Tearloch7 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 You could always be The Devil's Advocate Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckerbird Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 You keep trying to bring my occupation into this as mockery. I'm sure that if you had the guts to mention yours I could have a few laughs as well. But then again so many insults over the Internet would undoubtably be silenced in person. I love having real conversations in person where people are too afraid to say what's really on their mind. Best to keep it behind the keyboard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 See the things is, here at CDC, we aren't exactly strangers to members who are lawyers or who practice other legal professions. Indeed, the most prolific poster that this board has ever seen just happens to be lawyer. And while Wetcoaster may have come across as an emotionless, wine loving, classy restaurant patron to some; there was never any doubt about the validity of his claimed profession. The man was a walking Black's Law Dictionary who never passed up an opportunity to educate anyone who got into a legal argument with him. Infamous as he was for burying opponents with walls of statute provisions and settled jurisprudence, at the end of the day, no one questioned the fact that he was indeed a lawyer. True, he may have had biases and prejudices regarding certain topics, but he rarely, if ever, allowed his personal beliefs to trump his knowledge of the law. And he certainly never made arguments based on illogical, irrational, or emotional grounds. Taking into account the way you present yourself and your arguments, ( equating humans to dogs, and arguing from an emotional rather than a logical standpoint) it is rather hard for us to take your claim of being a lawyer as anything more than spurious. Perhaps Wetcoaster spoiled us, perhaps you really are someone who did well enough in University, scored high enough on the LSAT to be admitted into law school, was able to persevere through the rigours and demanding nature of said law school, and then successfully pass the bar exam of whatever province or state you may belong to. Maybe those are the facts in the case at bar. As it stands though, you've given very little evidence to support your claim, in fact, anytime that someone challenges said claim, you are not able to defend your position with any factual basis. Now I could be wrong, but is it not one of a lawyer's primary functions to be able to defend his stance? If I was a client of yours, I'd be more than a little concerned with your lawyering skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 See the things is, here at CDC, we aren't exactly strangers to members who are lawyers or who practice other legal professions. Indeed, the most prolific poster that this board has ever seen just happens to be lawyer. And while Wetcoaster may have come across as an emotionless, wine loving, classy restaurant patron to some; there was never any doubt about the validity of his claimed profession. The man was a walking Black's Law Dictionary who never passed up an opportunity to educate anyone who got into a legal argument with him. Infamous as he was for burying opponents with walls of statute provisions and settled jurisprudence, at the end of the day, no one questioned the fact that he was indeed a lawyer. True, he may have had biases and prejudices regarding certain topics, but he rarely, if ever, allowed his personal beliefs to trump his knowledge of the law. And he certainly never made arguments based on illogical, irrational, or emotional grounds. Taking into account the way you present yourself and your arguments, ( equating humans to dogs, and arguing from an emotional rather than a logical standpoint) it is rather hard for us to take your claim of being a lawyer as anything more than spurious. Perhaps Wetcoaster spoiled us, perhaps you really are someone who did well enough in University, scored high enough on the LSAT to be admitted into law school, was able to persevere through the rigours and demanding nature of said law school, and then successfully pass the bar exam of whatever province or state you may belong to. Maybe those are the facts in the case at bar. As it stands though, you've given very little evidence to support your claim, in fact, anytime that someone challenges said claim, you are not able to defend your position with any factual basis. Now I could be wrong, but is it not one of a lawyer's primary functions to be able to defend his stance? If I was a client of yours, I'd be more than a little concerned with your lawyering skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Well said. And I completely agree. I have not presented myself here in that manner at all nor do I care to. I'm glad wet coaster took the effort to make such a distinguishable mark upon this board. However I don't intend to. And I have nothing to prove as I said its merely a form of entertainment. Cheers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
higgyfan Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I remember when I was visiting Texas about 6 years ago they executed a mentally challenged man. Apparently he had the mental capacity of an eight year old. I though it was extreme then and I still do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckerbird Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Well said. - The Pope. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Just drop the charade and admit that you're not a lawyer. It's quite obvious that you couldn't lawyer your way out of a parking ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Canuckerbird Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 The risk of executing an innocent person, minimal though it may be, should be enough to dissuade any modern society from enforcing capital punishment. How does any government justify itself after executing/murdering an innocent person? What kind of apology can it offer to the family of the wrongfully executed? No amount of monetary restitution can make up for the loss of a loved one. Even in cases where the executed truly was guilty, would his death bring back the life of whoever he killed? In the end, capital punishment doesn't correct any injustice, it serves only to satisfy the emotional need for revenge. That hole in one's being that resulted from the death of a loved one, it can never be filled with successful retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovech Trick Posted August 9, 2012 Author Share Posted August 9, 2012 srsly guys... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slaytanic Wehrmacht Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 The risk of executing an innocent person, minimal though it may be, should be enough to dissuade any modern society from enforcing capital punishment. How does any government justify itself after executing/murdering an innocent person? What kind of apology can it offer to the family of the wrongfully executed? No amount of monetary restitution can make up for the loss of a loved one. Even in cases where the executed truly was guilty, would his death bring back the life of whoever he killed? In the end, capital punishment doesn't correct any injustice, it serves only to satisfy the emotional need for revenge. That hole in one's being that resulted from the death of a loved one, it can never be filled with successful retribution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'm not much for the death penalty because even one mistaken execution means the government (ie people) have committed murder (you gonna execute the populace or government in return?) but I'm also not going to weep for or try to defend people convicted of murder either. Their mental capacity to me has no logical bearing in the equation as even animals that are a threat in kind to a populace are put down because of that threat due to their actions. Likewise, the most obvious (as in the murder(s) is/are seen on video) and heinous murders don't deserve the waste of taxpayer funds for pointless bureaucracy and the killer(s) if the death penalty is going to be there must be put down with the most expediency following conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 I'm not much for the death penalty because even one mistaken execution means the government (ie people) have committed murder (you gonna execute the populace or government in return?) but I'm also not going to weep for or try to defend people convicted of murder either. Their mental capacity to me has no logical bearing in the equation as even animals that are a threat in kind to a populace are put down because of that threat due to their actions. Likewise, the most obvious (as in the murder(s) is/are seen on video) and heinous murders don't deserve the waste of taxpayer funds for pointless bureaucracy and the killer(s) if the death penalty is going to be there must be put down with the most expediency following conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jester13 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Lol parking tickets? On my second phone call I was asked to rip the ticket up. Had one on broadway a little while ago. Thanks for bringing that up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Special Ed Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Everyone be nice to Ed, he's special Now Ed, be a nice boy and tell these men the truth... BEFORE WE EXECUTE YOU! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. Ambien Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Those two statements are in conflict with one another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sharpshooter Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 They're only in conflict because you wish to twist them that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 See the things is, here at CDC, we aren't exactly strangers to members who are lawyers or who practice other legal professions. Indeed, the most prolific poster that this board has ever seen just happens to be lawyer. And while Wetcoaster may have come across as an emotionless, wine loving, classy restaurant patron to some; there was never any doubt about the validity of his claimed profession. The man was a walking Black's Law Dictionary who never passed up an opportunity to educate anyone who got into a legal argument with him. Infamous as he was for burying opponents with walls of statute provisions and settled jurisprudence, at the end of the day, no one questioned the fact that he was indeed a lawyer. True, he may have had biases and prejudices regarding certain topics, but he rarely, if ever, allowed his personal beliefs to trump his knowledge of the law. And he certainly never made arguments based on illogical, irrational, or emotional grounds. Taking into account the way you present yourself and your arguments, ( equating humans to dogs, and arguing from an emotional rather than a logical standpoint) it is rather hard for us to take your claim of being a lawyer as anything more than spurious. Perhaps Wetcoaster spoiled us, perhaps you really are someone who did well enough in University, scored high enough on the LSAT to be admitted into law school, was able to persevere through the rigours and demanding nature of said law school, and then successfully pass the bar exam of whatever province or state you may belong to. Maybe those are the facts in the case at bar. As it stands though, you've given very little evidence to support your claim, in fact, anytime that someone challenges said claim, you are not able to defend your position with any factual basis. Now I could be wrong, but is it not one of a lawyer's primary functions to be able to defend his stance? If I was a client of yours, I'd be more than a little concerned with your lawyering skills. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Buddhas Hand Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Well said. And I completely agree. I have not presented myself here in that manner at all nor do I care to. I'm glad wet coaster took the effort to make such a distinguishable mark upon this board. However I don't intend to. And I have nothing to prove as I said its merely a form of entertainment. Cheers. Luckily my clients aren't surfing CDC on a regular basis. And if they were it wouldn't matter anyway. It's the Internet and usually I spend about 1 minute per post. At the end of the day this means 0. Whats important is when I close this web page and get a contract signed. Then enjoy my day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jai604 Posted August 9, 2012 Share Posted August 9, 2012 Those of you condoning capital punishment, do you not realize the irony? So, in order to punish a murderer, you commit murder? Are we still in the dark ages? The chance, however slight, that you may wrongfully execute an innocent person should be enough to dissuade anyone from thinking that the death penalty is a valid form of punishment. As others have noted in this thread already, just over 10% of people executed were later found to be innocent. 10%. That is a huge number. I don't see how anyone could condone capital punishment with those kinds of numbers. Let's be honest with ourselves: killing someone because they've committed murder isn't justice, it's vengeance. It's not for the protection of society, for preventing further crimes. Don't lie to yourselves for a second and think that this eye-for-an-eye mentality is little more than filling an emotional need. Executing someone does not bring back the person who was murdered. So what exactly is the point? It's already been shown that executing someone costs more than keeping someone in jail. There's no financial benefit, and there is no social benefit. What then? All we're left with, as others have noted, and I will re-iterate, is emotional validation. It's nothing more than revenge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.