Mr. Sope Creek, as a lawyer defending lawyers, you might consider setting a good example of whatever it is you're advocating. Are you seeking truth? Are you trying to win an argument at all costs, regardless the the human collateral damage? One could ask any number of such questions, especially in the context of the notion of people hating lawyers, which incidentally was originally posited in this thread by a lawyer.
FAIL.
Now who's prevaricating? Currently, you've established yourself as a lying hypocrite in this thread. Practice what you preach, or get out of the pulpit.
Well now, this is an interesting post . . . your accusation that I avoided "the truth value of the assertion" about lawyers is nothing short of an open admission that your statement "Note I wasn't talking about lawyers" was in fact a blatant lie.
You pretend to truth, justice and the American Way in these arguments, lurker, but you're just as amenable to the very sophistry you accuse others of - transparently so.
Have a good day!
I'll take the high road, thank you, and spend a bit of time dissecting what we have here. Let's see if we can show some discernment and locate some truth.
You posted this:
And you would know this, how? Have you ever gone into court, as a party, or even as a witness?
All you have is prejudice and presumptuousness . . . you have no idea what lawyers do, how they do it or how effective they are.
Pffffffffffttttt.
which I assumed, perhaps erroneously, was in response to this portion of my post:
Let's keep it simple. Lawyers are hated for:
- lying while defending liars,
- perpetuating and propagating an adversarial "justice" system in which the less justice/honesty/truth telling there is, the more money they make,
- being masters of sophistry at the expense of integrity, honesty, and sincerity.
So my understanding of your post is that you are suggesting my original post was about lawyers and you're questioning whether I can say anything about lawyers without having seen them in action in court, or perhaps elsewhere. I responded with this:
:grin: Who are you defending?
Note I wasn't talking about lawyers. I was talking about people who hate them.
which is true. In other words,
1. I am asserting reasons that people, who are not lawyers, have for hating lawyers.
2. I am not asserting those reasons have any truth value.
3. I am not asserting those reasons in fact apply generally to all lawyers.
4. I am not asserting anything about lawyers, actually, but rather asserting what is in the minds of people (if any) who have chosen to use those reasons to hate lawyers, to whatever extent they do (which I also made no assertions about).
You followed that post with:
FAIL.
Now who's prevaricating? Currently, you've established yourself as a lying hypocrite in this thread. Practice what you preach, or get out of the pulpit.
Well, I'm going to assume your basis for this
ad hominem attack is that you've overlooked the possibility that I actually wasn't making assertions about lawyers and are firmly convinced I was making assertions about lawyers.
The easiest way to decide that is to look at my original post again and using standard English notice that in fact I made no assertions about lawyers (in the bullet points -- after that I did make a suggestion on honesty for lawyers, which is equally applicable as a suggestion to any human being).
Before I read your second response I posted this:
Also note that your attack on me...is just that. Elementary sophistry backing up one of the assertions I made about why people hate lawyers. You avoided addressing the truth value of the assertion and instead attacked my credibility.
Justice should be interested in truth not in proving argument with clever sophistry, character assassination, and convincing juries that the accused ate ice cream by saying he likes cold, sweet stuff in the summer.
to which you responded with this:
Well now, this is an interesting post . . . your accusation that I avoided "the truth value of the assertion" about lawyers is nothing short of an open admission that your statement "Note I wasn't talking about lawyers" was in fact a blatant lie.
You pretend to truth, justice and the American Way in these arguments, lurker, but you're just as amenable to the very sophistry you accuse others of - transparently so.
Have a good day!
So here again you appear to be assuming I'm making assertions about lawyers which, as I have shown is not the case.
I'll freely grant one point. When I said I wasn't talking about lawyers, I meant I wasn't making assertions about lawyers, but I didn't explicitly say that, thus my statement is open for interpretation. That said, your attacks on me after I said I wasn't talking about lawyers clearly show that you were not, from that point on, discussing this with me in a good faith attempt to come to an understanding with me and show interest in my point of view. Instead you appear to have been intent on assassinating my character, proving that I'm a hypocrite, and the like.
As I suggested at the beginning of this post, one might question to what extent your posting here is putting lawyers in a less-than-hateful light. Character assassination, for instance, is not a particularly endearing activity. Posting in good faith, to me, involves assuming the other is telling the truth and if it appears to me otherwise, as a first response I seek to verify my understanding before questioning whether or not he's discussing in good faith.
For the record, I will say that I know a number of lawyers, both personally and professionally. I don't hate any of them. I don't think any of them are dishonest, rather to the contrary. In fact, I don't hate lawyers at all. This discussion for me is entirely academic. I would assume that many if not most lawyers have the best of intentions as citizens, so to whatever extent there is general dislike or hatred for lawyers, I would assume that's caused by the bad apples and by the nature of the adversarial system. That's unfortunate. I highly doubt that people hate any lawyers because Erin Andrews won her case, other than those who have to pay up.
