Holy fuck you are even stupider than I thought. On what logical basis can you definitively say I didn’t go to law school? Is it an extraordinary claim? Do you have any evidence whatsoever one way or the other? Since I know that I did you can imagine how amusing this is for me and how incredibly stupid it makes you look. On second thought that’s probably beyond you as well
I think he’s just pointing out potential biographical inconsistencies.
I’ll give you some credit for an Animal House quote but your last two posts pretty much typify the level of intellectualism you operate on. That’s alright I know that’s all you got. Just like I know that people like you need this board for someplace you can go and pretend and delude yourself into thinking you’re smart and run away from any push back or act like a douche like you are now. That’s ok, I’m comfortable with my intellectual, academic, and professional accomplishments in the real world and secure in the knowledge that were we to have this conversation in a real world setting where you couldn’t take advantage of such cowardly tactics and where your stupidity would be quickly called out by myself and others you’d either be exposed for the stupid douche you are or you’d STFU real quick.
Fair enough, I suppose you are right. I have no knowledge as to whether or not you went to law school, but you are trying to make the impression that you were accepted into law school, attended and passed classes, and finally passed the bar. However, given your complete lack of reading comprehension, your lack of ability to follow a simple construct or to make a logical point, and your basic ignorance, tells me that going to law school in your case means that you were emptying the trash in the law building.
I never claimed to know dumb fuck. I said I suspected and it’s based not on knowing his thoughts but on what he’s said. Try and take a minute and grasp those distinctions. And it seems to me talking out your ass about subjects you know little or nothing about is quintessential childish behavior. No one’s forcing you to do that but of course your response to being called out on it is a tantrum and the flinging of even more pablum. And what world do you live in where someone’s credentials or lack thereof in an academic and complex field is not relevant?
I don’t know, but I suspect, that you’re super into a specific type of internet pornography that is illegal in some states and too disgusting to describe even in the pit. It’s not based on knowing your thoughts. It’s based on your posting style.
wha wha wha whaaa?
It’s difficult to parse that convoluted mess of a sentence, but you seem to be saying those who term others as “racist” or “sexist” aren’t doing it right because they can’t conceive of objective truth? That would apply to any pejorative term, such as the “dumbfuck” you like to overuse.
Look, observers can only respond to what they observe, and if the observed displays racist or sexist behavior, that’s what they’ll get called, even if down deep they’re nice law-abiding boy scouts. In order not to get a bad label, they have to not engage in bad behavior. While the news coverage may have portrayed Smirky McDouchebag in a negative light, they didn’t endeavor to ruin him with false information. That’s what Trump Tweets are for.
So you begrudgingly acknowledge one of your failures in logic and then go on to commit several more. Good job. See the LSAT actually tests both reading comprehension and logical reasoning so in addition to the respect of my peers and colleagues I have the closest thing possible to objective evidence of my abilities in that regard. Meanwhile you assume that it can’t possibly be you that’s failing at logical reasoning and reading comprehension because…why exactly? The extensive training in those areas one gets while grooming dogs? Do you win every debate with the dogs or do they sneak a few in?
You do realize that if this lawsuit succeeded and was viewed as precident setting, Fox News and all rightwing talk radio would basically be shut down overnight.
If your arguments are logical and rational, then that will be readily apparent to others. You do not need some sort of external validation to back it up.
You are making bad arguments, so it is unlikely you made it to law school. There is the possibility that you are in a law school with low requirements. Or that you are some troll intentionally arguing poorly. Or that you are so angry that your normally logical brain isn’t working right.
But, to anyone who reads what you have to say, you don’t even sound old enough to be in law school. And, honestly, I suspect that the claim was just to back up something you said earlier.
The fact that this suit was dismissed means that at least this judge thinks that this was a bad argument. Judge > purported law student.
Not begrudgingly, amusingly reparsing your semantics. “Went to law school”, indeed.
Which is how I know that you, if you even took the LSAT, failed it spectacularly.
Okay, 7/10 on comedy on that one. I actually made a slight audible noise of laughter. Well, more of a derisive snort, but it counts.
Congratulations
Based on your inability to follow even a simple sentence, much less an actual paragraph to understand what they mean, and your inability to compose a reply that not only addresses the points that you are replying to but actually has some sort of logical self consistency of its own.
Nah, I actually don’t do much in the way of grooming dogs. I can do it, but it’s not really what I’m about. My training is from running a successful business and dealing with not only clients, but landlords, bankers, vendors, creditors, and the like.
Even if I did (not even close) it would still likely put me far ahead of just about everybody else in the thread in terms of legal knowledge and ability to debate wouldn’t it? Didn’t think that one through did you?
Really how often does Fox news throw around claims of sexism and racism? Seems to be mainly the purview of the left
Really how often do lawyers make arguments based on potential logical inconsistencies?
“I’m not claiming he has said anything logically inconsistent, but he may one day say something logically inconsistent. You see, your honor, I know the type.”
Ah Big T, an arrogant, self-righteous dumb fuck that stands out even among other arrogant, self-righteous dumb fucks. I’ve been reading your drivel for years. Can you even begin to grasp the arrogance and faulty logic in terms of Christian theology that would cause to say you believe people would go to hell for voting for Trump? Of course you can’t because you’re the arrogant, self-righteous dumb fuck who said it.
And once again you and k9 blatantly make assumptions about me without any evidence whatsoever all while touting your own logical skills, disparaging mine, and completely missing the obvious irony. You’re about as familiar with logic as you are the touch of a woman.
And just like you overestimate your own logical reasoning abilities you overestimate the average person’s grasp of logical reasoning as well. The average person is terrible at it, primarily because objectivity is a skill that needs to be learned against our natural inclinations. That’s what the LSAT tests for and what law school teaches you - objectivity, logic, and how to debate using those skills.
Like most stupid people when you encounter something you don’t understand you assume the fault lies externally and not with you. Stupid people are usually the last ones to admit they’re stupid because one of the areas they lack knowledge in is just how much knowledge they lack.
And there remains the incontrovertible fact that every one of your assumptions, the ones you made with non-existent evidence and faulty logic, is wrong. I not only did pretty well on the LSAT (top 2-3%) but my score was enough to gain admission and a scholarship to my alma mater which at the time was ranked in the top 25 and one of the top public law schools in the country. And I graduated 15 years ago. So what would you do if I posted pretty strong evidence of this? Like a picture of my JD for instance? What recourse are you going to have then?
I know it’s not me Big T, it’s you and others. My ability to argue logically and make legal arguments has been tested repeatedly on an academic and professional level and I know none of you can say the same thing. All of you keep accusing me in vague terms of lacking in reading comprehension, making bad arguments, etc but none of you actually seem to be able to come up with any reasons as to exactly how I’m doing what you accuse me of. The fact that you’re oblivious to this omission on your part says a lot about your actual ability to reason logically and debate. There’s other lawyers on this board feel free to ask them what they think of my posts. Won’t really matter though because I know everything I stated about my education and background is true and every argument I made logically sound. You on the other hand are widely considered to be a stupid douche. Have at it.
What a vile and reprehensible thing to even joke about in the Pit you utter piece of shit.
From a dispassionate logical standpoint you realize those aren’t close to being analogus right? Of course you don’t, you’re a stupid asshole
Yeah, it’s weird how seldom they talk about it. It’s almost as though sexism and racism don’t particularly bother them, or their audience.
Nope. How exactly is admitting your conclusion was based on exactly no evidence (at least no worthwhile evidence) “reparsing [my] semantics?”
And once again you accuse me of failing at reading comprehension and logic but never are quite able to articulate exactly where and how I’m doing it. And holy shit you deal with bankers, vendors, and creditors? What intense training in logic, reading comprehension, and legal theory that must have given you. I’ll bet that’s the equivalent of a year of law school. Your stupidity has reached the level of delusional.
I don’t know dumb fuck either. Friend of yours?
I’m not the one who is claiming to be the “adult” in the pit. And tantrum? Really? Again, this is the pit. Lighten up Francis.