You left off pedophiles, so I suppose that's some progress.
I'm optimistic with people in general, but mostly I don't judge and find lacking, let alone condemn as evil those I'm not in a position to appraise reasonably.
I know that to be the case. And I observe the essential facts of the life of my community within the confines of one state where I reside and have made most of my practice over time. The Bar notes the pro bono work and compiles a list of those leading that particular charge each year.
Rather, you attempt to make this a difference of opinion and conflate your anecdotal experience with the breadth of my own and without addressing what moves beyond either but can be readily evidenced by any number of means.
I don't know, Naz. The language and vitriol seemed more consistently angry in a way that troubled me more than it seemed sarcastic or framed in a way that would reasonably be expected to induce cooperation or interest in someone whose profession you called criminal and filled with, among other things, pedophiles. I just don't know what to think of your state of mind on the topic at present.
Impossible, if that reflects the foundation. I can't reason a man out of that which isn't reasonable and there's no point in making the attempt.
No, the emotional element was made prima facie with your repeatedly expressed desire to shoot and/or imprison, among other equally disturbing posits...but essentially I found that symptomatic of an approach that can and must be described as irrational, by which I don't mean the simple insult but rather that which cannot have its foundation in reason.
Naz, when you condemn all lawyers and express the desires you did it must reduce to the individual or you're being dishonest and I don't think you're dishonest...I simply think you spoke from something that needs addressing, something dark and wrong that you've nurtured sufficiently that you've looked to anchor it in other authority, like you attempted with the Bible.
I appreciate that and my hope is that you read most of my response, acerbic as some of it has been as the sign of a genuine concern and alarm in relation to your expressed belief about my fellows. I've known far too many I'd be honored to stand with.
More than a few have left the practice of law for other altruistic pursuits. One of my favorites runs a mission for the poor in a nearby city. He was an outstanding advocate for the poor before taking on that role.
I believe that emotions are powerful allies when they are moved by and under the direction of our intellect and dangerous foes when they lead the intellect. So I don't believe racism is wrong because I feel it to be, but I feel strongly about racism because I know it to be an evil.
I certainly have nothing against empathy and compassion.
I think that on the point they have to your peril and the peril of others you'd misjudge by virtue of being led by your response to a particular which by the nature of its impact made you an uncautious judge of the general.
De nada.
I've had some fairly prolonged arguments with my heathen friends and a few anti theists determined to be disruptive, but the constraints on my time have made those occasions fewer and fewer and, honestly, I've learned that past a point it's unprofitable to continue in any vein, as there's only so much to be said to a point and the rest becomes a grudge match and endurance contest.
I hope that remains the case and temper anything above this fold (as I write reading along and in the moment) with that sentiment.
If I've managed any good I won't count it as a waste, though I worried after making a bad situation worse by encouraging thoughts in you that I couldn't count on impacting and which struck me as doing neither of us any good.
It's a much welcomed note and I'll keep your better angels in my prayers.
:e4e:
lain: