"It's Easier to Bury a Tradition Than a Child"

[gemini5362]

I guess that's the problem. You are drawing conclusions that you cannot substantiate. Let's go point by point to avoid confusion:

Now, I do believe the system is messed up. You got that right. However, I've already pointed out that it is still probably the best system in the world. But that does not make it immune to problems or flaws. Does it? If you think I am wrong about it being messed up then you must think it is flawless, right. Would you like to argue here that our court system is PERFECT. By all means...state your case.

You then summarize, "It is absolutely unequivocally IMPOSSIBLE to fix it." No one has even suggested that. I have pointed out that there is a significant built in inertia. That is not saying change is impossible. That is another misreading and/or assumption that you have made that is incorrect. I said the system is hard to change, not impossible. That's all you. So, you got that wrong.

Then you paraphrase me by saying it is 'futile' to attempt change. Again, I never said that. Never. And what's worse, you assume that I have lived by your misunderstanding and accuse me of shirking, and complaining without action. You can't prove that. You are wrong and you fail to acknowledge that you have fasley accused. Why won't you address this Patrick?

Then you say 'they didn't and aren't getting it right'. Okay, that's fair. Again, would you care to argue that they have it perfect? Would you argue that we should stop trying to make it better. Go ahead.



That is exactly what I said Patrick with the exception that I also used the word 'criticize'. If you think this is wrong then prove it. Show me the moral or ethical imperative that connects criticism with activism. You can't. So you don't even try.



Again, the brings us to you unfair, unfounded, uncalled for and unscroupulous assumption that that is what I/we said or are doing. You can't support this. You are wrong. Shamefully so to accuse any of us of not acting on our criticism. Why do you persist in what amounts to slander? Is it all you have left?



What sloth Patrick? What shirking? Show it to me. Prove it. This is an idea you can't let go of. Where and how have I shirked? When, where and how have I been slothful. If you don't know or can't say then you need to stop saying it, admit you are wrong and then apologize.



I absolutely reject moral relativism. Your assessment that it is de facto is not only debateable but easily defeatable. This is not the forum for it, but suffice it to say, that if morals are relative then you have NO RIGht to question, judge or dispute ANYTHING I say or believe. So if morals are situational....then I can't be a shirker because there is not moral DUTY at all!!



You said it. Will you abide by it?

This is a deplorable action. You make several points against pat and his arguements then end your statement by making him available for ridicule if he answers them based on his assertions that he was through posting in this thread. Shame on you.

 

[tjkadar]

This is a deplorable action. You make several points against pat and his arguements then end your statement by making him available for ridicule if he answers them based on his assertions that he was through posting in this thread. Shame on you.

I doubt much written on an internet tractor forum actually rises to the level of a deplorable action. I think the best we can hope for is questionable.

 

[gemini5362]

I doubt much written on an internet tractor forum actually rises to the level of a deplorable action. I think the best we can hope for is questionable.

Wow that was fast you must have been reading the thread while I was typing

 

[gemini5362]

I think the comments about lawyers in this thread gives the impression that we as a group ( although not me) seem to have forgotten what a lawyers job. A lawyer does not work for the legal system. A lawyer works for a client who has payed them for their services in representing them. While I see some attorneys actions as being questionable I do not forget that their very first duty is to their client. They are ethically, morally, and legally bound to do the very best that they can for their client. My wife could have had a very brilliant career as a trial attorney. She has all the necessary skills for suceeding in that field. She does not do trial work because she does not want to represent guilty people. I understand her view point. I often have to represent someone who is guilty and I have to give it my best shot at representing them. When we see an attorney who is doing whatever it takes to defend their client we are seeing an attorney who is doing their job. I am sure that if a prison brought a child molester to george for treatment and george saved their lives no one would make caustic remarks about george for doing his job and saving the life. Attorneys are sometimes in the same boat.

 

[tjkadar]

I felt really bad for the lawyer defending the teller with the 'mysterious' money that suddenly appeared in her client's account. Money that was entered into her account from her computer when she was at work. The client's defense was, "God must have put it there." Poor lawyer did the best she could with what she had to work with. I saw her defend two cases that week. Both with client's that offered very, very little in the way of a defense. She did what she could...

I think a lot of people view lawyers like a cop... they moan and complain about them until they need one.

Remember, for the most part, the only lawyers most people see are the Personal Injury Lawyers with the, "One call, that's all," tag line in their poorly produced commercials. That really isn't representative of the whole... but it is what we, as the general public, are most exposed to.

 

[N80]

I am going to voice an opinion about peers. There are a lot of people that think peers seem to be educational equals depending on the case. The popular example seems tobe a medical malpractice case should have doctors as the defendents peers. Personally I think that is the worst possible juror for this kind of case. One problem would be if only doctors were the jurors in medical malpractice there could be the rational that if I vote against a doctor then other doctors wont help me out if I am a defendant.

I agree with you completely. I don't think only doctors serving as jurors for doctors would work either. And once again, I've never suggested that we need this 'peer' system. All that I have said is that the current system does not provide, in many cases, a jury of peers. I'm not trying to devise a complex system to achieve it.

But its funny that you mention that conflict of interest concern. Does that not go on in every court room every day? Every prosecutor, defense and judge have one thing in common. All lawyers. Do you think that impacts judges allowing high dollar tort findings? So while I agree with you that a strict peer system is not practical, the conflict of interest ship sailed a long time ago and we seem very comfortable with it.

If I'm not mistaken, in the UK punitive damages go to the courts, not the plaintiff or his attorney. Subsequently, few ridiculous tort findings like the one in the McDonalds case. (But I've been wrong about my own states courts so what do I know about the UK?)

 

[N80]

Actually I believe you said something about maybe having to go back to civic class. I felt you were trying to inject a modicum of false modesty into your arguement. I never really felt from your post that you thought there was any possibility of you being wrong.

And there is no chance that THAT was a mistake on your part? A misunderstanding? Failure to recognize humor?

I believe that the comment "You need to go to civic class" is not a challenge of the understanding of the point. That is a direct challenge to me personally as having the actual education needed to discuss the subject.

I thought you were wrong. And in part, you were. As it turned out, so was I. I pre-qualified my point with the fact that I might have a basic misunderstanding of local civics. It was intended to be taken at face value and it proved to be true to an extent. I used the same, humorous context to point out that you might be mistaken. If you mistook that as false modesty, what can I say? Heck, I'll apologize and assume that I was unclear. Too abstruse .

I'll also put aside any false modesty or any modesty at all and tell you that I'm not beyond an ad hominem attack, and furthermore, if I do employ one it will be obvious, withering and devastating and there will be no chance anyone will mistake it as false modesty.

And if I make one that is totally unfounded, then I'll apologize.

Even in your defense of your statement you never actually admitted to being wrong in your statement about the original subject matter, your defense of your statement centered around whether or not you had insinuated I was stupid.

I don't even remember the details, but I still think you were mistaken in some of your assumptions.

 

[N80]

This is a deplorable action. You make several points against pat and his arguements then end your statement by making him available for ridicule if he answers them based on his assertions that he was through posting in this thread. Shame on you.

I think you're being far too forgiving of and sympathetic to Patrick. Patrick made himself available for ridicule. Not me. And I don't think he'll find any sympathy outside of yours.

Here is what HE said:

There is more, much more I think I am learning in this thread but given my extreme shortcomings and lack of ability to read and understand I do not feel competent to comment further at this time.

First, its an age old internet ploy. Its the equivalent of taking your ball and going home when you don't like how the game is turning out. Its a parting shot with the expectation that it cannot be returned. Its sour grapes. Dirty pool.

It is intended to cripple a discussion. How can the opponent respond when one has declared that he is no longer playing. Patrick made accusations for which he had no basis and no support. Just because he has made a parting shot and left the playing field does that mean that he is beyond being challenged to defend his accusations. Of course not.

So as you can see, I've done nothing deplorable. I didn't ask or expect Patrick to sulk away as if HE were the victim. He did that himself. This isn't chess. He can move his king into check and when he does so his opponent is not obligated to pass on checkmate to avoid being branded deplorable.

 

[gemini5362]

I agree with you completely. I don't think only doctors serving as jurors for doctors would work either. And once again, I've never suggested that we need this 'peer' system. All that I have said is that the current system does not provide, in many cases, a jury of peers. I'm not trying to devise a complex system to achieve it.

But its funny that you mention that conflict of interest concern. Does that not go on in every court room every day? Every prosecutor, defense and judge have one thing in common. All lawyers. Do you think that impacts judges allowing high dollar tort findings? So while I agree with you that a strict peer system is not practical, the conflict of interest ship sailed a long time ago and we seem very comfortable with it.

If I'm not mistaken, in the UK punitive damages go to the courts, not the plaintiff or his attorney. Subsequently, few ridiculous tort findings like the one in the McDonalds case. (But I've been wrong about my own states courts so what do I know about the UK?)

I have no knowledge of how the UK system does it and since I dont want to spend the time looking it up I have no knowledge of the validity of that. Actually as to the conflict of interest between judges and attorneys that is certainly a factor. To the best of my recollection and I might have heard of cases and just not remembered them. To the best of my recollection I can never remember a time when the Jury awarded damages and the Judge said that is not enough I am going to raise the dollar amount in tort findings. I dont even know if that is possible. I have heard of cases where the judge said the amount was ridiculous and lowered the damages so that the plaintiff and probably the plaintiffs attorney recieved less than the jury awarded them. These cases where the judge lowered the jury award would cetainly be an arguement against the judge being in some type of non declared collusion with council because they are all attorneys. I do not know if you are aware that several states have made legislative ceilings to the amount of damages that can be awarded in a tort claim. Since a considerable portion of the countries legislatures are made up of attorneys I can only assume that there is not an act of collusion by them to increase the revenue of other attorneys. I believe that the people in your profession are some of the more vocal proponents of tort limitations.

 

[gemini5362]

And there is no chance that THAT was a mistake on your part? A misunderstanding? Failure to recognize humor?



I thought you were wrong. And in part, you were. As it turned out, so was I. I pre-qualified my point with the fact that I might have a basic misunderstanding of local civics. It was intended to be taken at face value and it proved to be true to an extent. I used the same, humorous context to point out that you might be mistaken. If you mistook that as false modesty, what can I say? Heck, I'll apologize and assume that I was unclear. Too abstruse .

I'll also put aside any false modesty or any modesty at all and tell you that I'm not beyond an ad hominem attack, and furthermore, if I do employ one it will be obvious, withering and devastating and there will be no chance anyone will mistake it as false modesty.

And if I make one that is totally unfounded, then I'll apologize.



I don't even remember the details, but I still think you were mistaken in some of your assumptions.

I will be happy to admit that was a mistake on my part if that was your intention to convey that you were not sure of your facts. I did not intrepet your remarks in that context but as everyone who reads or posts on this forum knows any remark that is made is subject to interpretation. I have made several comments then read the response to them and been absolutely aghast that my remarks were interpreted in a way that was so alien to my meaning.


I dont know that I was mistaken in my assumptions I believe that if anything I am mistaken in my ideaology. I try to follow that glass if half full philosophy when I can. Often time I am unable to take that high road but I try to approach life that way on a regular basis unfortuneatly my cynical nature has a tendency to take control of my thinking.

I am not sure what you considered an ad hominem attack your remarks in the earlier post that i mentioned were very much in line with what an ad hominem attack would consist of. If that was not your intention I am glad to know that.