JW Lawyers getting fed up with cleaning up after the GB?

by ithinkisee 46 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Big Tex

  seethesky

  But that is why 'ethics' and 'lawyer' are so often incompatible. The ease at which they bend conscience to fit interpretation of law, often leave ethics by the wayside. Certainly not for every attorney, but enough that the stereotype of lawyers, unfortunately, fits more often than not.

  Your statement

  Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty.

  belies the reality of most people who come in contact with lawyers of today. In all fairness I work with several who are painfully honest and I would trust beyond all doubt. Of course I there are many more that are the polar opposite. The vast majority I have come across are miserable human beings.

  For myself I only object to the global inference that all lawyers are ethical and honest. From my experience, and others whom I know, the picture is unfortunately pointed in the opposite direction.

  I apologize for hijacking this thread on to such a picayune point. It is probably working around such difficult people as lawyers that got my goat up enough to say what I have.
• 

  seesthesky

  HILLARY: "I apologize for calling you stupid. Despite the fact that you do not seem even seem to comprehend your own posts, it was uncalled for. That having been said, I do have to give you this weeks 'Knocked Out Boxer Claims Victory' award."
  
  Lol - nice apology - you rendered it meaningless with another ad hominem attack.
  
  HILLARY: "I am sure that this has something to do with the issue in question. Perhaps you might enlighten us with your own particular brand of logic as to what relevance this has."
  
  I asked whether you were/are a JW elder because it might account for your name calling. I base this hypothesis (not a conclusion mind you)on the following:
  
  JW ELDERS TAKE THE LEAD IN ALL THINGS HANDED DOWN FROM WTBTS
  
  WTBTS OFTEN, IN LITERATURE, ENGAGES IN AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND, IN FACT, A TENET OF WTBTS DOCTRINE RESTS UPON AD HOMINEM THINKING - E.G., THE "WORLDLY ONES"
  
  YOU ARE ON A EX-JW BOARD ENGAGING IN UNPROVOKED AD HOMINEM ATTACKS - AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU EQUATE SUCH ATTACKS AS A FORM OF "REASONING"
  
  I HAVE GUESSED, THEREFORE, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TAKEN THE LEAD OR DO TAKE THE LEAD AS A JW ELDER
  
  AM I RIGHT?
  
  P.S. SOMETHING IS WRONG WITH MY KEYBOARD - IT IS STUCK FOR SOME REASON IN ALLCAPS - SHOUTING NOT INTENDED - AGGGGHHHH, I HATE THIS MACHINE
• 

  seesthesky

  BIGTEX: "But that is why 'ethics' and 'lawyer' are so often incompatible. The ease at which they bend conscience to fit interpretation of law, often leave ethics by the wayside. Certainly not for every attorney, but enough that the stereotype of lawyers, unfortunately, fits more often than not."
  
  When referring to ethics as they pertain to lawyers, I mean professional ethics as opposed to personal ones. E.g., a common ethical obligation for a lawyer is loyalty to a client. This obligation may require a lawyer to vigorously represent a fiend, construing laws beyond their intent. This confuses many non-lawyers because they operate on a more personal set of ethics.
  
  BIGTEX: "Your statement, 'Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty,'
  belies the reality of most people who come in contact with lawyers of today. In all fairness I work with several who are painfully honest and I would trust beyond all doubt. Of course I there are many more that are the polar opposite. The vast majority I have come across are miserable human beings."
  
  I agree that many people, based on personal experiences, perceive lawyers as liars. I think, though, that this perception (in the U.S. anyway) comes from a misunderstanding of the adversarial legal system in which lawyers litigate. Many non-lawyers I know completely misunderstand how this adversarial system often crucifies the truth for a win.
  
  I too know many miserable lawyers.
  
  BIGTEX: "For myself I only object to the global inference that all lawyers are ethical and honest."
  
  I never made a global inference that all lawyers are ethical and honest. If I gave that impression to anyone, it probably resulted from my objection to the opposite inference given by jeanine.
  
  BIGTEX: "I apologize for hijacking this thread on to such a picayune point. It is probably working around such difficult people as lawyers that got my goat up enough to say what I have."
  
  What does "hijacking this thread" mean?
• 

  AlanF

  seethesky said:

  : I think, though, that this perception (in the U.S. anyway) comes from a misunderstanding of the adversarial legal system in which lawyers litigate. Many non-lawyers I know completely misunderstand how this adversarial system often crucifies the truth for a win.

  Perhaps so, but that strongly suggests that this adversarial system ought to be modified to one where getting at the truth of guilt or innocence is paramount. Any system that produces what most people perceive as pathological liars -- e.g. the JWs -- needs to be straightened out, eh?

  AlanF
• 

  Big Tex

  What does "hijacking this thread" mean?

  "Hijacking" refers to someone (like me) who takes the original thread and makes a sharp left turn on some obscure point. This thead had to do with JW lawyers possibly getting tired of dealing with the GB's lies.

  We now return to our original programming.
• 

  hillary_step

  seethesky,

  I asked whether you were/are a JW elder because it might account for your name calling. I base this hypothesis (not a conclusion mind you)on the following:
  
  JW ELDERS TAKE THE LEAD IN ALL THINGS HANDED DOWN FROM WTBTS WTBTS OFTEN, IN LITERATURE, ENGAGES IN AD HOMINEM ATTACKS AND, IN FACT, A TENET OF WTBTS DOCTRINE RESTS UPON AD HOMINEM THINKING - E.G., THE "WORLDLY ONES" YOU ARE ON A EX-JW BOARD ENGAGING IN UNPROVOKED AD HOMINEM ATTACKS - AND IT APPEARS THAT YOU EQUATE SUCH ATTACKS AS A FORM OF "REASONING" I HAVE GUESSED, THEREFORE, THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TAKEN THE LEAD OR DO TAKE THE LEAD AS A JW ELDER AM I RIGHT?

  You have still not explained what all this has to do with the issue at hand. Does my informing you of my standing as a Jehovah's Witness / ex Jehovah's Witness negate my analysis of your arguments? It is in fact an ad hominem attack as it is focusing not on my arguments but my personna. Tut tut!

  Actually, I believe that ad hominem attacks are a very useful tool in board debate and I have never been opposed to their use. It is often a much more direct route to shake a persons thinking than are semantics, so I do not discount the value of ad hominem attacks. I will certainly, as a matter of kindness, answer all your questions when we have clarified your position on this matter.

  Let me break this down for you as you seem to be deliberately missing the point. At least I hope that it is deliberate, the alternative is even more worrying.

  You state :

  Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity?

  In line with your own argument, were you discussing 'most' lawyers or just 'lawyers' in general? Recall your critcisms of Jeannie's 'sweeping statement' then view your own!

  Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case.

  In line with your own argument, were you discussing 'most' lawyers or just 'lawyers' in general? Recall your critcisms of Jeannie's 'sweeping statement' then view your own!

  Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty.

  In line with your own argument, were you discussing 'most' lawyers or just 'lawyers' in general? Recall your critcisms of Jeannie's 'sweeping statement' then view your own!

  Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty.

  Now, if you cannot see that your attack on Jeannie's point of view is in fact negated by your own sweeping statements, then all hope is lost.

  HS
• 

  hillary_step

  seethesky,

  What does "hijacking this thread" mean?

  Hijacking a thread is what we have just done. It is also what happens to most threads in the end.

  HS
• 

  seesthesky

  HILLARY: "You have still not explained what all this has to do with the issue at hand. Does my informing you of my standing as a Jehovah's Witness / ex Jehovah's Witness negate my analysis of your arguments? It is in fact an ad hominem attack as it is focusing not on my arguments but my personna. Tut tut!"
  
  
  I answered this but you ignored the answer. It follows:
  
  "I did not present my views regarding lawyers as a universal notion - look again.
  
  "In the first instance, I asked a rhetorical question the (implied) answer to which I predicated on a FACT - not an opinion or "universal notion" - in the subsequent sentence. That fact is that usually (note, I used "usually in the original sentence), a lawyer cannot testify in a case where she is an advocate.
  
  "In the second instance, the sentence which you incorrectly construed as a 'universal notion,' I presented yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty. Some jurisdictions will even go as far to disbar for dishonesty in personal matters if, somehow,the dishonesty in personal matters becomes public knowledge, e.g., via a news report or a divorce proceeding. My statement about ethical obligations thus constitutes not conjecture but fact. [As an aside: a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers.]"
  
  Apparently, I did not communicate my point effectively. So I will try again.
  
  I wrote:
  
  "Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  From my statement you inferred that I meant, implicitly, the following:
  
  "Why would ( most ) lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? ( Most ) Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for ( most ) lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  In short, you inferred that I implied that most lawyers are honest. Examine the function of each sentence and you will see the error of your inference.
  
  1(a): "Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity?"
  
  1(a) = a rhetorical question indicating disbelief that lawyers would lie in cases where they act as advocates.
  
  2(a): "Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case."
  
  2(a) = an answer to the rhetorical question in 1(a), an answer based on the fact that a lawyer usually cannot testify in a case where she acts as an advocate.
  
  3(a): "Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty."
  
  3(a) = yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty in most matters, even personal matters. As an aside, a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers. Although I did not flesh this out fully, my thought in including this fact was to show that in matters before a court, a lawyer who cares about her law license probably would not lie.
  
  4(a): "Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  4(a) = the only opinion I offered as to the honesty of lawyers. Again, note that I qualified my opinion by limiting it only to "most lawyers I know." I did not even go as far to say, "all lawyers I know."
  
  Hillary, my inquiry about your standing as a JW has nothing to do with the above. I only asked the question to see if the answer proved my hypothesis. I should have sent the question in a PM.
• 

  seesthesky

  ALAN: "Perhaps so, but that strongly suggests that this adversarial system ought to be modified to one where getting at the truth of guilt or innocence is paramount. Any system that produces what most people perceive as pathological liars -- e.g. the JWs -- needs to be straightened out, eh?"
  
  I agree. The adversarial system needs serious reform.
• 

  hillary_step

  seethesky,

  HILLARY: "You have still not explained what all this has to do with the issue at hand. Does my informing you of my standing as a Jehovah's Witness / ex Jehovah's Witness negate my analysis of your arguments? It is in fact an ad hominem attack as it is focusing not on my arguments but my personna. Tut tut!"
  
  
  I answered this but you ignored the answer. It follows:
  
  "I did not present my views regarding lawyers as a universal notion - look again.
  
  "In the first instance, I asked a rhetorical question the (implied) answer to which I predicated on a FACT - not an opinion or "universal notion" - in the subsequent sentence. That fact is that usually (note, I used "usually in the original sentence), a lawyer cannot testify in a case where she is an advocate.
  
  "In the second instance, the sentence which you incorrectly construed as a 'universal notion,' I presented yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty. Some jurisdictions will even go as far to disbar for dishonesty in personal matters if, somehow,the dishonesty in personal matters becomes public knowledge, e.g., via a news report or a divorce proceeding. My statement about ethical obligations thus constitutes not conjecture but fact. [As an aside: a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers.]"
  
  Apparently, I did not communicate my point effectively. So I will try again.
  
  I wrote:
  
  "Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  From my statement you inferred that I meant, implicitly, the following:
  
  "Why would ( most ) lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? ( Most ) Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for ( most ) lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  In short, you inferred that I implied that most lawyers are honest. Examine the function of each sentence and you will see the error of your inference.
  
  1(a): "Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity?"
  
  1(a) = a rhetorical question indicating disbelief that lawyers would lie in cases where they act as advocates.
  
  2(a): "Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case."
  
  2(a) = an answer to the rhetorical question in 1(a), an answer based on the fact that a lawyer usually cannot testify in a case where she acts as an advocate.
  
  3(a): "Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty."
  
  3(a) = yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty in most matters, even personal matters. As an aside, a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers. Although I did not flesh this out fully, my thought in including this fact was to show that in matters before a court, a lawyer who cares about her law license probably would not lie.
  
  4(a): "Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  4(a) = the only opinion I offered as to the honesty of lawyers. Again, note that I qualified my opinion by limiting it only to "most lawyers I know." I did not even go as far to say, "all lawyers I know."
  
  Hillary, my inquiry about your standing as a JW has nothing to do with the above. I only asked the question to see if the answer proved my hypothesis. I should have sent the question in a PM.

  HILLARY: "You have still not explained what all this has to do with the issue at hand. Does my informing you of my standing as a Jehovah's Witness / ex Jehovah's Witness negate my analysis of your arguments? It is in fact an ad hominem attack as it is focusing not on my arguments but my personna. Tut tut!"
  
  
  I answered this but you ignored the answer. It follows:
  
  "I did not present my views regarding lawyers as a universal notion - look again.
  
  "In the first instance, I asked a rhetorical question the (implied) answer to which I predicated on a FACT - not an opinion or "universal notion" - in the subsequent sentence. That fact is that usually (note, I used "usually in the original sentence), a lawyer cannot testify in a case where she is an advocate.
  
  "In the second instance, the sentence which you incorrectly construed as a 'universal notion,' I presented yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty. Some jurisdictions will even go as far to disbar for dishonesty in personal matters if, somehow,the dishonesty in personal matters becomes public knowledge, e.g., via a news report or a divorce proceeding. My statement about ethical obligations thus constitutes not conjecture but fact. [As an aside: a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers.]"
  
  Apparently, I did not communicate my point effectively. So I will try again.
  
  I wrote:
  
  "Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  From my statement you inferred that I meant, implicitly, the following:
  
  "Why would ( most ) lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity? ( Most ) Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case. Also, the ethical obligations for ( most ) lawyers require complete honesty. Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  In short, you inferred that I implied that most lawyers are honest. Examine the function of each sentence and you will see the error of your inference.
  
  1(a): "Why would lawyers lie in court on cases where they represent someone or some entity?"
  
  1(a) = a rhetorical question indicating disbelief that lawyers would lie in cases where they act as advocates.
  
  2(a): "Lawyers, usually, would not testify in such circumstances - in fact, that could disqualify a lawyer from a case."
  
  2(a) = an answer to the rhetorical question in 1(a), an answer based on the fact that a lawyer usually cannot testify in a case where she acts as an advocate.
  
  3(a): "Also, the ethical obligations for lawyers require complete honesty."
  
  3(a) = yet another fact: the ethical obligations of lawyers require complete honesty in most matters, even personal matters. As an aside, a lawyer's ethical obligations constitute laws which affect no one but lawyers. Although I did not flesh this out fully, my thought in including this fact was to show that in matters before a court, a lawyer who cares about her law license probably would not lie.
  
  4(a): "Although some lawyers ignore that obligation, and although the media (hollywood mainly) has often used the stereotype of a lying lawyer ad naseum, most lawyers I know adhere to the obligation of honesty."
  
  4(a) = the only opinion I offered as to the honesty of lawyers. Again, note that I qualified my opinion by limiting it only to "most lawyers I know." I did not even go as far to say, "all lawyers I know."
  
  Hillary, my inquiry about your standing as a JW has nothing to do with the above. I only asked the question to see if the answer proved my hypothesis. I should have sent the question in a PM.

  Okay, you win.

  See how easy I am to get on with.

  HS