Freedom of the Press

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
243
1,693
Denver
And here we have it again. "I'm wrong, but I'm going to defend it to the death!"

Smurf on reggae woman!
In certain contexts it can be that simple and in others I don't think so. Like I think in the court of public opinion of someone's character it leans more to being that simple. But when things lean towards violations of laws or border on something that could lead to someone being sued. It needs leans a different direction.

I am working on my submission to Merriam Webster.

I am totally fine with the definition being that simple. Again it works in certain contexts. I just think we need to bring that definition tighter to give the term more pop.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
I absolutely do NOT think I know more than you.

I think "Same position or not, if your argument for or against someone's actions is "what about", it's a whataboutism." combined with "Whataboutism is a logical fallacy" overlaps with the use of precedent to the point it doesn't work for my thought process.

Edit: I read over that article and glossed over the ruling. That fact it is being discussed in academia and going through multiple layers of the judicial system to have a 5-4 opinion reached makes me think there is room for opinions in there. Also the fact they are discussing how precedent was used to alter sentences in courts and whether or not that is valid certainly lends credence to my assertion that courts argue over precedent in defense cases.
Word salad, meaning nothing....got it.

I didn't say you think you know more than me. i said you think you know more than you actually do.

Your statement also lends credence to my assertion that you don't have a clue about what the legal term "precedent" means or how it is used.

You think you're right. I know you're wrong. Are we done here?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
In certain contexts it can be that simple and in others I don't think so. Like I think in the court of public opinion of someone's character it leans more to being that simple. But when things lean towards violations of laws or border on something that could lead to someone being sued. It needs leans a different direction.

I am working on my submission to Merriam Webster.

I am totally fine with the definition being that simple. Again it works in certain contexts. I just think we need to bring that definition tighter to give the term more pop.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
I will say this....the poster that can end up putting @RxCowboy and me on the same side of an argument is a rare breed.

So kudos for that.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
243
1,693
Denver
Word salad, meaning nothing....got it.

I didn't say you think you know more than me. i said you think you know more than you actually do.

Your statement also lends credence to my assertion that you don't have a clue about what the legal term "precedent" means or how it is used.

You think you're right. I know you're wrong. Are we done here?
We'll have to alert Brian A. Jacobs that he was wrong with his below statement and that he doesn't understand precedent too. We kinda glossed over the specifics of what he was wrong about it but we did firmly establish CowboyJD is right according to CowboyJD.


"In federal criminal cases, federal law requires that judges consider the sentences other courts have imposed in factually similar matters....The article explores the ways the parties in those cases have used sentencing precedent in their advocacy, as well as the ways the courts involved have used sentencing precedent to justify their decisions. "

Tidbit about Brian.

Brian A. Jacobs is a former federal prosecutor who represents individuals and organizations in criminal, civil, and regulatory matters, internal investigations, and appeals. His cases have involved allegations of financial fraud, antitrust violations, accounting fraud, insider trading, bribery and corruption, computer hacking, and trade-secrets theft. Brian previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was Deputy Chief of Appeals.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
We'll have to alert Brian A. Jacobs that he was wrong with his below statement and that he doesn't understand precedent too. We kinda glossed over the specifics of what he was wrong about it but we did firmly establish CowboyJD is right according to CowboyJD.


"In federal criminal cases, federal law requires that judges consider the sentences other courts have imposed in factually similar matters....The article explores the ways the parties in those cases have used sentencing precedent in their advocacy, as well as the ways the courts involved have used sentencing precedent to justify their decisions. "

Tidbit about Brian.

Brian A. Jacobs is a former federal prosecutor who represents individuals and organizations in criminal, civil, and regulatory matters, internal investigations, and appeals. His cases have involved allegations of financial fraud, antitrust violations, accounting fraud, insider trading, bribery and corruption, computer hacking, and trade-secrets theft. Brian previously served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, where he was Deputy Chief of Appeals.
Citing a blurb trying to sell a book as legal authority again.

Get after it, smurf.
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
243
1,693
Denver
Citing a blurb trying to sell a book as legal authority again.

Get after it, smurf.
When discussing legal terms on a message board. You can't use the terms in a way a Lawyer would when writing in a legal journal. No... you must go so deep into legalease that it cannot even be discussed unless you are a lawyer. Even then you don't expand on anything. You just point out to others that they aren't lawyers.

Does it get any more pedantic than that?
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
When discussing legal terms on a message board. You can't use the terms in a way a Lawyer would when writing in a legal journal. No... you must go so deep into legalease that it cannot even be discussed unless you are a lawyer. Even then you don't expand on anything. You just point out to others that they aren't lawyers.

Does it get any more pedantic than that?
Words have meaning. Legal words have legal meaning. You might listen to the licensed and practicing attorney to the meaning of the legal words. Or you can keep defending your flawed and increasingly inane interpretations.

Smurf on McDuff!
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
Words have meaning. Legal words have legal meaning. You might listen to the licensed and practicing attorney to the meaning of the legal words. Or you can keep defending your flawed and increasingly inane interpretations.

Smurf on McDuff!
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
243
1,693
Denver
One for the highlights for me was when I was literally posting definitions while discussing what a definition should be and I sarcastically said "No matter how far we dive into semantics".

And your response was to give me the definition of semantics(as if I didn't know) to say that we in fact were not discussing semantics. Since obviously he was right and I was wrong... While the definition of a word was literally the topic at not one but two levels of the discussion...

We may have to rework the definition of pedantic cause it is now a moving target going ever higher with every CowboyJD post.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
One for the highlights for me was when I was literally posting definitions while discussing what a definition should be and I sarcastically said "No matter how far we dive into semantics".

And your response was to give me the definition of semantics(as if I didn't know) to say that we in fact were not discussing semantics. Since obviously he was right and I was wrong... While the definition of a word was literally the topic at not one but two levels of the discussion...

We may have to rework the definition of pedantic cause it is now a moving target going ever higher with every CowboyJD post.
Cool.

To dismiss something as meaningless semantics (now...afterwards, you were doing it sarcastically...very Trumplike that)....when we are discussing the very meaning of the words....is the height of stupidity.

Smurf on Papa Smurf.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
One for the highlights for me was when I was literally posting definitions while discussing what a definition should be and I sarcastically said "No matter how far we dive into semantics".

And your response was to give me the definition of semantics(as if I didn't know) to say that we in fact were not discussing semantics. Since obviously he was right and I was wrong... While the definition of a word was literally the topic at not one but two levels of the discussion...

We may have to rework the definition of pedantic cause it is now a moving target going ever higher with every CowboyJD post.
When you're talking about legal terms with very specific meanings, "semantics" are important. They are important in pharmacy and medicine too. If a student writes "thrombus" on an exam when she should have written "embolus" she gets it wrong even though they are both "clots" in the common vernacular. Dismissing a licensed and practicing attorney who is trying ever so patiently to teach you the meaning of "precedent" which you have totally and completely wrong, as pedantic... well good night nurse.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Cool.

To dismiss something as meaningless semantics (now...afterwards, you were doing it sarcastically...very Trumplike that)....when we are discussing the very meaning of the words....is the height of stupidity.

Smurf on Papa Smurf.
What was that thing you said about playing chess with a pigeon?
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
243
1,693
Denver
Cool.

To dismiss something as meaningless semantics (now...afterwards, you were doing it sarcastically...very Trumplike that)....when we are discussing the very meaning of the words....is the height of stupidity.

Smurf on Papa Smurf.
I didn't dismiss it. I was making a joke at how far down in it we were. Your gut reaction was to tell me I didn't know what the word meant and that we weren't in it. You literally argued that we weren't actually talking semantics. That was my point.

Oh and the reason I didn't point it out immediately is because I actually had a rude response typed but I deleted it hoping I would at some point learn something as we were discussing things. That proved impossible.

Your guys chess metaphor is a good one. It would be like two guys play chess and before you get too far in one guys says we are actually playing "legal" chess and that move you just made isn't allowed. The rules are I can point out what moves you can't make but I don't ever tell you what moves you can make.

Oh and let's remember. My basic point is could a statement like "What about case XYZ with similar facts?" ever come up in a legal situation and hold water. Hmm... Wonder what would happen if I asked one of the dozens of lawyers in my family, friend, and work groups that basic scenario?
 
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
243
1,693
Denver
When you're talking about legal terms with very specific meanings, "semantics" are important. They are important in pharmacy and medicine too. If a student writes "thrombus" on an exam when she should have written "embolus" she gets it wrong even though they are both "clots" in the common vernacular. Dismissing a licensed and practicing attorney who is trying ever so patiently to teach you the meaning of "precedent" which you have totally and completely wrong, as pedantic... well good night nurse.
Wait, when I pointed out the incredibly pedantic behavior that I tried to ignore for a bit. Your reaction is to go on an unrelated lecture and tell me I should listen because I am in the presence of a licensed attorney?

I feel like we are just in a troll response loop where I point out pedantic behavior and you all respond with an even more pedantic response.