LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Current time: 11-17-2017, 10:34 AM
User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
Author: Juan Galt
Last Post: Juan Galt
Replies: 228
Views: 21089

Post Reply 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 4 Votes - 3 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
06-03-2017, 07:48 AM (This post was last modified: 06-12-2017 07:04 AM by Juan Galt.)
Post: #1
LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
TRADITIONAL LOGIC REASONING vs LEGAL LOGIC REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE

Yes, there is a difference and it is significant – almost like different languages. This post will give me a place to refer those who ask questions or make statements that erroneously use logical reasoning and try to shoehorn it into a legal issue. It should prevent repetitive posts and unnecessary keyboarding. If you have questions on this topic, it's likely the answer will be in this wall of text. Consider it a “technical manual” like an owner's manual – it's not moral or ethical – it's just facts. It is NOT an endorsement of any political philosophy or legal procedure. Philosophy is not applicable to legal reasoning.

“Ever since Justice Holmes asserted that “[t]he life of the law has not been logic: it has been experience,” lawyers and judges in the United States have minimized the importance of formal logic for understanding law and legal reasoning”. Douglas Lind

“Logic should not be regarded as a model of, but as a tool in legal reasoning. Logical methods can only model a small part of legal reasoning since most forms of reasoning in law are NONDEDUCTIVE.” Harry Prakken (emphasis added)

Legal reasoning differs from the sort of reasoning employed by individuals in their everyday lives or in an academic debate as described by Prakken. One relies upon deductive reasoning the other not so much. Legal reasoning frequently uses arguments that individuals do not employ, or that individuals employ in different ways. Precedent is a good example of this. In individual logical reasoning we do not normally regard the fact that we decided one way in the past as raising some presumption that we should decide the same way in the future. Tradition is another type that differs from logical reasoning. Legal “logic” reasoning, then, gives a weight to what has been decided in the past that is usually absent from logical reasoning. The syllogism used in logical reasoning is not well suited to legal reasoning. Syllogism is “a form of reasoning in which a conclusion is drawn (whether validly or not) from two given or assumed propositions (premises), each of which shares a term with the conclusion, and shares a common or middle term not present in the conclusion”. Legal reasoning is more like a jigsaw puzzle, all the pieces must fit to create the “big picture” using facts, evidence and legal authority. This is evident in the five types of legal arguments: Text, intent, precedent, tradition and policy and NONE of them use logical reasoning to reach a conclusion. All legal reasoning follows one path. No legal argument can be accepted or rejected without all the following pieces:
1) Issue – What specifically is being debated?
2) Rule – What legal Rule governs this issue?
The law is based on existing Rules. Even when a decision is based upon what is “fair” (which isn’t that often), it’s because there’s a Rule that says that the decision of this type of issue will be based on fairness. And, there are so many Rules that no one can know them all. So, an argument has no weight unless it says exactly which Rule is being relied upon.
3) Facts – What are the facts relevant to this Rule?
For the purpose of legal analysis, we look for “material” facts. These are the facts that fit the elements of the Rule.
4) Analysis – Apply the Rule to the facts.
At this stage, we see if our material facts fit the law.
5) Conclusion – Having applied the Rule to the facts, what’s the outcome?
When all “pieces” of the Rule are met, it can be concluded that the Rule applies to our argument. Thus the “big picture”.

Without a dissertation, there is a nutshell representation of the “legal logic" used in pursuing a legal argument or conclusion. As you can readily see, some of what is allowed in a legal argument would be considered by Marc and forum members as a logical fallacy. Referring to a statute, in a legal argument for example, is valid – not a circular argument or an argumentum ad baculum fallacy. Reference to how the many other Courts have ruled is valid - not an argumentum ad populum fallacy. Reference to what has been traditionally held is valid not a fallacy of argumentum ad antiquitatem nor is citing a legal authority an argumentum ad verecundiam. While arguing a case it is possible that an inept attorney may make arguments containing some logical fallacies, but they are not objected to on those grounds. Probative value, relevance, weight and other aspects of the Rules of Evidence are as used as objections – not logical fallacies or claims of a double standard or unfairness.

As I said before, it's like these two forms of reasoning are different languages, someone schooled in one form struggles to understand the other.

Now here is the “legal” fallacy that applies to the “Marcratic method” -
Complex Question: This fallacy occurs when the question itself is phrased in such a way as to presuppose the truth of a conclusion buried in that question. Also know as a veiled remark, an insinuation or inference.

Other “legal” fallacies Marc uses -
Argument from Ignorance: An argument is fallacious when it maintains that a proposition is true because it has not been proved false or false because it has not been proved true.
Argument by Repetition: is the fallacy that something becomes true if it is repeated often enough.
Attack Against the Person: This fallacy occurs when the thrust of an argument is directed, not at a conclusion, but at the person who asserts or defends it. This is sometimes referred to as an ad hominem argument.
Appeal to Emotion: This fallacy occurs when expressive language designed to excite an emotion like outrage or pity is used in place of logical argumentation. Marc promotes hatred for people he's never met, such as all the men and women who work in govt. or those who accept it.
Irrelevant Conclusion: This fallacy occurs when the premises “miss the point” and fail to substantiate the conclusion, instead supporting some other, perhaps unstated, conclusion. This occurs when the methods of legal reasoning are not used.

I think the "average" reader will be amazed at the responses to this post. Can anyone believe the level of animus expressed over a method of reasoning (thinking)? Could anyone explain how people can be so animated and angry over a thinking process? It's strange to say the least. I think I read somewhere in an old thread that this forum "exists in an alternative universe". I didn't know what it meant at the time - now I do.

Stay tuned for more threads from JG.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 08:08 AM
Post: #2
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
This is supposedly a TRUE news story. I have my doubts, but you decide....
Quote: A lawyer in Charlotte, NC purchased a box of very rare and expensive cigars, then insured them against fire among other things. Within a month, having smoked his entire stockpile of these great cigars and without yet having made even his first premium payment on the policy, the lawyer filed a claim with the insurance company.
In his claim, the lawyer stated the cigars were lost "in a series of small fires." The insurance company refused to pay, citing the obvious reason: that the man had consumed the cigars in the normal fashion. The lawyer sued....and won! In delivering the ruling the judge agreed with the insurance company that the claim was frivolous. The judge stated nevertheless, that the lawyer held a policy from the company in which it had warranted that the cigars were insurable and also guaranteed that it would insure them against fire, without defining what is considered to be "unacceptable fire," and was obligated to pay the claim. Rather than endure lengthy and costly appeal process, the insurance company accepted the ruling and paid $15,000.00 to the lawyer for his loss of the rare cigars lost in the "fires."
But... After the lawyer cashed the check, the insurance company had him arrested on 24 counts of ARSON! With his own insurance claim and testimony from the previous case used against him, the lawyer was convicted of intentionally burning his insured property and was sentenced to 24 months in jail and a $24,000.00 fine.

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 08:38 AM
Post: #3
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 08:08 AM)Andy Wrote:  This is supposedly a TRUE news story. I have my doubts, but you decide....

Relevance to the subject matter? I don't see a connection.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 09:33 AM
Post: #4
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Prescedence being a double edged sword. If bad precedent is used to decide a case, it in turn creates another bad precedent.

Unchallenged, unconstitutional laws may continue to form tradition which may take hold further perverting the original intent.

Purveyor of the 60 MPH post.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 09:35 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 09:45 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #5
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
[Image: crossing.gif]1st as most importantly: kudos to Marc for his willingness to provide, including literally fund, (the likes of) Juan Galt a medium.

And to OP [Image: TrainWreck1.gif] points:

Wasn't it you that poked another about "like to hear yourself talk"?
(granted, as demonstratively a loyaLegal follower, you may have a problem only liking to hear yourself so long as you're quoting/regurgitating your Legaleaders Talk...?)
[Image: law-books.jpg?w=1400]
(talk about liking to hear One talk!?)
And how is the FATAL FLAW here not a bit of-- speaking of fallacy appeal potential value-- a strawman, Scarecrow (pronounced "FATAL" ScareGalt)?

Who here has posted that the two ARE one and the same?
(heck, in my reading, most have been addressing how obviously incompatible the two inherently are!?)

Notice how it's yourself, follower, that reruns the claim one can ONLY ARGUE LEGALLY when forced to be somewhere magical 'er "Legal"?
(more on this, fellow readers, momentarily)
Your Humpty Dumpty "who is to be master" Wall?
(tip, of course you have to "see" aka Believe In Humpty Dumpty aka The Name before you can "see" any Wall, aye? just believe and *poof* the individuals are gone and there's only "We The People" Ink! /snarcasm)

How is it not you that is aggressively seeking to force that as other's (including Marc's) premise/position?

"Bless your heart", can't you see how that's like those you're "following" like "an attack dog", under their usurped name "Court", Claim that if you're "here", you're "in" --like it or not, to BE the "Case"? That pattern of Claiming (for others)?
[there's even the magic of *poof* born "here" --vs- not aka ILLEGAL/ALIEN!? sidetrack: how's that work in the Kingdom of King Galt? of course, he'll have To Rule on that first...]

Rather, how has it not been a pretty persistent counter that ALL "LEGAL" IS is:
[Image: statism.jpg] = illogical (as involuntary aka logically inconsistent)
(so persistent, that even you yourself called it a "rerun"?)

Right out of the gate, like a "good follower", you appeal to yet another Foundingfather Godfather Legalista --"The Honorable Justice Holmes" (pop appeal of argument from authority fallacy is it?) as support of what i've seen no one here actually taking you to task about; why is that?

"Justice" Holmes? Why not "Grand Poobah Holmes" (aye Fred & Barney)?

What's next, appeal to The Honorable Godfather's opinion too?

Or just as arbitrarily, appeal to The Prophet's opinion?
(or to crazyincraycrayland's? j/k crazy)

(see "the mob" element yet, Juatson...? --Sherlock)

Did someone say "fallacies"?

APPEAL TO "AUTHORITY" much, Juan Gee?

i've in fact pointed out in other threads that this transition from valuing, thus reasoning from, logical consistency has been incrementally morphed, as usurped into instead valuing mere arbitrary Opinion (now labeled "Legal" --and even "Law") from the very "Founding", and using Enforcement based upon such, no?

You've skirted around and around (see the circular pattern?) having acknowledged the issue of it being present, pop(ular) cult(ure) = reality--that indeed, the "Majority Rule" [sic] in it's neo-present form Inforces that "LEGAL" is "LAW" is "THE RULE", but you've yet to acknowledge that all that is in reality is arbitrary mob rule.

Sure, it is what it is --and it's mob rule.
And fwiw, i, for 1, value it as wise to act accordingly too.
No matter who says otherwise, the fact is that is the reality. No?

Prove it's voluntary, and i'll happily, civilly, respectfully retract this?
(but see my siggie below -for starters- first?)

To point: arbitrary opinion of some arbitrary opinion about what CONstitutes said mob relabeled "Congress" as "We The People"s "Rules".

Why is it that you can't address that (instead)?
(apart from valuing logical consistency, what is there but arbitrary opinion?)

fwiw, if one wishes to ARGUE from mere Opinion, to get more opinion (and the barrel of the gun that goes with it regardless), sure, know thine enemy.

Your additional argument fallacy here being, you constantly post about THAT being the only practical i.e. nonFATAL way --having yet to offer, much less prove, that way IS the ONLY way, no?

You rerun showing that you are (thus far) incapable of seeing outside of your Box (Pandora's?) and down from your Wall (Humpty's?) in claiming the only reason Marc uses Motions is to make a "Legal Argument". No?
Added to that, you mouth off about him not proving it's the "Motion" itself that worked "Legally" --well, what if that's not the actual, practical reason for using such?

What if one uses Their Form instead to jar what's remaining of their conscience? (to appeal to that "still small voice" that knows it ultimately values logically consistent reasoning?)

As i've brought up before, and you've yet to address: camo.

Does the one wearing it do so because it makes them "terrain" IN REALITY? Makes them "forest" IN REALITY?
--Or--
Does one use camo (as among other options) when one is forced into "playing" The Hunting "Game" (hear "The Hunger Games")?¹

(not to even get into it's once again, blah blah yada yada aka "Legal Opinion" in a post rather than posting about your claims of being "out" of such; why is that? Is it that you just like to hear yourself talk Argue?)

*sigh*
--eye2i

_______________________________
1. while back on this one, how nigh sociopathic (or masochistic to delusional to manipulative to blind) to try to compare via analogy, the likes of games, and "playing", with what "The Legal System" believers do; anyone else seen the NFL indoctrinate, manipulate, coerce, baton, taze, choke hold, cage, and/or kill those not playing by The Rules? Bridge players? Chess players? please show us the "Contempt" rule, much less the "Capital Punishment" rule in genuine games played?

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 09:53 AM
Post: #6
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 09:35 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  1) "Justice" Holmes? Why not "Grand Poobah Holmes" (aye Fred & Barney)?

2) APPEAL TO "AUTHORITY" much, Juan Gee?


First a note to Mr Possum:
This post by ii22hair should explain why I decline to post a thread on self-sufficiency.


1) Lysander Spooner? Why not "Grand Poobah Spooner"? Or Stevens?

2) ALL THE TIME WHEN DISCUSSING OR ARGUING LEGAL MATTERS. That was the point of the wall of text above - you've obviously missed the point totally. You got lost in the translation/transition from "logic" to "legal"?? I understand some can't make the transition - saw many in law school.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 10:04 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 11:30 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #7
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 09:33 AM)Freerangecanuck Wrote:  Unchallenged, unconstitutional laws

Please, please, please, consider stop using the word law for such?!
(at the least, always qualify it via putting it in quotes e.g. "law"? identify it as what it is in reality: unconstitutional opinions!? constitutional opinion illopinions? haha)
[Image: beg-dog.jpg?id=10084758]
--MarcE'sattackdog2i [Image: puppy-kisses-smiley.gif?1292867658]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 10:12 AM
Post: #8
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 08:38 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  Relevance to the subject matter? I don't see a connection.

Isn't it a shame how 99% of the lawyers give the whole profession a bad name. Tounge

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 10:22 AM
Post: #9
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 10:12 AM)Andy Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 08:38 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  Relevance to the subject matter? I don't see a connection.

Isn't it a shame how 99% of the lawyers give the whole profession a bad name. Tounge

Not an argument - your opinion. But it does help the "numbers" on my thread, thanks.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:15 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 11:28 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #10
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 09:53 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  First a note to Mr Possum:
This post by ii22hair should explain why I decline to post a thread on self-sufficiency.

"That's one answer." [sic] Roll Eyes

Another one?
That's one excuse. ✔

Now what? /rhetorical

Juan can post and post and post about "Legal" opinion, as valuable in spite of what ever "ii22hair" means, but post a single thread on self-sufficiency? To Jail with that! Nothing but a bunch of attack dog swine follower unBelievers/infidels/savages here!!!

(not to mention, who used the term "self-sufficiency" in their requests of Juan? rather, haven't the requests been more along the lines of his touted purpose here as an evangelist this whole time, aka how to not have to be hara$$ed by/not $upport Legalistas aka "The Courts" ever? another example of the word artistry talent of King Juan?)

(06-03-2017 09:53 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 09:35 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  1) "Justice" Holmes? Why not "Grand Poobah Holmes" (aye Fred & Barney)?

2) APPEAL TO "AUTHORITY" much, Juan Gee?

1) Lysander Spooner? Why not "Grand Poobah Spooner"? Or Stevens?

wow.
You're not assisting me much with trying to take you as having reasoning skills worth valuing.
(fwiw, crucial to my leaning towards taking any of your strategies, Legal or otherwise, seriously)

Did you yourself not note that YOUR author(s) that you follow and serve as an attack dog for thus offered in support, aren't (any longer, if ever) bound by logically consistent reasoning?

And what evidence do you have in support of that i.e. arbitrary opinion over logical consistency, being Spooner and/or Marc's foundation? You know, to "Justify" your comparison?
(i2 asks of a guy doing his best to show his only interest is support of arbitrary opinion... ok, no, there's the other readers here, i2 ✓)

[by the way, as far as i'm concerned, call 'em what you like --just don't expect to not likely be called out to provide evidence in support; you know, like you've called us "followers" and "attack dogs", aye? how hypocritical/illogical would i be in having called those you follow "a mob" otherwise, aye?]

Comparing them is about like your trying to trick some into thinking of your "Court" as a mere game per having rules to "play" by, aye?

Quote:2) ALL THE TIME WHEN DISCUSSING OR ARGUING LEGAL MATTERS. That was the point of the wall of text above - you've obviously missed the point totally.

You've yet to establish that any here value such discussion solely, as isolated, no?
(and again, might i suggest you revisit "How Online Forum's Work 101"? i.e. you post as you wish, others post as they wish?)

Quote:You got lost in the translation/transition from "logic" to "legal"??

"That's one veiled statement." [sic]

(gosh, if only i had followers at my beckon call to at my Declaring such my Opinion aka illegal, have them club you over --as legal!?) Grinning Cop

But being nice & civil:
No.
(that's my answer, you just won't like it, right?)

i didn't get "lost" because it's of no value to me to "translate".
Any more than it is to have "The Koran" (you know, that "majority's Opinion of "The Rules" geographically applicable) translated.
Imagine that?!
i simply won't go "there" with you, as to try to get into your head as such. Any more than i would one Arguing here for "Justice" Mohammad.

And as i've said (and asked for) how many times now, you've yet to offer any practical, step by step reason why i should value it --over valuing logical consistency persistently?

Agree or disagree:
Apart from logical consistency, all that's left is arbitrary opinion.

Quote:I understand some can't make the transition - saw many in law school.

Are you sure it was law school and not seminary?
Most logical folks take science classes regarding genuine law study, aye?

♪ "What goes up, must come down... (spinning wheel, got ta go 'round)" ♬

Oh, no, Alice Galt, you've read it in a book somewhere, so wait, you meant "Legal" school! SillE me, bless my heart.

So you obviously patently meant seminary school, ☑ got it.
How's that other seminary book put it... "Those who have eyes to hear and ears to see." --all others being "blind", "lost sinners"! To hell with 'em!
Your's of course, goes instead with "contemptuous", "illegals"! To Jail with 'em!
[Image: kookaid.gif]

Ya got ta luv it when the one poo-pooing logic and arguing for arbitrary opinion wants you to take 'em at their word, aye?

Alice Galt Wrote:statements that erroneously use logical reasoning and try to shoehorn it into a legal issue

"Thanks for making my point for me." [sic]

Once again, apart from logically consistent reasoning, what is left except arbitrary opinion...?¹
(guns left and right backing such excluded?)

Am i the only one noticing, that out of the foundational points i made, these are the ones Juan chooses to reply to?
[Image: three_blind_mice_lg_nwm.thumbnail.gif]
(one of the gun-stock tools of the Trade for those having Legal Seminary training Masters Decrees...?) Secret

________________________
1. and we haven't even delved into how when it comes to the value of logic, those with their legal seminaries teach arbitrary selection of when and when not to use logic, as reasonable!?! e.g. how logically consistent they are when it comes to use of language? grammar? but use it to question their arbitrary Opinions?! To hell Jail with THAT!

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:36 AM
Post: #11
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 11:15 AM)eye2i2hear Wrote:  
Quote: From Galt: You got lost in the translation/transition from "logic" to "legal"??


Res ipsa loquitur. Thanks for the help with my thread "numbers".Smile
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:43 AM
Post: #12
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 10:22 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 10:12 AM)Andy Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 08:38 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  Relevance to the subject matter? I don't see a connection.

Isn't it a shame how 99% of the lawyers give the whole profession a bad name. Tounge

Not an argument - your opinion. But it does help the "numbers" on my thread, thanks.
Facepalm

How many lawyer jokes are there? Only three. The rest are true stories. LOL

What’s the difference between the government and the mafia?
The mafia doesn’t have a twelve year indoctrination system to convince you it’s not organized crime. ~ Brett Veinotte
Government public "education"/indoctrination is child abuse.
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:43 AM
Post: #13
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
Hi Juan
Out of the two (logic vs legal reasoning), which one do you consider to be most noble?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:48 AM
Post: #14
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 11:43 AM)Andy Wrote:  How many lawyer jokes are there? Only three. The rest are true stories.

Thanks for the irrelevant comment. It helps my "numbers". I'm sure we all can hardly wait for your next pearls of wisdom on the subject of this thread?
Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2017, 11:50 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2017 11:58 AM by eye2i2hear.)
Post: #15
RE: LOGIC v LEGAL REASONING: THERE IS A DIFFERENCE
(06-03-2017 10:22 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 10:12 AM)Andy Wrote:  
(06-03-2017 08:38 AM)Juan Galt Wrote:  Relevance to the subject matter? I don't see a connection.

Isn't it a shame how 99% of the lawyers give the whole profession a bad name. Tounge

Quote:Not an argument - your opinion.

First, isn't it interesting that rather than acknowledge a connection he was blind to, Jay Gee shifts off that.?

And using "Not an argument - your opinion" no less!?

Come on &e, take a swig... [Image: kookaid.gif]so you can have your bind eyes opened, you lost (illegal) goat (sacrificial) you, you ARE "In" his (Majesty's) Thread where the only The opinions bullwarshiped by True Followers are ALLOWED!! You need to go to Legal Seminary, son, it's your last hope!!

You know, like if you're ✘ ("here"), you're "in" "The US", or ✘ ("here") you're "in" "Court" "Arguing" (only --no logic Allowered/Permitted)
All Ruled by the Legal magic words you use/if you use!! (the "magic" works whether you Believe or not circa the Tooth Legal Fairies: Grinning Cop --it's all by Their Faith)

But if your's is Their's (or their follower attack dog Juan's) Opinion, Monopoly, you're good to Go and get out of hell free --right?
[you'll have to use that $200 to pay towards "Court Costs" butt of course]

[thank doG above Juan can't get his hands on a Mad Hatter Copper Grinning Cop ✘here...]

Quote:But it does help the "numbers" on my thread, thanks.

doooouh boy, we gotz another one of them... Facepalm
(where yet again, evidence Juan might be benefited by investing as much time in Forum Guides 101 as he has in legal seminary...)

Have a nice nap![Image: puppy-kisses-smiley.gif?1292867658]

Is it voluntary? (because if it isn't, what inherently is it?)
And can it be voluntary, if there's indoctrination, intimidation, coercion, threats & initiation of violence?
[not to be confused with asking: can it be said to be "voluntary" even when such is present.?]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply 


Forum Jump:


User(s) browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)