Atheists and abortion

[Town Heretic]

Okay, its statements such as this that indicate you've no idea what I'm proposing nor (the reductio) method at which I do so:

Maybe, but for the sake of argument continue assuming I'm not and have or will answer any particular until I don't.

Nothing here is under contention. The point remains that the current moral condition of the unborn remains identical to those cases where an elective abortion is sought.

When have I said otherwise? Given the only moral consideration we've discussed is blame/guilt (being not being a moral proposition and right being a legal one, however seated).

Once again, none of this was being contested.

I don't think that's actually true, but okay.

ust one simple question:

Is the aborted fetus - by way of mother's right to self defend - morally disparate in some manner from the fetus that gets aborted via mother's right to electively choose such?

A simple yes or no will suffice at this point.

No it won't suffice and resist the impulse to Traditio your opponent. Again, I've never said the fetus differs in either case, neither in right nor being. The resolution/difference in cases doesn't rest there, which is why I have answered on the mother's case and bearing differing and why the options of the unborn are inferior in the case of self defense, both legally and morally.

Outside of the circumstances the mother and unborn have the same right and moral standing. But the circumstance, rare as it may be, impacts how we must address them.

 

[Obidiah Irving]

@rexlunae Thanks for getting back in the debate, it’s nice to see the Pro-Termination crowd come to the defense of the Pro-Life. Good to see there is some solidarity on the really important issues.

Let me just say this first. Nothing in your post addresses the point of contention, for the point of contention is not about the law or anything related to it or those who practice it. The point of contention between Town Heretic and myself is over the usage of the term “Abortion” and its misuse. He felt that the “the point of language is satisfied” even though, as I pointed out: “The point of language is to help humans communicate in a clear and lucid manner, or as close to it as we can achieve, and having a term that can be equally applied to two diametrically opposed processes at the same time does *not* satisfy that. It violates all the rules and purposes of language.” This is what the debate has focused on. All of your input, while an interesting defense of lawyers and British influenced American law, has no bearing at all on the debate.

I would also note that Town Heretic has not addressed the point. He has not responded to the fact that “the term “abortion” is incorrectly used in the common vernacular. If a woman says “I had an abortion” and it means either “I terminated a healthy and viable fetus using an artificial medical process” or “I had a natural miscarriage of a non-viable fetus” that is a problem… It’s like saying “I really [insert word] you” in which the inserted word could mean “I love you” or “I hate you.” Once again: You should *never* have the *same* word mean two *opposite* things.”

As for the rest of it I can spare a few words…

“you do realize that this whole paragraph of yours as well as the next few amount to little more than a character attack”

That is incorrect. I never went “ad hominem” and the nature of Town Heretic’s character was never up for debate. He stated: “I'm a lawyer [therefore] I understand the value of precision.” I only commented on the methods and training that a lawyer receives and employs. He brought his profession into the debate not I, and he stated it as a surety of his ability to comprehend and defend truth. I simply stated that, judging his merit by his professional calling, exactly the opposite could easily be inferred. Once again, people seem to be confused on simple terms, I believe a more accurate term for what happened would be something like “ Ad professio” not “ad hominem.”

“A lawyer afflicted with an affinity for specious reasoning, dishonesty, or hypocrisy probably isn't going to be winning a lot of cases. It is literally a profession built around making the best possible arguments.”

Ahh… I see. I concede the point… No one ever heard of lawyers winning cases with specious reasoning or because they made a bad argument appear to be true… So the fact that in the common vernacular, which Town Heretic seems to value so much, that lawyers are synonymous with hypocrisy and lying has no bearing… I guess the rest of the world is just imagining all that…

Ignore these please:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Carolina_v._Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinds_v._Brazealle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dred_Scott_v._Sandford

 

[quip]

No it won't suffice and resist the impulse to Traditio your opponent. Again, I've never said the fetus differs in either case, neither in right nor being.

Good, then we've established that the identical fetus via the identical procedure, equally results in the precipitant death of said fetus in the case of either an elective or necessary abortion scenario.

The resolution/difference in cases doesn't rest there, which is why I have answered on the mother's case and bearing differing and why the options of the unborn are inferior in the case of self defense, both legally and morally.

Outside of the circumstances the mother and unborn have the same right and moral standing. But the circumstance, rare as it may be, impacts how we must address them.

The mother's case, though extreme, emphasizes the inherent inferior predisposition regarding the unborn in relation to its host. You've only presumed the defaulted "option of the unborn" as a relevant measure from a generalize legal appeal to the right-to-life...to which its assumed relevancy (regarding the unborn) begs the very question.

By no transgression of its own...the scenario demands the fetus forfeit its rights to life. To remain consistent (to your defaulted, pro-life principle) there must be contravening evidence shown against the fetus - beyond the mere situation per se - for a justified aborgation of this (assumed) right-to-life. You've proir assented to no such dramtic shift, morally nor legally, in the unborn's status in this regard.

Conversely, to remain consitent to the notion of choice in matters of abortion one may simply appeal to the unique physical imparities inherent to the situation (aptly demonstrated via the current demonstration). The difference between elective and necessary abortion lies in the moral degree of choice ....not situational presumption.

 

[preachintothechoir]

You learned that your opponent is a lawyer, and assumed against the evidence that he is going to be forced to use the adversarial style for his posts here?

Hey rexlunae.....I'm pretty sure Town Heretic told Obadiah Irving he is a lawyer. In fact, that was kind of the whole point, now wasn't it? Don't try to make it out like Irving maliciously seized some passing detail about Town Heretic that he shouldn't have known......This was Heretic's whole comeback, which, by the way, was a logical fallacy because it is a false authority. I’d say it’s a good indication that one is grasping at straws when one starts using logical fallacies. You may also notice, he has not touched any of Irving's responses since that reply.

“False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.” -Wikipedia

Speaking of sophistry, you do realize that this whole paragraph of yours as well as the next few amount to little more than a character attack?

Again, Town Herectic’s vocation as lawyer was not a passing detail. It was a one-sentence argument. He was saying:

1. I am a lawyer
2. Lawyers best know xyz
3. Thus, I best know xyz

But challenging an actual argument (what Irving was doing) isn’t attacking character. What you’ve done by accusing O’Irving of attacking the character is cornered him into a position where he cannot challenge the already stated argument. You've given yourself immunity; who wouldn't like to do that?

The system is designed to find the truth, and each actor in the system plays a part.

But what part is that? You never actually said. Of course we already know the answer; it’s the part of self-interest (win the case). After all, if lawyers were really so committed to truth as you attempted to imply, then no criminal would ever hire one…..


Honestly, this whole post of yours, rexlunae, was a red herring. Since both you and TownHeretic are so set on avoiding Irving’s actual argument, you seized your buddy’s distraction from the debate and made this thread now all about lawyers. Let’s measure how good either of you are at "finding the truth" by talking about the topic. Face Irving’s argument straight on.

Irving – You’re killing it.

 

[Town Heretic]

Hey rexlunae.....I'm pretty sure Town Heretic told Obadiah Irving he is a lawyer.

I did.

In fact, that was kind of the whole point, now wasn't it?

No, the point was to respond to a bit of superior and assumptive posturing on Irv's part:

...Anyone with any proper training in hermeneutics, religious studies, or theology general can tell you that it is absolutely essential that proper word usage must be maintained.

I'm a lawyer. I understand the value of precision. Here you've yet to produce a virtue or impact of altering popular perception on the point.

Maybe they might have some understanding of the proper methods by which theological research is accomplished, instead of just a pocket full of “yahoo answers” worthy one-liners...So, I will be as mono-syllabic as possible.

So the limitation of my reason for noting my own background is presented pretty clearly. Yet you ignore that to cobble something else. More, Irv was inferring his own education and attempting with that to establish himself as an authority. Odd you don't address that given the reach on that particular charge that follows from you.

Don't try to make it out like Irving maliciously seized some passing detail about Town Heretic that he shouldn't have known.

No, the hostile (and ignorant) part was what followed, his uninformed opinion of the discipline. I'll post a bit of it later.

.....This was Heretic's whole comeback, which, by the way, was a logical fallacy because it is a false authority.

No, it wasn't (either). Supra.

I’d say it’s a good indication that one is grasping at straws when one starts using logical fallacies.

I'd say when you start leveling charges you haven't supported or support without solid foundation in reason it's a good indication your dog in this fight is bias blinkered, or you're not so new around here and/or you're a sock puppet.

You may also notice, he has not touched any of Irving's responses since that reply.

True. I stopped reading him after he wasted my time with the anti lawyer screed. I did see his endgame with rex, where he evidenced a lack of science and/or statistics in his background by attempting to establish his disdain for my profession by foisting a few anecdotes.

“False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials

I'll present you the standing challenge: proof of my credentials against a perma ban for anyone challenging them. AMR has verified them. I could get Knight to easily enough. Suffice to say, no one has ever taken that challenge...which is unfortunate given the sort inclined to level the charge.

Again, Town Herectic’s vocation as lawyer was not a passing detail. It was a one-sentence argument.

It wasn't passing and it was one sentence? lain: Pick a position, won't you.

He was saying:

1. I am a lawyer
2. Lawyers best know xyz
3. Thus, I best know xyz

No, my curiously hostile fellow, I said I understood the value of precision in language and I gave the detail of my background, in passing, because he seemed to value that sort of thing and I supposed he'd understand the point, unlike you here, which wasn't authority, only familiarity.

But challenging an actual argument (what Irving was doing) isn’t attacking character.

It’s not hard to tell a sophist…
When two lawyers meet it is a different matter entirely. Lawyers often have no interest in the truth; the truth tends to interfere with good lawyerly work.

Your reading skills or your person are seriously suspect at this point.

But what part is that? You never actually said. Of course we already know the answer; it’s the part of self-interest (win the case). After all, if lawyers were really so committed to truth as you attempted to imply, then no criminal would ever hire one…..

So you don't know any more about the process that Irv did. Two peas in a pod...or at a PC? Good to know. The point of the law is to serve justice. The process by which that's accomplished involves specific roles and obligations. When everyone does what they're supposed to the result is a just conclusion/holding. The prosecuting attorney advances the narrative of guilt, the defense attorney protects the accused's right and defends the presumption of innocence. The trier of fact decides on the evidence and argument presented in relation to the standard to establish guilt.

Honestly, this whole post of yours, rexlunae, was a red herring. Since both you and TownHeretic are so set on avoiding Irving’s actual argument, you seized your buddy’s distraction from the debate and made this thread now all about lawyers.

Up until he turned into a boring, old hat proponent of a popular distortion concerning my profession, spending a great deal of time on that instead of the point, I'd answered him. After that I wasn't particularly interested in his thinking given the presumptions he kept resting on like laurels.

Such is life.

Irving – You’re killing it.

You're actually Irving, aren't you. lain: Two posts in and you're making the same sort of horrible mistakes. And all you did here was attack people you aren't supposed to know using mistaken presumptions that no one without a horse in the race and/or a reading problem should.

 

[Town Heretic]

Good, then we've established that the identical fetus via the identical procedure, equally results in the precipitant death of said fetus in the case of either an elective or necessary abortion scenario.

Or, in plain language, either way the unborn dies. Undisputed.

The mother's case, though extreme, emphasizes the inherent inferior predisposition regarding the unborn in relation to its host.

Only in this particular circumstance and for particular reasons going to the nature of the defense at law and the underlying moral question as it pertains to defending life.

Or, the mother can raise a defense that the child can't, rationally. The moral good of preserving life can only be accomplished for the mother. So, both from a legal and a moral position her position is superior in this instance.

You've only presumed the defaulted "option of the unborn" as a relevant measure from a generalize legal appeal to the right-to-life...to which its assumed relevancy (regarding the unborn) begs the very question.

Rather, I've argued the harder case, asserting both are equally protected by the law. I also have an argument for why that should be the case and an argument against a proposition of an arbitrary assignment of right, read the other way.

By no transgression of its own...the scenario demands the fetus forfeit its rights to life.

It makes the case that as between the two parties hers is the superior position, morally and legally speaking.

To remain consistent (to your defaulted, pro-life principle) there must be contravening evidence shown against the fetus - beyond the mere situation per se - for a justified aborgation of this (assumed) right-to-life.

That's a bit tangled, but to untangle: the right to life isn't assumed, it's established. You have it. I have it and rationally the unborn should to for reasons given prior.

To remain consistent that life cannot be abrogated absent justification I need to present justification in this rather rare instance. Among those positions that allow for abrogation of this particular right is self defense. I've set out how that applies in this case. I've set out how while both parties have a right to lay claim to it only one actually can. And I've set out the morally superior position of one who can preserve right and life as against one who can only take right and life.

You've proir assented to no such dramtic shift, morally nor legally, in the unborn's status in this regard.

Supra.

The difference between elective and necessary abortion lies in the moral degree of choice ....not situational presumption.

The difference between murder and justified homicide is found in the particulars and necessity, not in some sliding scale of moral ambiguity.

 

[Obidiah Irving]

@Town Heretic

“True. I stopped reading him after he wasted my time with the anti-lawyer screed. I did see his endgame with rex, where he evidenced a lack of science and/or statistics in his background by attempting to establish his disdain for my profession by foisting a few anecdotes.”

Here are more than a few anecdotes… Perhaps the opinion of other lawyers, Chief Justices, Founding Fathers, &c... carry some weight in your mind?

"75 to 90 percent of American lawyers are incompetent, dishonest - or both."

“Guilt or innocence becomes irrelevant in the criminal trials as we flounder in a morass of artificial rules poorly conceived and often impossible [to apply].”

“We are more casual about qualifying the people we allow to act as advocates in the courtroom than we are about licensing electricians.”

“Doctors still retain a high degree of public confidence because they are perceived as healers. Should lawyers not be healers? Healers, not warriors? Healers, not procurers? Healers, not hired guns?”

-Warren Burger, Late Supreme Court Chief Justice

“A countryman between two Lawyers, is like a fish between two cats.”
-Benjamin Franklin, Poor Richard's Almanack, 1737

“Honest and peace-loving people shun the Courts and are prepared to suffer loss rather than fall into a Lawyer's clutches.”
-Peter De Noronha, The Pageant of Life

“Lawyers are the only persons in whom ignorance of the law is not punished.”
-Jeremy Bentham, The Canadian Bar Journal, Jun. 1966

“Don't forget that we lawyers, we're a higher breed of intellect, and so it's our privilege to lie. It's as clear as day….”
― Yevgeny Zamyatin, Islanders And, The Fisher Of Men

“If you are unfortunate enough to be involved in legal action, you’ve got to realize that it’s a three-way fight: There’s you, there’s your opponent, and there’s your lawyer. And your lawyer is not on your side. His job is to get as much money as possible out of you, frequently in collusion with the other side’s lawyer, and then move on to another client.”
― Peter Brimelow

“The ego is a palpable body part in an attorney, perhaps the most prominent body part.”
― Abbe Smith, Case of a Lifetime: A Criminal Defense Lawyer's Story

(I have more of those if you need them… Not that it will matter because you practice an invincible disregard for anything you wish not to see…)

Of course, my point was that “Guilt or innocence becomes irrelevant” to lawyers and often completely obscured, a point echoed by at least one Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Lawyers are not trained to fight for truth; they are all to often trained to, as the distinguished Peter Brimelow says, “to get as much money as possible out of you.”

It is commonly recognized among the public and even those among the legal profession that lawyers are “[not] Healers, [but] procurers ….[not] Healers, [but] hired guns….” As you said previously, “If the popular usage notes a particular act [definition] then altering [not adhering to it] it is a waste of time” and the popular usage of the term lawyer is synonymous with hypocrisy and specious reasoning, not truth seeking , so why should I be disallowed from adhering to this definition? Or maybe now, in regards to your profession, the popular usage is suddenly not sufficient?

I’m sorry if I offended you by being candid about the nature of your profession and adhering to a completely acceptable definition of your profession. I guess we have to be careful about accepting the definition supplied via common vernacular after all, eh?

“You're actually Irving, aren't you. And all you did here was attack people you aren't supposed to know using mistaken presumptions that no one without a horse in the race and/or a reading problem should.”

Umm… Not sure to go with this really? Hmm… Equating two radically different styles of writing and thought process and assuming them to be the same, totally reasonable. Yes, no signs of paranoia and no attempts to distract the points through equivocation…

Though once again, I take note that you’ve masterfully avoided the point of contention. You’ve made no response to the debate, which you started and insisted on carrying. But I suppose Muhammed Ali’s old stratagem, when you’ve nothing to counter with the best thing is to simply deflect, is equally valid in contests inside and outside the ring… A clever foil though, to make the debate about a perceived slant to your profession instead of over what it actually is: Whether it is acceptable to misuse and abuse the English language but equating the Termination of a child with an Abortion.

Once again, I note that I merely echoed a popular definition of what a lawyer is, I offered you and your profession no greater insult than the English language, by definition, daily offers you. I guess the distinguished law-person Abbe Smith was right when she said, “The ego is a palpable body part in an attorney, perhaps the most prominent body part.” For this debate has clearly changed, by your own hand, from the proper use of terms in the Abortion debate, to the perceived slight that I, by quoting the dictionary, am supposed to have offered you.

P.S. Classy move threatening new members with the ban hammer because they disagree with you. WWJD?

 

[quip]

Or, in plain language, either way the unborn dies. Undisputed.

Not really, that's where the honest title of pro-life plays in.

 

[Town Heretic]

Not really, that's where the honest title of pro-life plays in.

Make up your mind. I was translating your own:

...the identical fetus via the identical procedure, equally results in the precipitant death of said fetus in the case of either an elective or necessary abortion scenario.

Else, nothing dishonest about my position and nothing else here to respond to, so...good talking to you.

 

[Town Heretic]

..."75 to 90 percent of American lawyers are incompetent, dishonest - or both."

While I'm not interested in your attempt to make most of this about your obvious problem with the profession, an anecdote, from any source, is only useful to illustrate a point established else. So be it a sarcastic comment by Burger or the belief of Ben Franklin, it doesn't follow that anything beyond opinion (if that) is established.

In any event, you're not honestly relating what Burger said, or you're not thorough with vetting source material. You omitted "trial" as a descriptive before lawyers. He was taking a shot at the people who contended before his bar, not the profession he and every sitting judge belong to.

Any lawyer practicing today is subject to sufficient checks that the competency part is demonstrably wrong and the honesty part is just as silly. That said, Burger came up in a different era. I'll get to that in a moment.

“We are more casual about qualifying the people we allow to act as advocates in the courtroom than we are about licensing electricians.”

In fairness, during Burger's days it was a lot easier to get a license to practice. He was born in 1907. There were lawyers who didn't have to pass a bar if they graduated from certain law schools in the last century. There were people (some who turned out rather good at it, like Lincoln) who didn't even attend a school before standing before a judge and arguing cases.

Today and for a long time now getting into a good school has been something only accomplished by the most accomplished academics. And between the LSAT, admissions screening, background checks and testimony, the arduous nature of the schooling and the subsequent bars awaiting thereafter, it simply doesn't have legs any longer as a criticism and hasn't for generations of attorneys.

“Doctors still retain a high degree of public confidence because they are perceived as healers. Should lawyers not be healers? Healers, not warriors? Healers, not procurers? Healers, not hired guns?”

The last time I checked doctors were paid ably enough. It's a poor comparison though, given doctors fight disease alongside their patients and it's in the nature of the thing, as dissent and a less amicable process is in the nature of legal proceedings, where two different sides have very different ideas on what the outcome and justice should provide.

Most lawyers are aware of the often espoused, popular opinion offered on their profession. When half the people who experience the courts must necessarily leave without gaining what they thought they should have and/or were entitled to it's no real surprise that the profession is popularly disparaged.

What would be the popular opinion of doctors if half their patients died?

On the whole, I like Lincoln's advice to the profession:

"There is a vague popular belief that lawyers are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because when we consider to what extent confidence and honors are reposed in and conferred upon lawyers by the people, it appears improbable that their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost universal. Let no young man choosing the law for a calling for a moment yield to the popular belief..."

Lawyers are not trained to fight for truth; they are all to often trained to, as the distinguished Peter Brimelow says, “to get as much money as possible out of you.”

And we have noted biologists who will tell you Christianity is complete nonsense. So otherwise learned men can have opinions that are, in the final analysis, indistinguishable from the opinion of an idiot, as you're ably illustrating at present on this particular.

As you said previously, “If the popular usage notes a particular act [definition] then altering [not adhering to it] it is a waste of time” and the popular usage of the term lawyer is synonymous with hypocrisy and specious reasoning, not truth seeking , so why should I be disallowed from adhering to this definition?

I said the popular usage of abortion communicates the thing being differed over clearly. Attempting to move the point of using abortion only invites confusion, not clarity. Your ongoing attempt to denigrate a profession has nothing to do with anything beyond your obvious bias.

Umm… Not sure to go with this really? Hmm… Equating two radically different styles of writing and thought process and assuming them to be the same, totally reasonable. Yes, no signs of paranoia and no attempts to distract the points through equivocation…

Just noting the similar hostility, focus and investment that came up in remarkably short order.

Though once again, I take note that you’ve masterfully avoided the point of contention. You’ve made no response to the debate, which you started and insisted on carrying. Whether it is acceptable to misuse and abuse the English language but equating the Termination of a child with an Abortion.

I've commented clearly enough on the point of usage. Your notion that a clear communication amounts to misuse and abuse is purely your own invention and hyperbole. The debate is framed, understood by the term and no real point is served by altering it, given the demonstrable lack of confusion on the part of anyone speaking to Roe and the consequence of it.

P.S. Classy move threatening new members with the ban hammer because they disagree with you. WWJD?

To begin with, he'd be honest, which you aren't being. What I offered someone in the process of running with an easy, unfounded accusation was the chance to put her money where her gob was. If you lack conviction on a point that goes to veracity you need to be called on the hypocrisy and be held to a knowing and truthful accounting. And given I was subject to the same penalty for failing the challenge, your characterization can't even be considered a reasonable mistake.

 

[Obidiah Irving]

@ Town Heretic

You say:

“I stopped reading him after he wasted my time with the anti-lawyer screed….”

And then you say:

“….I'm not interested in your attempt to make most of this about your obvious problem with the profession….”

Hmm… you seem a little confused here… One second it’s not even worth mentioning and then next it is (or almost is) the entire focus of you and Rex’s posts here…

“an anecdote, from any source, is only useful to illustrate a point established else. So be it a sarcastic comment by Burger or the belief of Ben Franklin, it doesn't follow that anything beyond opinion (if that) is established.”

Burger, Ben Franklin, Abbe Smith, etc… Experts in local, regional, and international laws or in law general… People who spent their entire lives around lawyers and people associated with the law profession. Not expert opinions. Mere anecdotes, hardly worth mentioning… I’m sure Benjamin Franklin would agree that his comments carried so little weight and could be so easily dismissed. I’m sorry, but I’d rather take the opinion of one of the most brilliant minds (and well suited to comment on the subject) of any century over the (for obvious reasons) biased opinion a lawyer. Benjamin Franklin at least has no conflict of interest in the matter; therefore I view his rather expert opinion as admissible.

“Any lawyer practicing today is subject to sufficient checks that the competency part is demonstrably wrong and the honesty part is just as silly.”

Right… Keep repeating everything that you’ve said previously. Just dismiss those expert opinions because they happen to disagree with yours. I mean after all, how can the credentials and experience of Abbe Smith, Peter Brimelow, and others be compared to the ponderous weight of your self-justified opinion of lawyers…

“According to the American Bar Association, 1,046 lawyers were disbarred nationally in 2011, or about 0.08% of the roughly 1.27 million practicing lawyers. [In Kentucky] [for example] Their ranks include some of the state's most successful and brilliant former attorneys who now are barred from making their living practicing law.” (Just the ones we’ve managed to catch and convict, the ones who did not get off by abusing their knowledge of the law… Also funny to note how it seems that so many of the successful attorneys are the corrupt ones…)

"There are a *lot* of us out there, and I don't think anybody knows quite what to do with us…." – A disbarred lawyer. (Emphasis added)
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...lawyers-face-career-personal-hurdles/4651761/

PLEASE FEEL FREE TO IGNORE THIS. Oh, I didn’t need to say that… You ignore what you don’t like anyway… Guess all those checks aren't that great are they.

“And we have noted biologists who will tell you Christianity is complete nonsense. So otherwise learned men can have opinions that are, in the final analysis, indistinguishable from the opinion of an idiot….”

Correct… But I only commented on the difference of the emphasis of the *training* not on the end result of it. Even the best training does not guarantee a result, but it has a propensity to influence people a certain way… This is my point… I believe that you’ll find the rate of academic dishonesty is significantly lower than dishonesty among attorneys… Or at least it would be if we included more than just the few in which that clients are capable of catching and getting a successful prosecution… One group is trained to find truth, but it doesn’t mean they will always be successful; the other is trained to be able to argue from any view point, right or wrong, and make it seem correct.

“otherwise learned men can have opinions that are, in the final analysis, indistinguishable from the opinion of an idiot, as you're ably illustrating at present on this particular.”

Oh… Look, an ad hominem! How cute… Want me to frame it for you? And it was almost clever too… :up:

“I said the popular usage of abortion communicates the thing being differed over clearly. The debate is framed, understood by the term and no real point is served by altering it, given the demonstrable lack of confusion on the part of anyone speaking to Roe and the consequence of it.”

Ok… Right… Something that means two different and totally contradictory things leaves no room for confusion in anyone’s mind. And Planned Parenthood, and Lucaspsa, and the other Pro-Termination crowd never falsely equate the killing of a viable healthy fetus with a natural lifesaving process. If it makes you happy to believe that, then so be it. They never run ads that falsely equate the two, or anything of the sort… I’ve already showed how it makes no sense and how it causes confusion. But you’ve ardently and tenaciously ignored all that. :doh:

“To begin with, he'd be honest, which you aren't being. If you lack conviction on a point that goes to veracity you need to be called on the hypocrisy and be held to a knowing and truthful accounting.”

Firstly, no one accused you of not being a lawyer… You threatened to ban a new member for disagreeing with you. Let me quote, “using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.” My point, and this is the same point Preachin’ was arguing, is that you, as a lawyer, are claiming to be an expert at finding truth via your training, but that this is not correct. The point that Preachin’ was pressing is that you are trained to be able to argue from any view point, right or wrong, and make it seem correct, but you are not trained to have a commitment only to finding and making clear the absolute truth. No one really cares to doubt your credentials as a lawyer, they mean absolutely nothing, despite your ardent defense of them, we care only about the training that a lawyer receives and how it equips you to find truth...

But, I tire of talking of this subject. Once again, you blatantly ignore every point on the object of contention and then redirect it to a meaningless debate over the honesty of your profession. I’ll leave this debate with these passing thoughts…

“But when the Pharisees had heard that He had put the Sadducees to silence, they were gathered together. Then one of them, which was a *lawyer,* asked him a question, tempting him, and saying Master, which is the great commandment in the law?”

“And, behold, a certain *lawyer* stood up, and tempted Him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life. He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?”

I’ll let you find the references… And I’ll let everyone draw their own conclusions on this…

 

[Town Heretic]

Hmm… you seem a little confused here… One second it’s not even worth mentioning and then next it is (or almost is) the entire focus of you and Rex’s posts here…

I've spent most of my time on the topic and a little of it answering people who appear to be more interested in me and my profession than it.

Burger, Ben Franklin, Abbe Smith, etc… Experts in local, regional, and international laws or in law general… People who spent their entire lives around lawyers and people associated with the law profession. Not expert opinions. Mere anecdotes,

Anecdotal evidence of a bias and not much more. Like I said, people with degrees have held and currently hold opinions that are at odds with all sorts of things, usually outside of their actual expertise and disciplines, like most anti theists with theology.

Jefferson possessed one of the finest minds of our founding fathers and didn't believe in the divinity of Christ. Lincoln was a racist by our standards today. Should we honor racist thinking because otherwise great men held it? Should we rip the miracles out of our Bibles because Jefferson did?

Of course not.

“According to the American Bar Association, 1,046 lawyers were disbarred nationally in 2011, or about 0.08%

The national figure for lawyers in that year came to 7 in 10,000. A far cry from the anecdotal impression of Burger, who you leaned on earlier. Any idea how many doctors were subject to censure that year as a percentage? Closer to 3 in 1000.

... I believe that you’ll find the rate of academic dishonesty is significantly lower than dishonesty among attorneys…

I think you're being revisionist, but to run with it you can think the moon is made of Velveeta but until you demonstrate it all you're actually setting out is your bias.

Oh… Look, an ad hominem!

Like being criticized for excess by Rip Torn. Or, funny coming from a fellow who met a simple declaration that I understood precision in the use of language, being a lawyer, with a screed of insult that began,

"It’s not hard to tell a sophist…" and went on to be a one man show attacking my profession. Ah, well. You are who you are.

“I said the popular usage of abortion communicates the thing being differed over clearly. The debate is framed, understood by the term and no real point is served by altering it, given the demonstrable lack of confusion on the part of anyone speaking to Roe and the consequence of it.”

Ok… Right… Something that means two different and totally contradictory things leaves no room for confusion in anyone’s mind.

Except it doesn't mean two things here in anyone's advance and in the minds of people arguing about legalized abortion, in the popular usage or in the communication of Roe. No one is arguing over laws pertaining to nature or attempting to circumvent biological process with a legal mandate.

Firstly, no one accused you of not being a lawyer…

That's not actually true. This single post wonder who came to your defense actually posted:

“False authority (single authority) – using an expert of dubious credentials or using only one opinion to sell a product or idea. Related to the appeal to authority fallacy.” -Wikipedia

Not an appeal to authority, which would have been wrong for different reasons, but false authority running to dubious credentials.

You threatened to ban a new member for disagreeing with you.

I didn't, as per my last on this same charge. And if he wasn't actually questioning my credentials it would be an even harder sell for you, rationally, since the challenge was tied to that very thing.

My point, and this is the same point Preachin’ was arguing, is that you, as a lawyer, are claiming to be an expert at finding truth via your training, but that this is not correct.

It would be, though what I actually said before you and he lost your head was that I was familiar with the precise use of language and its value by virtue of my discipline. That said, the first step in becoming an attorney, outside of an exemplary academic status, is the taking of a test of aptitude which examines your ability to consider rationally, a test of critical thinking. If you do well enough then you may be considered for a course of study designed to hone that ability and apply it to a particular use of language in a number of areas within the larger lexicon of the law. Then you're tested and driven for a few years. If you survive it then you face at least the bar examination in your home state, which is a three day trial that may come from any corner studied in those previous years.

A lawyer is, in fact, expert at finding the truth of a thing. A prosecutor is dedicated to that principle. The defense attorney has a different role. The judge another. Justice hinges upon the truth and the ability of the accuser to assert it through a strenuously tested examination of sorts given by the defense attorney. The judge decides, or a jury subject to him.

... we care only about the training that a lawyer receives and how it equips you to find truth...

We? You pluralizing already? Say it often enough and you might even believe it. Your statements about the profession alternated between the wrong headed and objectively wrong. I noted some of that prior.

You aren't qualified to offer an expert or even particularly informed opinion on a discipline you haven't been admitted into.

But, I tire of talking of this subject.

All evidence to the contrary.

Once again, you blatantly ignore every point on the object of contention

Once again you say that but fail to raise a specific.

and then redirect it to a meaningless debate over the honesty of your profession. I’ll leave this debate with these passing thoughts…

A debate only you introduced and then rode as a topic. I omit further evidence of what you're about and what you demonstrably aren't.


Anyone else want to discuss the actual topic?