One skill of lawyers is that they understand the context of words and their meaning in the judicial system. I often see untrained people making arguments on re

One skill of lawyers is that they understand the context of words and their meaning in the judicial system. I often see untrained people making arguments on reddit about the law where they're picking apart words into the meaning they want to have them and constructing a legal parallel universe where the law means what they hope it means. And they can point at dictionary definitions for each word to back up their interpretation. And its not that they don't consider something like case law, instead, they just don't even understand that it exists. Often times when there's two parallel readings which are theoretically possible one of them winds up with implications which are clearly absurd and a real-life flesh and bone judge will outright reject the attempt to twist the meaning of words and phrases. Every now and then a judge somewhere does let this kind of argument through and it makes headlines, but usually those kinds of cases are going to be overturned on appeal. A lot of the legal system is that everyone over time has agreed that words strung together in a particular way has a particular interpretation that applies. If you go in trying to fight that interpretation you usually always lose. An attempt to buffer overflow the legal system based on dual meanings will usually wind up with a judge disagreeing with your nonsense.