3 ms·
Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. While I would never trust a non-lawyer's legal advice over a lawyer's legal advice, there coul
by asif 18y ago
Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. While I would never trust a non-lawyer's legal advice over a lawyer's legal advice, there could certainly exist a person in the world whom I trust more than any given lawyer, that also has an experience pertinent to my situation. You'd be foolish to bypass that person's opinion. Just take it with the knowledge that that person isn't a lawyer.
- ph0rque 18y ago> Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. Good thing you included the word "almost"... :~)
- asif 18y agoI can, without hesitation, proclaim that eating children is categorically wrong.
- PStamatiou 18y agoin our culture. in others not..
- ph0rque 18y agoand our species... I eat (potential) baby chickens for breakfast almost every day.
- sant0sk1 18y agoThere are some absolutes in the world which cannot be bypassed by cultural mores. Eating a child is wrong regardless of how one would justify it.
- lehmannro 18y agoHow come you think that? I cannot see any biological advantage of not eating your children in emergency situations -- i.e. where you need to eat the child (survival, extortion, ...) and she won't survive anyways.
- asif 18y agoBy that logic, you could justify absolutely anything.
- lehmannro 18y agoDepending on your standards, you can justify absolutely anything. There is nothing that is inherently right or wrong -- perhaps something that is right or wrong in most views. Our standards have changed, too -- not even a century ago, holocausts were considered absolutely appropriate (even by scientists!).
- sant0sk1 18y agoNo. Despite your opinions, and your best efforts to redefine good and evil, there are things which are inherently wrong. Murder is one of those things. All humans know murder is wrong, whether they admit it or not.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- donw 18y agoRight, so the Samurai, who would randomly cut the heads off of people they didn't fancy, knew they were doing something wrong, and yet were totally okay with it? Beheading a few peasants was, after all, the right way to test out a new sword... there's even a term in Japanese for it: Tameshi-giri. Plenty of societies, both ancient and modern, have legalized, or even encouraged, what we define as 'murder'. And note that I'm not arguing that murder is acceptable; rather, that the definition for it changes so much between societies as to make the statement "Murder is wrong in all human societies." a completely meaningless phrase. A likely explanation for the prohibition against the killing of other humans is strictly pragmatic: Societies where members can kill each other freely will self-destruct. This has nothing to do with 'murder being wrong', as much as free homicide not being a very stable evolutionary path.
- Eliezer 18y agoName me a human culture that eats babies. Also you've committed the classic error of confusing "Culture X thinks Y isn't wrong" and "Y isn't wrong". Is it true in some societies that the Sun goes around the Earth?
- jauco 18y agoYou're confusing ethically wrong (as in 'considered to be not nice') with scientifically wrong (as in 'considered to be not consistent with observations')
- ntoshev 18y agoI don't know why the parent gets downmodded, he is right. What is considered morally right and wrong is culture specific, it is not absolute. For example, some cultures used to sacrifice children to their gods. We may consider this wrong, but they certainly didn't.
- jimbokun 18y agoWe're right.
- ntoshev 18y agoYour original statement would apply to itself if it didn't have the word "almost".
- asif 18y agoHa. Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps I instinctively avoid blanket generalizations so as to avoid the criticism that I am currently unleashing on this article.
- cosmo7 18y ago> I can, without hesitation, proclaim that eating children is categorically wrong. You are captain of a cruise liner full of children. The ship is boarded by pirates. These pirates are utterly evil and utterly truthful. They demand that either you eat one child, who happens to be about to die of a congenital heart defect, or they will blow up the ship and kill hundreds of children. What do you do?
- rokhayakebe 18y agoDude, you have a wild imagination.
- asif 18y agoI'm not sure what I would do, but I know what Jack Bauer would do. He would eat the pirates.
- khafra 18y agoAbsolute veracity is generally acknowledged to be a virtue, conflicting with the "utterly evil" trait. Thus, the pirates disappear in a puff of logic. This once again proves that conjectural sophistry based on impossible examples is categorically un-compelling.
- deleted 18y ago[deleted]
- mrtron 18y agoI find this sentence hilarious. Is it not a pun in itself? I can, without hesitation, not delaying for one second, not second guessing myself whatsoever, with certainty as broad as the universe itself...
- jessewmc 18y agoThis is a different kind of wrong though... You're talking about morally wrong, while the parent is talking about factually wrong. Also, though, in reference to the silly pirate example below, something being absolutely wrong does not prevent the possible necessity of doing that thing to prevent greater wrongs. Its still wrong, just possibly less wrong. So I would agree that eating children is wrong.
- raganwald 18y agoFine, construct some hypothetical edge case "There *could exist..." and then try to apply some reduction ad absurdum to conclude that Matt's advice is wrong. Only, Matt's advice is correct. You should not ask for legal advice on HN, even if it is possible that in one of the many parallel universes there exists an entity you trust more than a lawyer.
- asif 18y agoI concede that HN is not the place to solicit legal advice. The level of trust that I was referring to most likely does not exist between users of this site. Nonetheless, I believe it is incorrect to state that one would be putting one's self in harms way by discussing legal matters with a non-lawyer, as the article implies. Here's an example: My neighbor has a large tree bordering my yard, from which a branch is hanging over the fence and interfering with my shit. Is it legal for me to chop the branch? Maybe in some jurisdictions, but who knows? Should I call a lawyer right away? Let me see what my wife thinks. Me: "Hey honey, what should I do about this branch? Should I call a lawyer?" Honey: "A lawyer?!?!? For God's sake why would you do that? That's just Ethel's tree. Just cut the damn thing down." -- or -- "Umm, Johnny Cochrane, Jr. lives there. Call five lawyers."
- raganwald 18y agoI agree that you are not putting yourself in harm's way by discussing legal matters with non-lawyers, even HN non-lawyers. I have often discussed legal matters with experienced businesspeople and investors. Of course, when the conversation turns to "Ok, what is the next action step?" the consensus is nearly always "Talk to a lawyer" :-)
- mattmaroon 18y agoYou don't put yourself in harm's way as long as you realize that what you are giving or getting is not a substitute for legal advice. Unfortunately most people tend to forget that very easily, as humans are often misled by confident, and often confident that they know more than they do.
- jon_dahl 18y agoPersonally, I think the article is half-right. "Let an attorney handle your legal questions" is absolutely correct - Random Guy on Internets should not be making legal decisions for you, and you should always have good legal representation if you're doing business of any sort (even as a freelance programmer). But sometimes you aren't looking for specific legal advice - you're looking to educate yourself as an entrepreneur. I've learned quite a bit about contracts, business formation, tax law, etc. from my attorneys - but I've also learned a bit from other entrepreneurs.