4 ms·

Lawyer here. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. I teach legal research and I do some open discussions in the beginning and (no judgment of course) someone ALWAYS brings up "

by jrm4 3y ago

Lawyer here. I LOVE THIS SO MUCH. I teach legal research and I do some open discussions in the beginning and (no judgment of course) someone ALWAYS brings up "if they wrote the laws clearer..." nope. nope nope nope. This is not how it works.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
subarctic 3y ago
I'm not sure what your point is. The laws can't be written clearer? Even if they were, you'd still get stuff that's ambiguous? As a lawyer you don't write the law so you have to go with what's written? You like interpreting vaguely written rules?
- Rury 3y ago
  It's just how language works. Language is inherently ambiguous in the strictest sense. It's why at times you need to use more and more words to convey a clear message to someone, but in some sense, it's a never ending rabbit hole. Most of the time though, you don't need to be super precise in order to get a general message across to someone. Just something good enough. It's why, as some other people noted, you sometimes can't tell anyone anything: http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-anything/ http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-an...
  - subarctic 3y ago
    That's a great read, thanks for linking it. The twist at the end is kind of funny because it makes you think, "do I really get it"? I guess sometimes words just aren't enough, you need actual experience. Which I guess if we're taking legal stuff, that's where case law comes in, right?
    - jrm4 3y ago
      Well, in a way, it's not "just words" or "experience?" It took me a long time to love the law, well after I was out of law school -- which was basically getting over the cynicism. It's just overwhelmingly the best method of dealing with perhaps the MOST DIFFICULT task possible, resolving disputes between/among imperfect unpredictable humans. The "messiness" of it is just as much a feature as a bug, and thus the most important part really does become, for lack of a better way to say it -- "faith?" in law?
- jrm4 3y ago
  Not that it's impossible to improve things, but people (frequently techies) believe the problem to be solvable and relatedly think it's easier than it actually is.
Dylan16807 3y ago
You seriously don't think some clarity could have helped? Like, if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay, you think the quiz wouldn't have more consistent answers? Or maybe the rule was only supposed to be for things with motors/engines and after clarifying instantly 2/3 of the questions are an easy objective "allowed". You can't fix subjectivity, but you can reduce it, and this quiz is based on super low hanging fruit.
- laurentlb 3y ago
  > if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay The quizz would have asked questions about the new edge-cases (created by the additional examples).
  - Dylan16807 3y ago
    And those new edge cases would be much less important and more obscure. The people just trying to follow the law would have a much easier time.
- jrm4 3y ago
  Oh, in this case, sure -- but I think it's a great teaching tool in getting people to understand the difficulty in other cases, and perhaps more importantly, understanding that these things are not solvable and that the essence of the very purpose of law is to have a method to get through these "not fully solvable" things.

by jrm4 3y ago

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

subarctic 3y ago

I'm not sure what your point is. The laws can't be written clearer? Even if they were, you'd still get stuff that's ambiguous? As a lawyer you don't write the law so you have to go with what's written? You like interpreting vaguely written rules?

Rury 3y ago
It's just how language works. Language is inherently ambiguous in the strictest sense. It's why at times you need to use more and more words to convey a clear message to someone, but in some sense, it's a never ending rabbit hole. Most of the time though, you don't need to be super precise in order to get a general message across to someone. Just something good enough. It's why, as some other people noted, you sometimes can't tell anyone anything: http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-anything/ http://habitatchronicles.com/2004/04/you-cant-tell-people-an...
- subarctic 3y ago
  That's a great read, thanks for linking it. The twist at the end is kind of funny because it makes you think, "do I really get it"? I guess sometimes words just aren't enough, you need actual experience. Which I guess if we're taking legal stuff, that's where case law comes in, right?
  - jrm4 3y ago
    Well, in a way, it's not "just words" or "experience?" It took me a long time to love the law, well after I was out of law school -- which was basically getting over the cynicism. It's just overwhelmingly the best method of dealing with perhaps the MOST DIFFICULT task possible, resolving disputes between/among imperfect unpredictable humans. The "messiness" of it is just as much a feature as a bug, and thus the most important part really does become, for lack of a better way to say it -- "faith?" in law?
jrm4 3y ago
Not that it's impossible to improve things, but people (frequently techies) believe the problem to be solvable and relatedly think it's easier than it actually is.

Dylan16807 3y ago

You seriously don't think some clarity could have helped? Like, if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay, you think the quiz wouldn't have more consistent answers? Or maybe the rule was only supposed to be for things with motors/engines and after clarifying instantly 2/3 of the questions are an easy objective "allowed". You can't fix subjectivity, but you can reduce it, and this quiz is based on super low hanging fruit.

laurentlb 3y ago
> if the law explicitly said strollers are okay and that bicycles are [not] okay The quizz would have asked questions about the new edge-cases (created by the additional examples).
- Dylan16807 3y ago
  And those new edge cases would be much less important and more obscure. The people just trying to follow the law would have a much easier time.
jrm4 3y ago
Oh, in this case, sure -- but I think it's a great teaching tool in getting people to understand the difficulty in other cases, and perhaps more importantly, understanding that these things are not solvable and that the essence of the very purpose of law is to have a method to get through these "not fully solvable" things.