8 ms·

Can you refine “legal battle” further? Does it imply a complete immediate capitulation on all matters if the opponent is a lawyer, or does it imply something el

by jt2190 4y ago

Can you refine “legal battle” further? Does it imply a complete immediate capitulation on all matters if the opponent is a lawyer, or does it imply something else, like one’s best advantage in this case is to stay out of the courtroom?

workingon 4y ago
- RalfWausE 4y ago
  Why the downvotes? The ONLY way to win against an opponent with much more power than you is to make him believe that you absolutely don't care for consquences and are out there to get him
  - brigandish 4y ago
    Whether that is true or not there is a big difference between what you wrote (stating an opinion) and what the other commenter wrote (appearing to advocate violence). That's why it's attracting downvotes. You're attracting them because it's obvious.
    - lobocinza 4y ago
      Actually he is advocating for peace. The suggestion of breaking the rules of the game balances the playing field. As it is a few can initiate bureaucratic violence against others basically free of consequences. If we were to judge which act of violence is justifiable a few broken ribs is nothing compared to losing your life savings or going to prison. The issue here is that physical violence is a taboo. There are good reasons for that though it's undeniably that the cowing of the masses is beneficial to those that practice other forms of violence.
      - MichaelZuo 4y ago
        The escalation spiral of physical violence ultimately leads to a sufficiently motivated insane group killing millions of people with a dirty nuke, or blackmailing the rest of society with such. Whereas the escalation spiral of bureaucratic and legal maneuvering cannot do more than normalize taking away people's reputations, jobs, or homes. I know which end state I would prefer.
        RalfWausE 4y ago
        Now... if we really spin this take to the extreme we end up in the bureaucratic nightmare of the nazis...
        brigandish 4y ago
        No, because as Popper states the paradox of tolerance, we only use violence when the opponent has denied other people forms of change (like debate and peaceful protest), and the instead use violence. Lawyers aren't prone to engaging in violence instead of debate or using the system (which favours them, as they know it so well), so no, it doesn't lead there, nor does any other group you stick in there - even modern day Nazis, who as a group are (largely) peaceful now. Hence, we debate them now, if they change again, we would fight them.
kemiller2002 4y ago
Really it's pretty much anything. Every case is different and in the law there is no black and white, meaning nothing is simple. Take this scenario, you have a dispute with a lawyer and they draft a legal document with certain statements and legal ramifications. At this point, the wise answer is to hire a lawyer and have them battle it out for you. At say 300 dollars an hour, if drafting a document takes an hour, you've just spent 300 dollars. This doesn't include any research your attorney has to do around the case which is also possible (remember no black and white in the law) or the fees of the administrative assistants to print and mail the response, etc. Your opponent may not be making money while perusing this, but that person isn't paying someone at a billing rate either. Stretching it out only bleeds your reserves to continue the dispute.

by jt2190 4y ago

workingon 4y ago

RalfWausE 4y ago
Why the downvotes? The ONLY way to win against an opponent with much more power than you is to make him believe that you absolutely don't care for consquences and are out there to get him
- brigandish 4y ago
  Whether that is true or not there is a big difference between what you wrote (stating an opinion) and what the other commenter wrote (appearing to advocate violence). That's why it's attracting downvotes. You're attracting them because it's obvious.
  - lobocinza 4y ago
    Actually he is advocating for peace. The suggestion of breaking the rules of the game balances the playing field. As it is a few can initiate bureaucratic violence against others basically free of consequences. If we were to judge which act of violence is justifiable a few broken ribs is nothing compared to losing your life savings or going to prison. The issue here is that physical violence is a taboo. There are good reasons for that though it's undeniably that the cowing of the masses is beneficial to those that practice other forms of violence.
    - MichaelZuo 4y ago
      The escalation spiral of physical violence ultimately leads to a sufficiently motivated insane group killing millions of people with a dirty nuke, or blackmailing the rest of society with such. Whereas the escalation spiral of bureaucratic and legal maneuvering cannot do more than normalize taking away people's reputations, jobs, or homes. I know which end state I would prefer.
      - RalfWausE 4y ago
        Now... if we really spin this take to the extreme we end up in the bureaucratic nightmare of the nazis...
        brigandish 4y ago
        No, because as Popper states the paradox of tolerance, we only use violence when the opponent has denied other people forms of change (like debate and peaceful protest), and the instead use violence. Lawyers aren't prone to engaging in violence instead of debate or using the system (which favours them, as they know it so well), so no, it doesn't lead there, nor does any other group you stick in there - even modern day Nazis, who as a group are (largely) peaceful now. Hence, we debate them now, if they change again, we would fight them.

kemiller2002 4y ago

Really it's pretty much anything. Every case is different and in the law there is no black and white, meaning nothing is simple. Take this scenario, you have a dispute with a lawyer and they draft a legal document with certain statements and legal ramifications. At this point, the wise answer is to hire a lawyer and have them battle it out for you. At say 300 dollars an hour, if drafting a document takes an hour, you've just spent 300 dollars. This doesn't include any research your attorney has to do around the case which is also possible (remember no black and white in the law) or the fees of the administrative assistants to print and mail the response, etc. Your opponent may not be making money while perusing this, but that person isn't paying someone at a billing rate either. Stretching it out only bleeds your reserves to continue the dispute.