You're obviously being unrealistic if you expect posters to comment on what you've actually wrote, instead of what they feel like hammering you for. Do you really expect them to go to all of the trouble of reading your post carefully enough to critique it based on its own merits?

"the dictates of the public conscience,"

Now, what the hell does that mean?

Thanks ondelette for an informative comment.

Omoeex actually I reacted wrongly at first because I thought Baldie McEagle was reacting to my second post; I later realized he was (correctly) reacting to my first post, so my reading of his comment was off and that's why I said "sorry".

You sent me to John Rawls's book:`A Theory of Justice. the revised edition.

Obviously, I am not a lawyer. The index of his book has conscience themes.

There is enormous material. John Rawls was Professor, Emeritus, and etc.,

He wrote"`Political Liberalism, `Collected Papers, `The Law of The People.

He's dead. He was at Harvard. I've underlined a 'bunch' of his legal thought.

But I'm not prepared to properly express his thinking. Maybe browse Rawls?

I'll browse in wash-tub. Legal minds are better at law thoughts. pow-wow?

Its rule of the playground around here.

But the position you took yesterday, as expressed by you, deserved mocking. Other commenters expressed what seemed to be your argument better.

So perhaps it wasn't what you meant to say but what you said---we have nothing else to react to. We don't bear the burden of divining your intent.

This is what you wrote:

"You're right, Omooex. Bad people shouldn't be defended!

If only there were a way to figure out who the bad people are.

Like, if one person says what he thinks the bad guy did wrong, and then, like, another guy can say, no, that's not true. prove it! And the first guy says, well, here's my evidence.

Then some other people would sit and think about it.

Does anybody know of such a system? Maybe we can brainstorm and start a movement."

The reason you think that others argued my position better than me, is that you didn't read my post carefully enough to know what my position was. There is nothing in my post even close to what you commented on. Take some responsibility for your actions. Or are you a lawyer or something....

Here is my original post:

A small but important point.

"Attempts to criticize a lawyer for representing unsavory or even evil clients are inherently illegitimate and wrong -- period."

Sorry, but to me that's just a crazy parsing of ethics. A large corporation that has made millions upon millions of dollars, historically, by exploiting corrupt governments and abusing latin american labor is not some penniless nazi in the Ozarks. Its not a question of adequate representation for a client that would not necessarily be able to afford it, or who would be shunned by the majority of other attorneys; anyone of ten thousand lawyers would be happy to file the briefs given the paycheck. If Chiquita went after a former high ranking official in the Clinton DOJ, its not because it was the best they could do, it was because it was their best path to victory. Arguing that a lawyer should not be criticized for the million dollar cases he takes on at the behest of slimy corporations with no regard for international law, because he is doing some kind of service to the concept of jurisprudence is--I don't even know a word for it...

The legal system in this nation is inherently biased toward the wealthy. Chiqita wasn't accessing its right to counsel under US law, it was accessing its right to the absolute best council that money could buy from a former high ranking member of the DOJ.

Its this kind of attitude that really turns average people off to attorneys. Legal professionals often make this claim, without ever recognizing that millions of Americans are defacto left without representation against colossal corporations or the justice system that have every advantage under the legal system. You never hear about these people, they are under the radar of pro bono defense attorneys and organizations. They just go to jail or pay lots of money and no one seems to lose any sleep over the ethical failings.

And by the way, didn't you argue that you were optimistic(if skeptical) about Mukasey?

Sorry, about the tone here. That statement really sets me off.

re: the musclebound bod - p8q

You know, I bet topology makes perfect sense to you, doesn't it?

;-)

Busted!

Actually, I still have to break my head over a lot of algebraic topology and algebraic geometry. The former I had a not so great course in, the latter I never got a chance to take the intro.

But general tops, especially when taught by the Moore method, would be something I think a lot of the people here who delight in logic would enjoy. And differential tops is something I had a lot of, because I studied dynamical systems and chaos.

You're right that I didn't directly comment on what you wrote. But I read what you wrote and reduced it to the bullshit that I still believe it to be. And I responded to that bullshit.

And I think that's fair. It left you ample room to correct me.

Similarly, jschultz's sophistry boils down to "I like a world that is as violent as possible." So I responded to that, rather than responding point-by point. (Like I know anything about the GCs anyway.)

The basic question here is, "What is a troll?" A troll deliberately misquotes and makes unsupported leaps of logic (like NOB accusing me of approving the trashing of the 4th, when I never commented on the "little Cuban boy" case) and blows obscuring smoke out his ass to hide his inhumanity. Such a person deserves scorn. If I ever meet a troll who is actually able to see through falsely complex argumentation to see the germ of truth, then he won't be a troll.

If you want to be understood, I suggest you arm yourself against being misunderstood. And I'm not saying it's easy.