Quote:
Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower
You're lying about your views on lying, which is kind of meta. You previously said:
Because if you're going to ban lies, you're going to ban a whole lot of what we call 'advocacy."
But I actually know of an advocacy-based profession that does ban lying.
|
No. You’ve Aspergers.
Advocacy does involve lying. Politicians lie all day long. Lobbyists lie all day. PR people do it openly.
And lawyers do it, and you know it. Lawyers spend millions of dollars in client money every year trying to figure out how to present things disingenuously, or in a false light, or obscure things, or hide things to present the “truth” they want someone to believe without technically violating the prohibition on lying. So while you may think that’s a ban, it is in effect a guide - explicit limited things one cannot do which define the boundaries of the myriad ways one may defy the spirit of the rule. (Kind of like regulations which big businesses carve around while using as barriers to the entry of smaller competitors.)
You seem to argue that politicians who lie deserve no defense. Putting aside the immaturity of that proposition (or the arrogance of it, as it presumes you know who deserves and doesn’t deserve a defense), this would mean no living politician save Jimmy Carter is worth defending. They all lie, a lot. It’s assumed, a feature, and getting incensed about someone defending them is silly.
I did crim defense. I’ll take the other side of almost any prosecution. It’s fun, and you take it too seriously.
I didn’t support money laundering, either. Nor have I supported banks, insurers, developers, or some really sketchy personal injury plaintiffs. But I worked for them, and where they were defendants, I defended them even when I detested them. I believe there’s an ethics rule of some sort on that...
Threaded Mode