4 ms·

I don't know what good it can be to try and debate him - All he's done so far (other than down-voting comments he disagrees with) is assert platitudes about how

by hurin 12y ago

I don't know what good it can be to try and debate him - All he's done so far (other than down-voting comments he disagrees with) is assert platitudes about how by necessity law must be too complex for mere uninitiated mortals (such as mathematicians, engineers et. all). Seems like we've come very far since ancient times /s (ref:) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Socrates

s_q_b 12y ago
There's a reason that every advanced legal system for the past two thousand years has involved professional representatives: there is no better alternative. Similarly, there is a reason many engineering professions have a Professional Engineer licensure. It takes special knowledge to design complex infrastructure, just as it does to understand complex laws. I've pointed out a necessary tension in the system that gives rise to legal complexity, and you've failed to advance any alternative theory for how it should be addressed. It's also a pathetically laughable ad hominem to think that I've downvoted anyone, but if you think it bolsters your facile argument by all means assert falsehoods. You do know you can't down vote replies to your own comments, correct? Lawyers do artificially keep their numbers low, but you both show a profound misunderstanding of the problem, and have seemingly no concept of how this is actually done in practice (law school as graduate rather than undergraduate education, weakening of mens rea requirements, regulations being given full legal force, restricted access to the bar examination, etc.)
anonbanker 12y ago
While I agree with much of your sentiment, you would be wise to avoid assuming he has sockpuppet accounts with sufficient karma to downvote, unless you have evidence to support this fact.

4 ms·

I don't know what good it can be to try and debate him - All he's done so far (other than down-voting comments he disagrees with) is assert platitudes about how

by hurin 12y ago

s_q_b 12y ago
There's a reason that every advanced legal system for the past two thousand years has involved professional representatives: there is no better alternative. Similarly, there is a reason many engineering professions have a Professional Engineer licensure. It takes special knowledge to design complex infrastructure, just as it does to understand complex laws. I've pointed out a necessary tension in the system that gives rise to legal complexity, and you've failed to advance any alternative theory for how it should be addressed. It's also a pathetically laughable ad hominem to think that I've downvoted anyone, but if you think it bolsters your facile argument by all means assert falsehoods. You do know you can't down vote replies to your own comments, correct? Lawyers do artificially keep their numbers low, but you both show a profound misunderstanding of the problem, and have seemingly no concept of how this is actually done in practice (law school as graduate rather than undergraduate education, weakening of mens rea requirements, regulations being given full legal force, restricted access to the bar examination, etc.)
anonbanker 12y ago
While I agree with much of your sentiment, you would be wise to avoid assuming he has sockpuppet accounts with sufficient karma to downvote, unless you have evidence to support this fact.