|
United States22154 Posts
On November 17 2011 01:39 RetFan wrote:
People complain that I brag about my credentials but they don't realise what I've had to sacrifice to attain them. It does feel good to be able to list what I've accomplished and be proud. To be reassured by people who are more successful than me that I am part of the top few thousand legal minds in the country.
I want people on Team Liquid to view be able to read and TRUST my view on things so they can disregard 90% of the trash comments that are based on a biased opinion or written by adolescent kids between ages of 14-21 who have no life experience.
You are right, the people here who are going to medical school, or engineering school or hell, any kind of higher education really, and who have also had to make sacrifices to get to where they are clearly don't comprehend how unique you are. Why do you come here to be "reassured that you are part of the top few thousand legal minds in the country."? Wouldn't it be better to actually go and prove this, you know by doing whatever it is lawyers do to prove it, rather than posting about it in some obscure forum in a corner of the internet?
Way to insult the population of teamliquid by the way. The many of which are college students who are also making immense sacrifices to be where which are, I guess we can't grasp your wonderful "life experience based" arguments actually not based on any experience, this is a cheap attempt at discrediting your detractors. Also, why would we "TRUST" what you say just because you have these "credentials"? Believe it or not its incredibly easy to lie on the internet, watch "I have won three noble prizes and have a diploma from Harvard saying to trust me!" Prefacing your arguments with how awesome you are not only serves to turn of your entire audience, but your obvious contempt for us only serves to mask any merits your actual arguments may have. So tell me, mr. lawyer, in these classes about brilliant argument, did they forget to mention that to sway an audience you must first appeal to them? Make them care? If you can't properly present an argument on the internet (and you have amply proven that despite grasping the precepts of logic, you hardly understand the basics of persuasion) then you can hardly be expected to properly represent a client.
Next time, instead of buffing your arguments with a wall about how awesome you are, please try letting your argument stand on its own merits, rather than trying to prop it up on your "achievements"
On November 17 2011 01:50 RetFan wrote:
Another thing, if someone told me they were a graduate from an Ivy League school like Yale or Harvard, and their posts reflected intelligence, I would have respect for them.
There are very few people who are desperate enough to lie about their credentials online. Most people who do are either losers or children who can hardly substantiate a valid argument let alone be able to make a succinct argument. It would be sad to imagine a guy sitting at a computer who goes to a fourth tier university claiming to go to Yale. Who cares if he even pulls it off online, if in reality he is unable to ever attain what he wants.
It's the same reason people don't lie about people in their family dying. If they do, you should believe them because if they are lying then that's beyond low. It's simply disgusting.
I also find it quite sad that people from Ivy League schools are expected by society to be modest. I mean come on, these guys are likely to be the top students going to some of the best universities in the world. They have a right to be proud; they've had to sacrifice so much get in. Are these people not allowed to brag about their achievements?
No, the internet is *not* your personal brag forum. Modesty is a virtue, because it allows your arguments to stand on their own merits. I was accepted into an ivy league, but did not attend, does that make me a better person? More respectable? NO. It makes no difference as to the strength of my arguments its not relevant. There is no reason to shove your credentials in the face of people, because they really don't serve to strengthen your arguments, they only make you look pretentious. If you want to get an ego boost go do something of worth, posting about how awesome you are on the internet is a waste of your time, and it won't get people to accept faulty arguments with any more ease.
|
Oh I read everything you had to say unlike the many who don't and my point still stands. You could have skipped all the fluff and got right to it. It's a terrible opening no matter how you slice it.
In the end you brought nothing new to the dinner table. It's the same old shit people have been saying.
|
What the hell is going on in this thread.
The OP says something unremarkable about the Coca situation that could have been easily said in a short paragraph in a huge essay (I don't doubt he's a humanities student of some sort based on that), while throwing in a brag about how smart he is, and now we're talking about school rankings and engineering.
|
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:
Introduction
Let me start off by asking everyone a question:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
You aren't very convincing.
|
Gmarshall,
many posters such as Starstruck and Chef may not care about my credentials. They may see it as an exercise of bragging.
But there are people who would love to not go through the bullshit of having to read 140 different comments with differing opinions on interpreting a simple issue. They would love someone who knows how to analyse issues logically and without bias. Not just some scrub with an opinion but someone who actually is trained in understanding legal issues.
I wrote my OP because I thought I could use my professional knowledge and contribute to Team Liquid and give a logical judgment on all the issues involving match fixing. As a point of reference, we can note that months ago, the original topic about Savior's match fixing didn't even mention the cause of action. That was how sensationalist some of the articles were becoming in TL.
I am doing well with my law degree, I'm at a highly recognised educational institution and I have done clerkships at large national and international firms. I love Starcraft 2. I want to contribute my knowledge of those people who would like to listen to what I have to say. Is this really such a big issue for dissenters to make a fuss about?
If people don't like what I have to say, then they don't need to keep reading. If people don't want to believe me, then that's fine too. Believe it or not, what I say on this forum is not about impressing people. It's not about persuading people, its about presenting my view and giving the public the view of a matter from a relatively intelligent point of view. I gain nothing here by impressing people who I will never get to meet in real life.
|
Generally "my opinion on a controversial topic is more important so I'm going to make a separate thread about it" threads are immediately closed on TL to prevent clutter. You should be glad yours was simply moved to blogs.
|
On November 17 2011 00:58 Chef wrote:
Snuggles... No. Making an argument is a skill and if you do something stupid like talk about how smart you are for the first few paragraphs then you can't really justify it. Those paragraphs were completely unnecessary to his argument. He could have drawn on what he's learned in his education without mentioning 'you should believe me because lawyers are the smartest people in the world.' That's a very basic fallacy.
People would have paid more attention to his argument if he'd let that be the whole post, but instead he distracts his readers from his argument. And you're calling this smart? I'm sorry, it's a mistake. He did the wrong thing. He walked a bunch of marines into hold lurkers and got owned. It was his fault. You can't blame the audience for not liking your act. If there is something wrong with it then that's all there is to it. It'd be like naming your thread "Ding Dong Farts" and then writing a very serious argument. Then calling your audience stupid when they talk about your moronic title.
It doesn't help that his first argument was so weak I just groaned and realised I'd wasted a lot of time reading his credentials for nothing.
So let me say it one more time in case you don't get it: It's not TL's fault that they didn't like the OP. It's the OPs fault for making a bad OP. Take some responsibility for your mistakes..
I see what you're trying to say but what if I'm on the other side of the fence and asking why the hell I should take the time to seriously read through an OP that represents its argument in a serious manner, even if the argument itself is silly. I'm positive that a lot of our community consists of know-it-alls with no actual credentials to show for it, and I believe that the world operates on having proof that you can be intelligent before making a serious overbearing statement as a standard for all to use. That's why I'm taking the time to go against what you guys are doing to the OP and appreciating the credentials he has put up.
I see the OP as as person stating his credentials without ill intent, I feel like the community is seeing it as plain bragging and a showcase of academic achievements and using the matching fixing nonsense as an excuse to do so.
I agree, (I'm a reasonable person) that his argument was pretty pointless because it doesn't really do anything to help anybody. Rather than putting out solutions, he just relabeled the already existing questions concerning the scandal. Stupid right? Yes I can see that, but his credentials still stand so I hope he can bring more to the table. Maybe he has done a good job of eliminating any stupid statements or claims in the future by setting more of a standard for us to argue around.
My first post was nasty because I feel like I have to do that sometimes to get a response out of people, that's just from my experience here. The only issue I have with people attacking the OP is the fact that they focus on the fact that yeah he did write a lot just to have us read about his credentials and then move onto his weak argument. We should be berating him for the argument, rather attacking him because he's a good student. In fact I find some of you guys just as bad as the OP for not focusing on the right thing. Shame on you.
I understand that people from Ivy League schools can make statements or decisions that may be inferior to people with lesser credentials. But there needs to be a certain level of respect for these people because they ARE NOT handed acceptance letters and degrees without a lot of legitimate hard work.
My beef with you guys is the fact that you are all failing to separate EGO from hardwork. I hate egotistical people more than you guys I bet, but I respect people who have "earned" the right to flaunt the results of their hardwork even if they are douchebags about it. That's just simply how I see the world, if you can change my views I don't mind. Because in the end if I were choose between this guy and you as a lawyer, I'd probably go with Retfan.
|
You're in for a rude awakening.
There are many people who are capable of doing just what you described without trying to take an authoritarian stance. You on the other hand, come across as a pompous ass on something trivial. Shit and potatoes. You can add whatever spices you want to it. It's still shit and potatoes. You are serving the same crap over and over.
*
Two internships. Great. You are just getting your feet wet; you haven't actually started your practice yet.
To me you come across as one of those know-it-all undergrads. Not a good impression to leave.
Snuggles,
I hope you don't present yourself in the same manner as the OP. It's one thing to be cocky; it's another thing to come across as a conceded egotistical fart. How you present yourself to others is important in every setting and word travels around fast.
Personality is just as important as whatever brain-smarts you might and might not have in all relationships.
|
Starstruck,
In case you really did not give me the benefit of the doubt, I know how to present myself in reality. How do you think I got through the interviews for my clerkships?
It's one thing to know how to act in front of peers, employers or even friends but the internet is something else. I don't have anyone to impress or persuade.
|
On November 17 2011 02:21 StarStruck wrote:
To me you come across as one of those know-it-all undergrads. Not a good impression to leave.
Snuggles,
I hope you don't present yourself in the same manner as the OP. It's one thing to be cocky; it's another thing to come across as conceded egotistical fart. There's a thin line between the two. How you present yourself to others is important in every setting and word travels around fast.
Personality is just as important as whatever brain-smarts you might and might not have.
Listen, DO NOT fucking label me as an egotistical fart. I'm as humble and as reasonable as I can possibly make myself. I hate egotistical people just as much as you do or maybe more. If I am viewed as that in any way please point it out so I can discipline myself.
I simply just don't see Retfan as that type of person. My god I see those know-it-all undergrads ALL THE TIME (the ones with no job and come to class with a suit LOL). I hate them almost as much as I hate people who smell bad. I even made a blog about people who stink. I said that TL members can be big balls of rolling hate, hey you know what I'm one of those people as well!
Maybe I'm missing something in his OP? Who knows I can be mistaken, god forbid =_=. But from my standpoint I just simply don't see anything wrong with him showing his credentials. If he's claiming that he really works alongside with people who are successful, and its actually true- can you really continue calling a person like that a pretentious fool? Do you know the definition of pretentious?
|
Tell that to those who lost jobs through social networking. The Internet is a powerful tool. I wouldn't take such things for granted. Like I said, you still have a lot to learn. As do I. -.^
Snuggles,
That's why I said I hope. Those are two separate ideas.
|
I would bring a Dr. a scientist and a hot model with child bearing hips. Idk why anyone would bring an engineer or lawyer to an island they don't really have anything to offer. Was all the stuff about how smart you are supposed to attract us to wanting a lawyer with us on the island? Who wants to hangout with someone like that?
|
On November 17 2011 02:43 WritersBlock wrote:
I would bring a Dr. a scientist and a hot model with child bearing hips. Idk why anyone would bring an engineer or lawyer to an island they don't really have anything to offer. Was all the stuff about how smart you are supposed to attract us to wanting a lawyer with us on the island? Who wants to hangout with someone like that?
An engineer definitely would, how else would you make a coconut radio?
|
On November 17 2011 02:39 StarStruck wrote:
Tell that to those who lost jobs through social networking. The Internet is a powerful tool. I wouldn't take such things for granted. Like I said, you still have a lot to learn. As do I. -.^
Snuggles,
That's why I said I hope. Those are two separate ideas.
Well then I am oh so sorry for jumping the gun good sir =P
|
On November 16 2011 17:48 RetFan wrote:
Introduction
Let me start off by asking everyone a question:
"If you had to choose three of four professionals listed below to bring with you to an abandoned island set up a colony. Which one would you leave out? "
Your choices are: Doctor, engineer, scientist, or lawyer.
Most people will ask that the lawyer be left out. Some will recite Thomas Moore's Utopia in describing lawyers as being 'evil and incapable of any acts of good'.
I challenge that view. As of background, I am a law student in one of Australia's leading universities. In Australia, our top law schools accept only the top 1-2% of the highest achievers from High School. This ensures that we have lawyers and judges which reflect the brightest academic minds in the country.
The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity.
As by way of introduction. I am also a high achiever within the cohort of other intelligent students within our law school. I have secured clerkships two years into my degree with the top four law firms in the country. I have worked with partners and senior associates which work on mining and energy, workplace relations, arbitration and litigation work within these firms. The transactional value of the work these lawyers deal with are of hundreds of millions of dollars. They trust me with understanding these matters to a basic basic level and allow me to do research for them. I will be working for one of these firms next year.
A problem with lawyers is that they often write too much. A look at any basic court judgement will confirm this. However, please understand that none of the words I'm writing are wasted. They are not meant to show off. They are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match. This will be my job. My career path will be such that I am the one who will adjudicate disputes. Please do not feel insulted if your views have been completely disregarded by me as being incorrect. I am not trying to be pretentious. However, I also do want to make my credentials known.
Match Fixing/Dumping
The reason why I decided to post today is because I'm disgusted by how uninformed most people or young adults are to think independently or rationally of a situation.
The notion that most people are sheep seems to be correct when you look at general comments in Gosugamers and Teamliquid. I want to educate people on this site why this matchfixing scandal is ridiculous. I will try and summarise them in simple sentences to avoid people criticising me of using overconvoluted sentences to express simple things.
First of all, unless there is something in the constitution or the rules of the teams that prohibits matchfixing, there is no reason why it should be disallowed per se.
In many professional sports, the clubs which sponsor players have a clause which prohibits a player from conducting certain unethical behaviour. For example, in the legal professional conduct rules, there are rules to the effect that a lawyer must not act dishonestly, or further their means through unlawful conduct. Similarly, I'm sure in many soccer clubs, there are rules that prohibit match fixing EXPRESSLY. As soccer is one of the primary sports where matchfixing is a real problem.
However, it does not seem to me on the face of the evidence and common sense that a newly formed club, which likely did not use lawyers to setup a constitution would have an anti-match fixing clause unless it was identified as a potential problem since Starcraft 1 which carried through to the Starcraft 2 constitution. However, at this stage, I'm unsure that even Starcraft 1 had such a clause. It's likely that most clubs have a catch all provision in the constitution that says that the team has 'discretion to terminate the player for inappropriate conduct'. Where inappropriate is not defined in the constitution, this is a matter that may be brought to court by the players themselves.
The evidentiary issue
The other problem with e-sports is the issue of evidence with regard to dumping a game or match fixing. I've taken note that there hasn't been a clear distinction made between match fixing and dumping in the forums. Although they are similar, the context which the words are used seem to be different. The evidentiary burden for both is also quite different. With the latter being easier to prove.
For the purposes of this article, matchfixing is where there is a predetermined outcome organized prior to a match regarding the performance of a player in one or more games. I mention 'or more games' because I've read people saying Nestea could not have been matchfixing in the GSL ro16 because he couldn't know whether Huk would advance. I want to inform readers that it does not matter what happens to Huk. Online sports betting sites bet on a number of things including the number of matches played, who advances to the next round and who does not. Thus how Huk performed is not relevant. Had Nestea gotten a friend to bet on him losing for very good odds, he could have shared the profit with Nestea. Depending on how much was bet, this could be more than the GSL prize.
In Starcraft 1, the reason why the match fixing scandal escalated was because the scheme that was devised was large and there were many parties involved, which made gathering evidence a fairly easy exercise. There were witnesses and a large number of defendants who could all testify against each other.
Insofar as Starcraft 2 is concerned, prima facie, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that match fixing could be proved. Unless it was to a scale in which Starcraft 1 matchfixing was - which to my LIMITED knowledge is unlikely. It would be extremely difficult to prove any form of match fixing where all you have is a hunch of one person betting on behalf of another. Further, unless there are rules in the constitution that prohibit "DUMPING" games - which is described later, there would be no compensation to those who lost the bets due to the match fixing.
Match dumping is where a person deliberately loses a match against another person. Clearly this is what happened in the match between Coco and Byun. Again it comes down to whether the catchall provision exists and whether prematurely leaving a game is inappropriate. I would suggest that the word 'inappropriate' might not be able to be too broadly read or it may fall under an unfair contract term - which is a term that can be interpreted so widely that it essentially covers everything and usurps power from every other term in the contract. Workplace relations law may also not allow unfair dismissal for an arbitrary reason. In my view, the word word inappropriate would be considered from the view of a reasonable man, in which case I believe a breach would have occurred. However further, its questionable whether the clause is a warranty or condition and whether a minor breach is enough to allow for termination. This is another matter altogether.
The main problem however is not identifying the cause of action but gathering enough evidence to prove it. Which leads to my next heading which will describe why I believe this matter has been way too oversimplified in the eyes of the public.
Only stupid people get caught
Read the heading and then read it again if you still don't get it. Run in your mind the scenarios that Coco and Byun could have done to escape the evidentiary burden? Maybe try a list of the things below:
1. Not type for the other person to leave?
2. Deliberately overexpanding and droning up without building a large army
3. Make it a convincing loss?
4. Alternatively what about accidentally leaving the game? Saying pp and pretending to leave the game and pressing surrender by mistake. Or what about telling the person to say gg first, and then you tap out pretending that you thought the other person left first. This would almost 100% be construed as being an accident. No-one would even guess it was matchfixing and even if they did, it couldn't be proved.
In such a situation, it would be difficult to prove that a player dumped the game. Let me make an analogy in a real life situation, if a minister makes a decision without giving reasons, even if its obvious the outcome of the decision is unfair, unless you can prove the minister acted arbitrarily or capriciously without any merit to the facts or the law, you can't challenge the decision. Similarly, how can you prove that either players had a guilty mind if they don't make it obvious. Even if it is obvious a game was dumped, it would be hard to prove intent. Procedurally, taking it to the court would be too costly for the team wanting to persecute the player and would take too long. The only real consequence would be to not renew the players contract later on and of course hte fact that that player would also not likely be picked up from another team after the incident.
Boxer/Slayers/Resignation
People need to stop taking things at face value and understand:
1. Boxer apologised and Slayers asked their player to leave to save the reputation of their team and not for any other reason.
2. The players involved are now in damage control mode and would do anything to preserve their future image, potential sponsorships and livelihood. Nobody is truly sorry.
It hurts e-sports
Matchfixing does make games less entertaining to watch. But making a moral argument doesn't mean that much in reality. People will matchfix where the reward from matchfixing> reward from playing where risk is minimal. Sometimes the reward from matchfixing includes the risk of being caught.
If not for a potential catch all provision, then players should be able to decide themselves whether they want the other player to win or not. After all, if they aren't allowed, they will just find more elaborate ways to pretend to lose. How about deliberately failing a 6 pool and telling the other player to prepare? What about conveniently forgetting to research stim? What about forgetting gas?
If matchfixing isn't allowed, people are just going to be smarter about doing it. It's not that hard. Why would you make a system where the person with the most elaborate matchfixing tactic should win? Or why would you take away from a person their right to win or lose since they are paying the consequence as a result "losing their place in the competition". For better spectatorship? The only reason I can see, that is a valid reason is matchfixing screws with the team that sponsors them as it messes with their reputation and revenue but if a person is teamless, there is no reason why they shouldn't be able to matchfix. Morals mean very little when you can make a fortune, invest and escape the life which many progamers enter into to feed themselves and their family.
I'm just going to deal with your introductory premises. By way of introduction myself I'm a graduate student in history at a top ten American program in my specialization (the early Industrial Revolution in England and the Revivalist movement), and I have undergraduate degrees in both history and philosophy.
I take issue with this statement,
"The high entry requirements of the top law schools ensure that most of the students admitted into our top law schools are "LESS prone" to making mistakes. Thus ensuring a fairer justice system and less decisions being arbitrarily made or which lack equity."
There is no reason to think that academics, especially a profession concerned with interpreting "sacred text" like the Law, understand what "fairness" or "justice" is any more than an average human being. I hate to burst your notions about your field, but the law itself is just a bourgeois instrument that centralizes violence into the state to be exercised for the benefit of powerful groups within the domestic population. If you find that to be Marxist, it could be, but that is how Max Weber and other foundational sociologists saw it as well. Law is basically secular theology, with all the negative connotations that the word implies. Having a fair justice system is not a technocratic problem of proficiency, of not making mistakes - as no doubt it has been presented to you. Challenging the foundations of the so-called law is not a part of your elite education, for obvious reasons. Before the legacy of the Enlightenment was hijacked by capital, the notion of democracy became popular in part due to the recognition that elites are not necessarily more qualified to choose the values that the whole of the human race will embrace - because no individual or subset of the whole is uniquely qualified to do so.
Your post, while the rest of it that I didn't read might have been fine, began with a fallacious premise and a (more or less) extraneous amount of text related to praising yourself. Whether other people find it pretentious I don't know, but to me it came across as one of the first, halting steps in a silly elitism that, unless you're careful, will harden and mature in place of genuine confidence in yourself and your abilities. In short, it was puerile. Say something smart and people will appreciate it, leave it at that.
|
I liked reading your presentation regarding the matchfixing issue. It is true that the majority of forum users tend to actpost emotionally rather than rationally, and in many cases "thinking twice before posting" would really improve the quality of discussion.
Regarding what you posted on topic, I'm not a student of law so I just absorbed what you wrote with an open mind. Of course it would be stupid of me to accept them as anything more than a seemingly informed opinion, but that sure beats some random rage post by a generic forum user. As of my opinion, I agree with you that Coca/Byun could have done a lot better in the same situation if they really wanted to fix the match in the first place. The reactions and steps taken by Slayers and Coca are only natural because the evidence was made available and the most logical thing to do would be damage control.
Now, along the lines of what I said above, where did I need to prove my credentials in detail? I don't think I said anything other than "not a student of law" to get my message across. Your introduction regarding your credentials was largely unnecessary. A simple "student of law @ Austrailia with minimal experience" would have sufficed.
|
So this argument cheats enormously. This is how it works:
(1) You define the domain of evaluation to be that which is legal. By doing so, you exclude all ethical arguments, which may well be relevant to an evaluation of something generally considered to be dishonest behaviour.
(2) You assume that there is no rule in writing from (a) the tournament or (b) the team that prohibits purposely losing a match, and further deploy an argument that there shouldn't be one even if there is because it's hard to enforce, and apparently we shouldn't have rules that are hard to enforce.
(3) You triumphantly conclude that obviously they shouldn't be punished.
You're right. If we grant (a) that the only relevant domain is the legal one and (b.1) that there is no written regulation against such behaviour or (b.2) if there isn't a written regulation there shouldn't be, your argument follows. However, you don't really bother to argue for (a), the person who runs the tournament has suggested (b.1) is empirically false, and (b.2) is dubious. But yeah, if we grant your premises...
|
Almonjin,
welcome to my blog. I feel that your argument pivots on semantics. Ceterus paribus, if we have two students of equal ability to think independently and rationally and we place one in the course of law, and other in engineering, the law student would have a better understanding of fairness or justice for two reasons:
1. Because the word justice is interpreted according to society's perspective which is essentially based on the actual legal system which people 'perceive' to be the law and thus fair.
2. That the law course they teach in Australian Law schools teach us to evaluate the adequacy of the current regime of the law and challenge it. Many of the advanced units or research papers asks us to consider possible reforms which the lecturers use in their academic articles. It is not about simply memorising a 'sacred tome of legislation'.
Of course you can argue the doctrine of what fairness actually is but that is a philosophical one which I am not educated enough to present a worthy discussion with you about.
You are correct about the fact that the law is a tool that can be utilized more effectively by the rich. Again, history may suggest it is (similarly to religion) a tool to control masses for the benefit of powerful groups.
Your argument turns on semantics of what is fairness. It's also based on the fact that the current Australian curriculum does not ask us to challenge the 'foundations' of the law. While we are told to accept the separation of powers and the rule of law, there is nothing that is inherently wrong with this in general. What you mention applies more to public international law which I personally consider to be a load of bs - a unit I withdrew from due to contempt for how the course was taught.
Certainly the law is based upon a foundation whereby the source of power is in the crown and the state. But the Common law is based on precedent. The Australian legal system is arguably one of the most efficient systems in the world. Given your background, its not a surprise that you challenge the underlying notions of justice and fairness. Except given society's conceived perception of justice and taking it as is, a law student will always be most well equipped to deal with issues of equity and justice.
Similarly, despite the questionable foundations of the Australian Common Law, the development of recent law is prima facie (conspiracy theories aside) made to ensure fairness. Where perfection and complete uniformity in opinion is impossible, the current legal system is the second best thing. Pondering at what could be or could of been is seen to be a waste of time considering the effectiveness of the current system and the history and reform that has led to a stable society.
|
watch out, we got a badass over here
|
RetFan,
Let me try to put this in a way that you can understand.
Imagine you're in a courtroom in front of a jury and your opening statement goes a little something like this:
"Dear members of the jury, you are all here to determine whether or not my client is guilty but before I get to that let me spend 10 minutes of my 30 minute opening speech telling you all why I am much smarter and better than all of you and therefore you have to do what I tell you to do."
The best advice my English teacher gave me about writing is you have to know your audience. And writing a post on a forum like TL that prides itself on the intelligence of its community means that your audience will not be pleased by you spending 2 very long paragraphs telling us why you're so much smarter and better then us.
Take this beauty of a sentence for instance:
...they are there because I want readers to understand that what I write, my analytical skills and the depth which I can view a situation is such that MOST other readers will not be able to match
I'm going to ignore the irony of the fact that the paragraph that defends the verbosity of anything written in legalese is one of the longest paragraphs in your post and is filled with unnecessary boasting and other extra unneeded information. That sentence itself shows that you have 0 interest in actually having a discussion but all you want to do is TELL us why we have to think exactly like you do. If you expect the members of TL to accept your opinion simply because you think you're smarter than us then you clearly don't know your audience.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
