What do lawyers do? • Hacker News Board

Re: What do lawyers do?

#151

Post by smitty1e » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 1:47 AM UTC

rgifford wrote: post #125

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You misunderstand. Law is about persuasion - which is to say it's a combination of marketing, power plays, intimidation, theatrical performance, bureaucratic procedure, and politics. The logical (verbal) reasoning element is only relevant in those situations where it can be used as a tool of persuasion. It's not the only tool, and it isn't even the most powerful one. It is absolutely nothing like coding in any sense…

> Law is about persuasion... Yep, we have an adversarial, common law system. So we measure our lawyers on their ability to manipulate regardless of the moral or social outcome. I don't think this is a facet of law in general, so much as a legal system that hasn't grown past ~1790.

> a legal system that hasn't grown past ~1790

Technology varies, but the human genome is (effectively) constant.

One is skeptical regarding what global improvement is possible.

Certainly individual optimizations (maturity) are worth pusuing.

But some teleolgical societal endpoint (Progress) that we should pursue could prove a total bugaboo.

Re: What do lawyers do?

#152

Post by formerkrogemp » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 4:08 AM UTC

pigtailgirl wrote: post #46

berberous wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have some sort of personal dislike for the period?

-- our quake/ut clan used a double dash at the start & end of msg's on forums & irc back in the day - don't recall why our clan leader came up with it - we already had a -[nick|tag]- - either way it stuck with me - the middle dashes mostly because I think they are marginally easier to read - when I write my notes with a dash to separate the thoughts - i've found it's a bit quicker to skim through - happy to change if…

Fascinating

Re: What do lawyers do?

#153

Post by quacked » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 5:03 AM UTC

formerkrogemp wrote: post #148

quacked wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Midwifing is medicine, babysitting is not an industry, and formal education was invented in the 1800s. People have been capable of educating each other and watching children without full-time school for thousands of years, it's only recently that westerners completely forgot how to do it.

> People have been capable of educating each other and watching children without full-time school for thousands of years, it's only recently that westerners completely forgot how to do it. You sound ignorant of how western society works. Cost of living has increased significantly in the west and globally so that both parents must work to provide for children, especially in urban areas. Work opportunities are often on…

Yawn. If you think all of that past-60-years crap is necessary for the survival of civilization, you deserve the modern lifestyle. I said "the fundamental industries", not "the current industries".

Re: What do lawyers do?

#154

Post by t_mann » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 8:53 AM UTC

adrianmonk wrote: post #111

t_mann wrote: post #83

> Law is an impressionistic business, much less scientific than macroeconomics or inflation management Not sure if this is an intended jab at economists or just an ironic misconception. Macroeconomics is arguably the academic discipline with the worst track record in terms of prediction, and inflation is the biggest mystery within there. I remember in 2014, then ECB president Mario Draghi was asked whether stimulus m…

I don't see how saying "my professional (law) is worse than that other profession (macroeconomics)" is a jab. A jab would be the other way around: "the only thing worse than my profession is that other profession".

Praising a profession that is notorious for its lack of a specific trait for having exactly that trait, while there are be countless other examples that would come to mind more readily, can indeed be a subtle jab.

Re: What do lawyers do?

#155

Post by e-clinton » Sun, Jul 03, 2022, 11:47 AM UTC

staticman2 wrote: post #92

ABCLAW wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This isn't a "great lawyer" play . It's the standard play for any unscrupulous party engaged against a party with limited funds. Even if a case is pretty open and shut, you can tie it up for years in motions for little benefit. This isn't hard at all.It's hard to be on the other side and respond to it. A great lawyer can achieve a settlement against a party like this without the need to throw sacks of cash onto a fir…

"A great lawyer can achieve a settlement against a party like this without the need to throw sacks of cash onto a firepit." A lawyer, good or bad, has no control whether the other party settles.

You clearly haven’t seen Suits

Re: What do lawyers do?

#156

Post by dcow » Fri, Jul 08, 2022, 9:08 AM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #89

dcow wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have no religious affiliation beyond accepting others’ religions (I’m not atheist because ultimately atheism is overly restrictive in its worldview) and agree that abortion is way more nuanced than what modern feminists present. Personally, I’ve been on both sides of the spectrum at different points in my life. I believe I am now somewhere in the middle and the reasons are not in any way religious. They’re based on…

> I’m not atheist because ultimately atheism is overly restrictive in its worldview I don't consider myself atheist either. But I do not believe in any sort of god. I figure 'atheist' actually goes a little too far in making assumptions, so I prefer 'ignostic.' On the bright side, people hear what they want to hear when you use that term. A good chunk of my extended family, who I otherwise quite like, are evangelical…

What is uniquely interesting in this scenario is that there isn't any science supporting one side either. Totally agree about not pushing religious beliefs on society in the face of a rational understanding. That’s simply destructive and toxic. But in this case, we really do need to drop the rational vs religious rhetoric and acknowledge this is entirely a social issue. I think discussions would get a lot further if we were all able to frame it that way.