So 
, you went to law school. Congrats. Nothing wrong with that. But your "I'm a lawyer" ego goes beyond this thread and the topic of jurisprudence. You want to tout your JD as reasoning that you know your stuff concerning topics in this thread. Fine. That's great, you probably know the law to the letter.
Here's the deal:
This is the
only time at which I have ever stated that I know something because I'm a lawyer. And the reason I stated it was because you made a wisecrack about using Wikipedia.
The topic at hand is jury selection. More specifically, it's about the manner in which juries are selected and what they mean by "peer."
This is basic shit that is covered during your first year of law school and utilized over and over in subsequent courses the following two years. I'm not claiming to know everything about the law, nor am I stating that my knowledge from law school covers everything conceivable within the legal field, but something this basic?
It's rather insulting to have someone think that an attorney, of all people, would have to result to scouring the internet to answer a simple legal question like that. You might as well accuse Saniflush of Googling "How to load a gun" and then bitch at him when he reminds you that he was in the military.
But apparently it's also given you enough narcissism to be the foremost expert on every other topic as well. Including topics some of us MIGHT be a little more knowledgable about than you. I have an MBA, I own a business....but I don't throw it out there every time an economics/small business topic comes up. I'm willing to listen and change my stances and perspective as I learn new things. I've certainly stood corrected before against the face of common sense. You learn from real world experience. Not a book, not a college, not a certificate saying you know a lot about something. Those are tools.
I think what GarMan and Kaos try to inflect here is THE real world common sense knowledge that you can ONLY get from having "been there, done that" or owning a business, etc. I don't 100% agree with either of them on all topics. But that really isn't a reason to flex your own perceived superiority in intelligence because you "went to law school". Pride can be your enemy. Try having a perspective on things, that doesn't originate from a legal book point of view. Not everything is black and white. Not everything is finite. Maybe in your world, at your profession it is. But outside of the legal world and mathemetics, things just aren't. There is nothing wrong with using common sense or saying "hey, thats a good point. I didn't really think about it that way" instead of saying "I'm right, you're wrong. I'm a lawyer, but thanks for playing". That's just how you come across to people.
First, never have I said that I'm an attorney, and therefore must be right on every topic. Sorry, but I have a legal education, so when a basic legal question is posed, I don't need the internet to inform me.
Second, the majority of debates that I have on this forum are political, moral, or philosophical in nature. There is no "right or wrong" that education
or experience is going to validate for those debates. I'll defend my opinion until I'm blue in the face, and I'll even tell people that their reasoning they used to reach their conclusion is wrong
if I can show it's wrong. But if someone can show me something legitimate, I'll consider their point. But if your mere response is, "Blah blah blah, I've had more experience with X than you, go fuck yourself," then I'm not going to accept your word for it when I've found something that tells me otherwise.
Example: The LED fiasco. I get the shit end of the stick because I point out the fact that these new LEDs don't contain anything different than current LEDs, and there was nothing put forth to refute that. Meanwhile, GarMan claims that he owned LED backlit laptops
before they were produced, and nobody bats a fucking eye. I guess he also used his experience to develop the flux capacitor and buy laptops from the future.
Third, I'm not having debates with myself on here. You and others are just as adamantly trying to prove your own points, or otherwise disprove mine. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, so don't try to single me out as some sort of narcissistic argumentative nutbag when you and others are just as actively participating and advocating your stance as correct. You guys give me shit as if I follow you, GarMan, and others around on the board just trying to argue with them when, in reality, this is not the case.
Remember the thread regarding repealing the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy? I posted my general thoughts on the topic without replying to anyone in particular, and who responds telling me I'm wrong? GarMan. And his
opinion on this social topic conflicted with every single military member of this board who posted in the same thread, yet you think that
I should be reminded that experience can give people knowledge?
So no, it's not just me running around trying to tell everyone they're wrong; many of you are acting in no differently of a manner than I am, yet you have this skewed perception that
I'm always telling
you that you're wrong.
Let me ask you this. Have you ever SERVED on a jury? Have you experienced BEING a juror? Just curious.
No, I haven't, but let me ask you this: How does serving on a jury give you any knowledge as to what the definition of "peer" is when they say that you will be judged by a jury of your peers?
In case you haven't been reading the posts, that's what the whole discussion was about.
127 Replies
16666 Views