Doesn’t Matter Who Wins the K Race; We’re All the Same

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Hank Chinaski

If Sebby hired me as his lawyer I'd shoot your arguments down. I might have to blur the truth, make half truths, hell, lie to destroy you: come to think I think the ethics rules would compel me to do so.

Oh come on... Let's not play obtuse here. If we started flagging people for abusing the weaknesses of this medium that allow people to preserve arguments and avoid being cornered as one would be IRL, everyone here would have numerous red cards.

Just a month ago, Less was battling with someone over their refusal to every concede when they're wrong. (I think it was GGG, but maybe it was Ty.) And as to whining about my restating other people's arguments, Ty's been doing that to me forever. If you look back through the past months, you'll see him repeatedly trying to tell me what I believe and accusing me of hiding what I actually think.

Does that make him dishonest? Hell no. He's probing. He's even gotten me to think a few times about what I am actually thinking.

It's profoundly strange to take issue with someone for pragmatically assessing politicians who lie effectively. If you can't separate recognition of a skill from the endorsement of its practice, your brain isn't working. George Goebbels and Josef Stalin were brilliant liars. Geniuses. If I say that, have I said that I support the idea of lying? No. I've said these guys are very good at doing something bad.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Not for nothing -- you routinely tell me that I'm an elitist who looks down at average Americans for not sharing my views, but I don't say stuff like this.

I don't think you're elitist. I think you think you know better than most. I share this trait. I don't know what to call it.

You'd say stuff like that if you ran into some of the people we see in this flyoverland.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Ah, yes, the left-wing analogue to Fox: the network with a morning show hosted by a former Republican Congressman who voted to impeach Bill Clinton. So left!

Donna Brazile is on Fox.

You missed my point. The point was that is the only cable news I hear.

And MJ blasts Trump all show, every day. They probably do it more than Maddow.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

My suspicion is that all of us went to schools that graduated some mix of asshats and angels, and blaming the schools for this makes no sense.

Am I right that we all went to schools other than Dartmouth?

Today, I'm pretty happy with (one of) my alma mater(s).

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by Adder

So, Hank, if you didn’t go to Harvard and a Yale law at the same time, would you give money to your law school that employs a professor who testifies before Congress that impeachment without a crime is unprecedented even in the face of explicit evidence of the crime of soliciting a thing of value from a foreign person.

If you had instead gone to GW, do would you be nauseous about Prof Turley’s willingness to lie?

If I had gone to GW? Hmmm, I really couldn't say. That's like asking me if my dick were only 8 inches long would it still hamper my stride when it got hard.


Conf to adder- I think he was there when I was there. How is that possible?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Just a month ago, Less was battling with someone over their refusal to every concede when they're wrong. (I think it was GGG, but maybe it was Ty.)

It was GGG, and I agreed with Less.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

Today, I'm pretty happy with (one of) my alma mater(s).

"Professor of English and Neuroscience"

She's not messing around.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Oh come on... Let's not play obtuse here. If we started flagging people for abusing the weaknesses of this medium that allow people to preserve arguments and avoid being cornered as one would be IRL, everyone here would have numerous red cards.

Just a month ago, Less was battling with someone over their refusal to every concede when they're wrong. (I think it was GGG, but maybe it was Ty.) And as to whining about my restating other people's arguments, Ty's been doing that to me forever. If you look back through the past months, you'll see him repeatedly trying to tell me what I believe and accusing me of hiding what I actually think.

Does that make him dishonest? Hell no. He's probing. He's even gotten me to think a few times about what I am actually thinking.

It's profoundly strange to take issue with someone for pragmatically assessing politicians who lie effectively. If you can't separate recognition of a skill from the endorsement of its practice, your brain isn't working. George Goebbels and Josef Stalin were brilliant liars. Geniuses. If I say that, have I said that I support the idea of lying? No. I've said these guys are very good at doing something bad.

I was just kissing up to Flower. I’ve read none of this nonsense, would not be able to comment substantively.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

If I say that, have I said that I support the idea of lying?

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.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

It was GGG, and I agreed with Less.

My bad for associating you with it.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

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...

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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...

O.K., liar.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

O.K., liar.

Child.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Child.

Look, Mister, we don't make fun of minors here.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

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...

This reminds me that Knives Out is fun. People should go see it.

I personally don't lie. This post kinda makes me want to hurl.