Seriously. I read the worst crap coming from anti-gun people on this Credo petition & in a pro-women's Facebook group about how we should not only ban assault rifles but also handguns as well as track every single bullet that goes into a gun, impose draconian measures & basically make gun rights non-existent.
One poster in particular really pissed me off. After she goes on a tirade about banning handguns & how "having guns in society is dangerous," she gets all offended when I present my response.
I said that she apparently enjoys being strip searched at the airport before taking a plane to go on vacation & wants to ban concealed carry permits (since you don't need them for shotguns, the only gun this loon didn't want to ban). I pointed out the corruptness of our government with the pepper spraying of peaceful protestors (Did we forget about the Occupy Wall Street protests & other Occupy protests elsewhere?) & arrests designed to promote censorship of citizens. I said I personally think we have enough invasions of privacy to not have to been regulated on this issue. Furthermore, what next? Are we going to be forced to account for all our bowel movements & what we drank for lunch? Basically, this is the slippery slope argument & is commonly used in legal argument. It is VALID and basically says "Give people an inch & they'll take a yard. Then they take more & more until you're living in total absurdity."
She claims "Oh, I didn't say THAT & I'm not going to respond b/c you didn't bother to READ my posts." I pointed out that it's not my task to try & read her mind as to her intentions, that I have better things to do than read every statement she's ever made on the issue & I believe I even said I don't debate with morons.
Plus, you try that in court & see what a judge says. The judge isn't going to try & read your mind. You have to be fucking CLEAR & PRECISE. If you can't do that, don't debate an attorney.
Then, I didn't read this whole comment but I saw one of those Facebook previews where apparently some member of this pro-woman's group thought I was going to care about being "rude" and was going to cave to this spineless dumb ass who wanted to play armchair lawyer & lost. Hell, no! If you can't stand by your words, don't waste my time.
Before that, I was reading last week's Dear Prudence letters on Slate.com & one of them led to some discussion with yet another armchair lawyer.
The first one generated a lot of debate. I personally think this wife is messed up & the guy should leave immediately since she obviously has severe mental issues and is not capable of that type of love.
However, there came up the discussion of the definition of rape. A guy who claimed to be a criminal law attorney chimed in & was correcting some people on what the law says. This one poster with a female screen name (because you never know gender for sure online) proceeds to get into a war of personal attacks & claims her arguments are more valid than this lawyer's. She then says "we aren't in the courtroom" but yet, she wants to debate a lawyer.
Okay, bitch. If you want your arguments to be regarded & valid to a lawyer, you need to do better than "we're not in the courtroom" to weasel out of a serious debate. You also need to not whine about how the lawyer is ignoring the bullshit spewing from your keyboard. Try making INTELLIGENT arguments & not expecting strangers to read your mind.
Doctors, I'm sure you see this often. Armchair assholes trying to tell you how to do your job & claiming they have more knowledge than you on a particular drug & what certain symptoms mean.
Well, armchair lawyers, psychologists, doctors, any other occupation that requires a professional license: If you want any of us who actually have the training & license to give a shit about what you say, why don't you get off your ass & go GET the education? How about YOU go to law school, take the bar exam and get licensed if you want to be a lawyer? Maybe you could also go to prison & self-teach in the prison law library. I don't notice jailhouse lawyers doing this sort of thing online.
Too hard for you? Well, then shut the fuck up when you can't do something right. If you can't debate properly, shut your damn mouth! Don't spout garbage & then try to weasel out of it by saying "we're not in court" or "you didn't read EVERY little thing I've ever written on the topic." I actually did read that dumb ass's earlier remarks in that topic & she was pretty consistent on calling for the massive privacy invasions and taking away the need for conceal carry permits. She also had Lisa Simpson as her profile picture & Lisa Simpson's character also annoys the hell out of me so maybe I should have taken that as a sign.
I do not play armchair professional or talk on topics I have no knowledge of. I'm not a criminal law attorney so that whole rape argument wasn't my place, even if I felt inclined to have a log in to comment on that article.
That some of the people who make some of these comments actually exist and live on this planet scares me. I also feel happy to have successfully sheltered myself from that kind of idiocy. At least my mother knows better than to try debating a lawyer unlike these armchair lawyers. That knowledge should scare you as well.
It's probably better for society & mankind that I do shelter myself from that stuff since I would totally annihilate someone for doing that in real life. I'd also be trying to get the person blackballed among attorneys since even lawyers I don't like don't need that kind of aggravation. Plus, I'd rather they not snap & kill us all from the sheer stress the armchair lawyer causes.
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Armchair Lawyers: How I Want to Kill Them as Well as Anti-Gun Maniacs
Posted by Film Co. Lawyer at 3:21 PM
Labels: anti-gun lobbyists, armchair lawyers, armchair professionals, Credo, debating a lawyer, Facebook, Lisa Simpson
Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)
Nice blog and absolutely outstanding. You can do something much better but i still say this perfect.Keep trying for the best.ReplyDelete