Hate Crime Bill Set to Pass?

[Nik]

and you are a lawyer?

a piece of advice, do not assume anything about anyone...it will more often than not come back to haunt you. i still tell myself that almost everyday, assuming things, especially in law, is not smart and usually causes you to overlook key facts or issues.

I'm not assuming your not a lawyer. I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise. Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.

That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.

I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking. One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do. That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here. People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.

 

[catzmeow]

hmmm...I wonder if that is true in all states.

It kind of makes acts of terrorism on a grand scale smaller if you can convict someone of terrorism for burning a cross on someone's lawn.

It isn't a conviction for terrorism, it is a conviction for a THREAT of terror. Terroristic threat are actions taken to create fear and mayhem. So, terorism, only on a much smaller scale. In essence, a hate crime.

I think most states prosecute terroristic threats. The charge dates back to the civil rights era, if not before. WAYYY before hate crimes legislation became "necessary."

 

[catzmeow]

Umm, what? Its a word. It means nothing until we attach value to it. Symbolic value, in fact. Because it is, by itself, worth nothing.

YOu stated that obscenity causes no harm. Please prove this claim.

Oy. There is nothing implicitly threatening about burning something. Its what you burn that makes it threatening or not. I.e. the symbol of a burning cross.

Man, you are really trying to dodge this.

Actually, there IS something implicitly threatening about burning something. That's why it would be charged as a terroristic threat. It is not a SYMBOL, at all, it is an implied threat of physical harm. Imminent harm, in fact.

I'm guessing you haven't covered this in class yet.

 

[catzmeow]

Moron. Try re-reading the thread to figure out what we are talking about here.

Sadly, I have a far better idea of what we are discussing here than you have at any point in this thread, Mr. Future Lawyer.

 

[Nik]

Umm, what? Its a word. It means nothing until we attach value to it. Symbolic value, in fact. Because it is, by itself, worth nothing.

YOu stated that obscenity causes no harm. Please prove this claim.

No, I said tangible harm. I already explained it.

Oy. There is nothing implicitly threatening about burning something. Its what you burn that makes it threatening or not. I.e. the symbol of a burning cross.

Man, you are really trying to dodge this.

Actually, there IS something implicitly threatening about burning something. That's why it would be charged as a terroristic threat. It is not a SYMBOL, at all, it is an implied threat of physical harm. Imminent harm, in fact.

I'm guessing you haven't covered this in class yet.

No, actually theres not. Theres nothing threatening about burning a piece of paper.

 

[Nik]

Moron. Try re-reading the thread to figure out what we are talking about here.

Sadly, I have a far better idea of what we are discussing here than you have at any point in this thread, Mr. Future Lawyer.

Of course you do, in your own mind. Unfortunately what you think is significantly different from reality.

See, this conduct is already illegal, without hate crimes legislation.

Nobody was claiming that hate crime legislation would somehow make terroristic threats illegal. Not sure where you pulled that one from.

 

[Yurt]

I'm not assuming your not a lawyer. I'm acting as if you aren't, until I have some evidence otherwise. Acting as if you were, especially here, would lead to you being more confused than you already seem to be.

That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.

I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking. One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do. That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here. People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.

you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of. you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic. you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it. your arrogance is going to get the best of you. just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer. it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.

 

[Nik]

That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.

I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking. One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do. That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here. People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.

you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of. you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic.

Umm, no, I make logical mistakes as well. But yes, there is only one true logic. I also don't make that many of them.

you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it.

I wasn't talking about the law, I was talking about logic.

your arrogance is going to get the best of you. just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer.

See what you meant to say is that just because someone isn't a lawyer doesn't mean they can't think like me. Instead you incorrectly reversed the sufficient and the necessary conditions here.

it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.

When did I claim anyone was a lousy lawyer? And I claimed someone went to a fucked up law school in the context of...wait for it...him explaining how his law school was fucked up. Yes, truly the height of arrogance.

Is it perhaps as arrogant as doubting whether someone on the internet, whom you've never met, etc, etc, has ever been to law school, as you and Catz did?

Or perhapsas arrogant presuming to give advice to someone on the internet as you've been attempting to do?

Or perhaps as arrogant as attempting to describe my entire psyche as Tech attempted to do?

Yeah. But I'm the arrogant one here

 

[Nik]

That is the arrogance that generally gets attorneys in trouble. They presume, that because the person they are dealing with isn't, they know more about a specific law. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Many an attorney has been "hog tied", so to speak, for such a presumption in our agency.

I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking. One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do. That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here. People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.

you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of. you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic. you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it. your arrogance is going to get the best of you. just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer. it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.

By the way. Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant. I get paid to be good at logic, and I am. If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it. Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.

 

[Yurt]

I wasn't talking about a specific law, I was talking about a certain type of talking, and thinking. One that if you aren't trained in it, its very hard to do. That and theres no point in speaking purely logically here. People won't get it, and besides that its not effective unless you start from the ground up.

you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of. you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic. you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it. your arrogance is going to get the best of you. just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer. it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.

By the way. Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant. I get paid to be good at logic, and I am. If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it. Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.

if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer. a good lawyer is confident that he is right, but he does not dismiss outright his opponent's argument, in fact he or she explores it, knows it and can predict it. your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.

and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...

 

[Nik]

you see, there is the arrogance i spoke of. you think you are so fucking smart and that your logic is the only true logic. you think that (overall) only those trained in the law can understand the nuances of the law and converse about it. your arrogance is going to get the best of you. just because someone doesn't think like you, does not mean they are not a lawyer. it is the height of stupidity and arrogance to claim someone on the internet, whom you've never met, never seen practice law, is either a lousy lawyer, or went to a fucked up lawschool....you obviously have a god complex and if you don't change it, you won't go far.

By the way. Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant. I get paid to be good at logic, and I am. If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it. Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.

if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer.

Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic. Yet another logical fail from you. You are pretty bad at this. That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.

a good lawyer is confident that he is right, but he does not dismiss outright his opponent's argument, in fact he or she explores it, knows it and can predict it.

Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues. And thats only when facing a good lawyer. When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict. Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?

As for exploring your arguments, I have. And I've shown why they are asinine. And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.

your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.

and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...

Right. Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?

 

[Yurt]

By the way. Me thinking I'm good at logic isn't me being arrogant. I get paid to be good at logic, and I am. If you think being aware of ones own strengths is arrogant, then go for it. Your views have little to no credibility in my eyes, as you've really shown a great deal of ignorance and pettiness.

if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer.

Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic. Yet another logical fail from you. You are pretty bad at this. That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.

a good lawyer is confident that he is right, but he does not dismiss outright his opponent's argument, in fact he or she explores it, knows it and can predict it.

Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues. And thats only when facing a good lawyer. When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict. Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?

As for exploring your arguments, I have. And I've shown why they are asinine. And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.

your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.

and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...

Right. Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?

do you even realize that your "arguments" are virtually nothing but telling others they "fail" and their logic sucks. in almost every instance you do not explain how, you merely conclude....

btw, do you realize that you called me a good lawyer? how that meshes with me having "pretty bad" logic is well.................a logic FAIL

 

[del]

Nobody thinks that hate crime laws are going to make the protected class 100% safe.



There are plenty of laws making things illegal because of the symbolism inherent in them.

name one.

Flipping off a cop. Burning crosses on someones lawn.

last i checked flipping off a cop isn't against the law.
i don't think vandalism laws are intended to be symbolic, either.
wanna give it another shot?

 

[submarinepainter]

Way to avoid answering the question. There isn't a glut of attorneys from top law schools in this field. If you had ever done any public service work, you'd know that.

Wow, you're an inspiration to us all. Thank heavens for selfless public servants like you. From the top law schools, of course.

He should volunteer for lawyers without borders ! I think they need top notch lawyers.

Lawyers Without Borders - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Nik]

if you can't consider any other logic than your own and you dismiss all other logic, you will fail at a being a lawyer.

Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic. Yet another logical fail from you. You are pretty bad at this. That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.



Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues. And thats only when facing a good lawyer. When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict. Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?

As for exploring your arguments, I have. And I've shown why they are asinine. And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.

your attitude is one that dismisses outright, and for that you will miss vital issues and harm your cases and your clients.

and yes, i am the pot calling the kettle, i try and learn more each day and continue striving to better myself...

Right. Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?

do you even realize that your "arguments" are virtually nothing but telling others they "fail" and their logic sucks. in almost every instance you do not explain how, you merely conclude....

btw, do you realize that you called me a good lawyer? how that meshes with me having "pretty bad" logic is well.................a logic FAIL

No...I didn't.

If good lawyer then predictable logic is what I said. This is not the same as saying if predictable logic then good lawyer. If you were a good lawyer, then you would have predictable logic. However, you merely have predictable logic which doesn't necessarily mean anything else.

Gee...but so sorry I don't have respect for your logic skills. Sorry that I'm arrogant when I have to deal with this like this.

 

[Nik]

name one.

Flipping off a cop. Burning crosses on someones lawn.

last i checked flipping off a cop isn't against the law.
i don't think vandalism laws are intended to be symbolic, either.
wanna give it another shot?

Try reading the rest of the thread, genius. Oh, and good job at infringing on the ToS there.

You are quite the fuck up it seems.

 

[del]

Flipping off a cop. Burning crosses on someones lawn.

last i checked flipping off a cop isn't against the law.
i don't think vandalism laws are intended to be symbolic, either.
wanna give it another shot?

Try reading the rest of the thread, genius. Oh, and good job at infringing on the ToS there.

You are quite the fuck up it seems.

i did. you're still failing.

genius.

 

[Yurt]

Merely because you are wrong, or your logic is bad doesn't mean I dismiss all logic. Yet another logical fail from you. You are pretty bad at this. That I dismiss YOUR logic does not mean I dismiss ALL logic.



Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues. And thats only when facing a good lawyer. When facing a bad lawyer, they are impossible to predict. Because who knows what type of erratic bullshit they might come up with?

As for exploring your arguments, I have. And I've shown why they are asinine. And instead of addressing that, you merely keep making up flaws about me.



Right. Which is why you go around the board making the same specious arguments over and over again, eh?

do you even realize that your "arguments" are virtually nothing but telling others they "fail" and their logic sucks. in almost every instance you do not explain how, you merely conclude....

btw, do you realize that you called me a good lawyer? how that meshes with me having "pretty bad" logic is well.................a logic FAIL

No...I didn't.

If good lawyer then predictable logic is what I said. This is not the same as saying if predictable logic then good lawyer. If you were a good lawyer, then you would have predictable logic. However, you merely have predictable logic which doesn't necessarily mean anything else.

Gee...but so sorry I don't have respect for your logic skills. Sorry that I'm arrogant when I have to deal with this like this.

lsat games...let me show you what you said and show you the error of your logic:

Your arguments are quite predictable, at least when it comes to issues. And thats only when facing a good lawyer

so, you said predictable arguments are only when facing a good lawyer...then you said

if i was a good lawyer, i would have predictable logic

but i only have predictable logic

given the above, i must be a lawyer since that ONLY when facing a good lawyer

since i am in fact a lawyer, you did in fact call me good

 

[DamnYankee]

[quote: Nik]Umm, no, I make logical mistakes as well. But yes, there is only one true logic. I also don't make that many of them.[/quote]

I rest my case.

 

[Gunny]

Then don't. You clearly don't even have the capacity to do so, so the fact that you won't try to do so is not troubling to me.

And you wonder why people think you're an arrogant, wet-behind-the ears, know-nothing.

No, I don't wonder about it. When I show people are wrong, and I do it harshly, they generally think I am arrogant. Sorry that I have so little patience for your stupidity. If you want someone to coddle you, find someone else.

When have you ever shown anyone to be wrong? All I've ever seen from you is spewing leftwingnut rhetoric as if it was fact. Your harshness that you appear to be so proud of is nothing more than a lack of manners.

You aren't even original. The leftwignnut, hate-filled, blind and stupid parrot quota was filled long before you, as it will be when you're long gone.