops tend to get uptight if they feel their authority is being challenged. Can’t prove it. My opinion is formed by innumerable small instances, only a few of which I actually remember, and by the similar experiences of others that I know, even fewer of which I remember.
I think a lot of people’s minds work this way. Most likely all people do, in fact.
Conclusions formed in this manner don’t have much potential as debate fodder, but this doesn’t mean they are not legit.
I think all people use this line of reasoning, as previous. Some people have a particular sensitivity to certain conclusions, and in their zeal they reject an entire type of reasoning because they think it may in some instances support conclusions that they abhor. But I don’t think these people are being logically consistent, and I doubt if they never use this type of reasoning in non-PC related situations (& when not trying to score points in debates).
Well yeah, if contradicted by other and better evidence. Otherwise. not.
In the case of The Second Stone, that has apparently not happened. Captain Amazing seems to be saying that the initial conclusion itself is necessarily faulty. I disagree. (Not that TSS is right. But that his thought process is not necessarily illogical.)
I don’t. It is not logically sound, and faulty by definition. Yes, we may all fall victim to this line of reasoning, but that does not make it any more valid or any less faulty than it actually is. There is a reason why the saying “the plural of anecdote is not data” exists.
Thank you for sharing your opinion. FWIW I wrote it down. That would make it libel. Slander is only for spoken form defamation. Secondly, you cannot even libel an indistinct group such as lawyers. And no, it isn’t very nice, but it’s the Pit. If the new improved Pit is still to tough for your very tender sensibilities, perhaps you should either report to post or not participate. My comments about lawyers are just that, comments in front of a few hundred people. The people that are committing the acts which I am complaining of and the public generally dislikes are doing far, far worse than making comments. It seems that you stand against making comments, but not for holding the legal profession accountable for its failings. Lawyers for the most part do the same thing: they get all pushed out of shape when somebody calls the profession on its scummitry, but they do not call for lawyers to stop engaging in ridiculous hypocrisy, making it unethical and illegal to bury clients or opponents in paper and the many other wrongs lawyers commit. How about the scum lawyers in the Bush Justice department who helped set up the legal framework for torturing? What has the legal profession done about it? Argued about the definition of torture? Understand that torture is a crime in this country and an international law crime. Helping set up a crime of torture is no less illegal and unethical than a lawyer advising organized crime on how to avoid law enforcement in a criminal enterprise. The difference seems to be that mafia lawyers don’t help their clients in advance of a crime. Have any criminal or ethics charges been forthcoming in this country from prosecutors or state bar associations or voluntary associations? No. But they sure as hell are coming now from Spain.
Making RR look good. He is espousing a general view of life, you are defending the scum lawyers and the rude Jodi.
You implied that I was saying RR wasn’t a lawyer when you bad-mouthed me in the same breath as Zoe, who has been taken to task for accusing RR of not being a lawyer. You do understand that if you are not clear people will infer things from what you say. When you compare two people, there will be inferences drawn.
As a person with a dick, I resent that you use “dick” like a pejorative. (Although I will admit mine is a very pale one.) It is pretty sexist to refer to someone as a sex organ and imply that sex organs are bad. I happen to like my dick. You would certainly complain if I used a term for a vagina as an insult. Well, it’s just as sexist the other way. You’re a sexist.
A few? In my experience it is about half. If it were a “few”, like say with doctors, I’d have never made the comment. But when so much higher than other professions, the problem is not just a few bad apples, it is a bad system making bad apples and reinforcing it.
Prejudice is before knowing the facts. The word you are reaching for is bias. Since you think textbook definitions matter. I am a biased person. I’ve experienced enough law to have a large basis of first hand knowledge. I have heard and read and seen thousands of stories of injustice at the hands of lawyers and judges. So, yes, am biased against the legal profession in general and some lawyers in particular. If Jodi’s response had been semi-professional such as ‘you’re mistaken’, I would not have come to the conclusion that her idea of professionalism and reasoned discussion is: “fuck you and the horse you rode in on.” When she and her schizo sock puppets then claim to be offended that I joke about her offering to fuck a horse it is difficult to believe that they have any claim to being serious people. Jodi is the kind of person who when disagreeing with someone starts with “fuck you and the horse you rode in on.” That is emblematic of her personality. No matter what you may think of me, don’t forget that Jodi offers bestiality. And cannot offer a better argument than that. She has to dissociate to one of her other personalities, the one that equates penises with offensive personality or some other one. But she can’t bear to bring her arguing skills to the defense of the profession.
Now pay attention, we’ve been over this before in this thread. Race is not something people can change, nor does it impart behavior characteristics by virtue of skin pigmentation. Lawyers are discriminated against on the basis of behavior, such as starting a conversation with “fuck you and the horse you rode in on” or sucking people for money while trying to solve problems that they have. Lawyers could stop being rude and stop overcharging for problem solving. One is not a choice, the other is a choice.
Not just one lawyer, a much higher proportion in my experience than in other professions. (And yes, I understand that the profession is about conflict, but a lawyer should be able to go a whole career without once saying “fuck you and the horse you rode in on”.)
You can draw all the inferences you want, but it’s interesting how you skipped what I very clearly said. You are being such an incredibly stupid, arrogant, ugly, vicious, horrible person, that even RR can’t compare.
As for me being a sexist, I’m sure I am. I’ve never met anyone who isn’t.
I don’t ever remember you before this thread. Was I just blocking the horror?
Bullshit. I am not talking about discrimination. I am very well aware that lawyers and people of a certain race are not necessarily analogous. That does not change the fact that the line of reasoning you are using is exactly the same as the one used by racists the world over.
I doubt very much that posting on the board is a professional activity. And even if it is, cursing on a message board hardly compares to someone who actually causes harm to someone else.
I’m not aware of any DOJ lawyers who were fired for refusing to rubber stamp. I am aware of the US Attorneys that were asked to resign by their higher ups and replaced with other US Attorneys under the accusation that the fired attorneys were not prosecuting enough voter fraud cases and prosecuted Congressman Duke Cunningham for accepting bribes. Is that what you were referring to? Let’s assume it is. The Bush DOJ is a wonderful illustration of my point. The honest attorneys were fired by dishonest attorneys and replaced with attorneys who presumably could be relied on to do the dirty their predecessors got fired for refusing to do. That makes more than half dirty. Elliot Richardson did what an honest lawyer should have done in that situation. Elliot Richardson - Wikipedia The Bush DOJ did the opposite. Richardson also told all he knew about what Nixon was up to. The Bush DOJ lawyers took it in silence. I also give you Monica Goodling for your consideration of the corrupt DOJ. Monica Goodling - Wikipedia What Monica Goodling did was criminally prohibited by the United States Code.
The Bush DOJ is not a counterexample to my opinion that lawyers are scum, it is an example of scumminess. That the prosecuting authorities of the various bars of the states that these lawyers belonged to are not bringing up these people on ethics charges (which are not criminal charges, so Goodling doesn’t have immunity) is a slap against the claim of a noble profession. There certainly are noble members of the profession, but the opinion that the profession as a whole is fouled beyond hope by corruption is an opinion that is shared by many people. The legal profession is disgusting to me because it believes it upholds noble traditions. It does not. It writes memos supporting torture, it criminally charges different based on political opinions or race. It attracts idiots like Alberto Gonzales and Monica Goodling and John Woo and Douglas Feith and Scooter Libby.
Perhaps you can put in bold what you think I skipped and I’ll address it. I addressed all that I thought was important. If you think that my opinions are “horror” you have led a very sheltered life.
Yes, and I’ve already described why it is a false analogy and without meaning in this context. One is a physical characteristic and the other is behavior.
I already noted earlier that it is not professional activity in the sense that the canons of ethics come into play. It is unprofessional in the sense that professionals present a polite and civilized image and don’t swear at strangers in public. Words have multiple definitions and thank you for the opportunity to clarify what might have been an ambiguity.
Not nearly as unattractive as post 532. Now if I had posted that about somebody, I’d be ashamed at its cruelty and lack of wit. It is just name calling, and not very good at that. And yes, I thought I addressed all of your substantive points.