Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
I was responding your very broad generality that "Most jokes are based on truth." I gave you categories jokes that are not based on truth. A very logical response to your very general statement.



I don't. I've lived in areas with a lot of different races and cultures for many years and as a result I've learned race doesn't determine a person's characteristics. I've met smart and stupid people of every race. I've met hard workers and lazy people of every race. I've met warm and welcoming people as well as jerks of every race. So now I make no assumptions about a person I've just met based on his or her race. That was a lesson that took me some time to learn, but once learned it has served me well.



Surely you know that given a certain set of facts the proper application of logic will indeed lead you to a particular outcome or conclusion, right? That is, after all, the value of it.



But you aren't demonstrating that logic here. You hatred of lawyers is not coming from logic, it is coming from emotion because of how you fared in just one case going up against one particular lawyer. I've given you the logical argument that shows why basing your views off just that very limited data set is not logical and you've not really rebutted that.

Look, I understand that you are upset after losing your case. You thought it was a good case. That's why you pursued it. And it's very disappointing to lose your case. But understand that even with a great case it is still possible to lose. Juries are notoriously unpredictable. And also understand this: in every case that goes to trial there is a winner and a loser. The losers are of course not going to be happy. And it is not uncommon for them to lash out at lawyers afterwards, just as you have done here. That happens even when all the lawyers involved were outstanding lawyers. That emotional response is about having lost more than anything else. It's understandable. It's a very human reaction. But the views those losing parties have about lawyers after are not based on logic. They are based on emotion. And I see that here with you, too. It's an emotional response, much as you wish to frame it as a logical one. Nothing wrong with that. Emotion is part of being human.




Again, more generalities by you. I've known a lot of engineers and architects; have several in my circle of family and friends. And I can tell you that some of them are in fact full of ego and pride, contrary to your assertions. Any attempt to make such sweeping generalizations about any large group of people is going to fail because each person is different and doesn't fit into some neat pre-determined set of characteristics based on their race or their occupation.



Not a strange reason at all. And it has nothing to do with setting myself apart. I happen to like the font that I use and got in the habit of using it for much of my work because studies show that, in general, for reading larger chunks of text a serif font like the Georgia font I use is often easier to read than sans-serif fonts like the default font used by this site. It's more complicated than that, of course, since some serif fonts are horribly difficult to read. There is also debate over whether sans serif fonts are actually better to use for reading on a computer screen even though the serif fonts are easier to read on printed page. So I chose it because (1) I like the font and (2) in general it may be an easier font to read for longer replies (though acknowledging the differing views about font use for reading on computer). But it has nothing to do with wanting to set myself apart and certainly not to manipulate people. This site offers various font and other options. That most people choose not to use them and just go with the default is their own choice. But I don't feel compelled to base my choices just off what everyone else does. I mean, if everyone was running off a cliff, I wouldn't feel compelled to join in just because every one else is doing it.
I am going to make another overgeneralized statement about a person I never met....you! Though you could be any kind of person, I feel you are a very smart, patient, humble man with quite thick skin. Is it ok to make those kind of generalizations when I only have your posts to base it on?

Gotta go now but will respond later. Cheers!

Quote Quoting Taxing Matters
View Post
I was responding your very broad generality that "Most jokes are based on truth." I gave you categories jokes that are not based on truth. A very logical response to your very general statement.
If I said Blacks are better at basketball and Whites are better at golf, just because you show me Larry Bird and Tiger Woods does not mean that general statement is untrue.

I don't. I've lived in areas with a lot of different races and cultures for many years and as a result I've learned race doesn't determine a person's characteristics. I've met smart and stupid people of every race. I've met hard workers and lazy people of every race. I've met warm and welcoming people as well as jerks of every race. So now I make no assumptions about a person I've just met based on his or her race. That was a lesson that took me some time to learn, but once learned it has served me well.
You are mixing the general statement with the statement being applied to specific people. Of course a statement like "Blacks are [intellectually] inferior" cannot, and should not, be applied to every individual Black person. But don't Asians factually and statistically score higher on tests across the nation? It sounds racist and politicly incorrect to say but it is based on a fact...and should never be assumed of an individual Black person. Hence a joke might spur from that statistical fact.

Surely you know that given a certain set of facts the proper application of logic will indeed lead you to a particular outcome or conclusion, right? That is, after all, the value of it.
I still think logic is a misused word. It depends on what facts one uses to arrive at a conclusion. Differing life experiences brings in different facts to consider...which all lead to logical and differing conclusions.

But you aren't demonstrating that logic here. You hatred of lawyers is not coming from logic, it is coming from emotion because of how you fared in just one case going up against one particular lawyer. I've given you the logical argument that shows why basing your views off just that very limited data set is not logical and you've not really rebutted that.


I do not need just my case to know that lawyers are trained in law, courtroom procedure and are extensively trained in discredited people. Those are bold facts. For that reason they should be feared and avoided just like avoiding getting into a verbal conflict with a UFC fighter.

We live our lives on playing odds while we try to pick the right business partners, pick the right jobs and clients, pick the right stocks, etc. We justly stereotype and generalize people way more than you are coming across.

Look, I understand that you are upset after losing your case. You thought it was a good case. That's why you pursued it. And it's very disappointing to lose your case. But understand that even with a great case it is still possible to lose. Juries are notoriously unpredictable. And also understand this: in every case that goes to trial there is a winner and a loser. The losers are of course not going to be happy. And it is not uncommon for them to lash out at lawyers afterwards, just as you have done here. That happens even when all the lawyers involved were outstanding lawyers. That emotional response is about having lost more than anything else. It's understandable. It's a very human reaction. But the views those losing parties have about lawyers after are not based on logic. They are based on emotion. And I see that here with you, too. It's an emotional response, much as you wish to frame it as a logical one. Nothing wrong with that. Emotion is part of being human.
I do not agree. An emotional response got me to analyze the actions of both attorney. But the lying witnesses is a fact. The baseless discrediting of me is a fact. My lawyer's inability or unwillingness to properly defense those lies is a fact. So my reluctance to ever hire one to go against another attorney is based on fact, not emotion. This also extends to ever doing a business deal with one either because the risks are too high. They are very dangerous people.

Lawyers have a refined ability to unjustly discredit someone on the spot and that ability extends into the courtroom. A UFC fighter deals in realtime. If you ever got knocked out on the street by one of those folks wouldn't you take heed, or prejudge them, the next time you had a minor conflict with one? Of course you would even though they are not all that way.

Again, more generalities by you. I've known a lot of engineers and architects; have several in my circle of family and friends. And I can tell you that some of them are in fact full of ego and pride, contrary to your assertions. Any attempt to make such sweeping generalizations about any large group of people is going to fail because each person is different and doesn't fit into some neat pre-determined set of characteristics based on their race or their occupation.
Just because you may know a drug cartel member who is a good person/father doesn't mean the overgeneralization of them being bad people untrue.