do i think and/or debate like a lawyer (ILR and/or TV version)?

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

i. ok i just wasted several hours today and yesterday zeroing in what *i* think were non-fatal weaknesses opponents' argts re OJ -- bcz i get a kick out of separating the good bits of a position with from the bad bits, ie (sometimes) of arguing in order to strengthen someone's line i overall disagree with -- sometimes i think "YAY ME!" as a result but quite often i think "WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH ME?"

ii. i have probably devoted of my life to watch police and legal procedurals on tv than ANY OTHER ACTIVITY (is that true? i think it might be)

iii. and plus my dayjob = copy editor/sub editor/proofing editor = i am paid to pick out the lame bits in other writers' writing and toss them back to get them right

iv. but actually this thread is not about me: the secret question you must answer is "Do *YOU* think and/or debate like a lawyer? (and is this a good or a bad thing?)"

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:07 (nineteen years ago)

(actual real lawyers can talk abt me if they like)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:10 (nineteen years ago)

i. Yes, that does strike me as the first step into the larger world of lawyerly thinking

ii. Watching legal shows has about as little to do with learning to think like a lawyer as watching Starsky and Hutch has to do with learning to think like a cop (ok, maybe a little more than that)

iii. Yeah I think, writing/editing tends to have something do with legalistic thinking

iv. Yeah, I also tend to think and debate a little like a laywer, which annoys the shit out of my wife. (Typical argument: my wife tells me the guy she just saw on the PATH train was "the tallest guy she'd ever seen in her life" -- I proceed to estimate the height of the train ceiling, ask if he was bent over -- which he wasn't, and then insist that she's exaggerating)

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:14 (nineteen years ago)

i never understand the phrase "innocent till proven guilty" in a non-legal context. people get hooked on legalism, i guess, but it's a weird expression isn't it? as if we all had to think like people in the law-and-order business are supposed to. my dad is in it so i'm not over-enamoured.

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:15 (nineteen years ago)

Yeah, "innocent until proven guilty" only applies within a very specific legal context - i.e. you're innocent in the eyes of the law. You can't use it to get out of a fight with your spouse.

It's kind of like when you criticize someone for having a racist/stupid/objectionable opinion and they say "freedom of speech." Yeah, you have the freedom to speak like a jackass and I have the freedom to call you one for it.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:18 (nineteen years ago)

"Possession is 9/10 of law!" != "I can steal your stuff"

― ONIMO feels teh NOIZE (GerryNemo), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:19 (nineteen years ago)

"innocent until proven guilty" is inherently a legal phrase. It exists almost solely as a basic assumption of the right to a fair trial. In a parenting/educational/marital setting, however, this phrase rarely has any application.

What non-legal context were you talking about?

― B.L.A.M. (Big Loud Mountain Ape), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:21 (nineteen years ago)

it's a phrase people use often about all manner of things, though usually about people doing (or not doing, let's be fair) things they shouldn't have.

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:23 (nineteen years ago)

"Do you have any proof that Barry Bonds was juicing? Innocent 'til proven guilty, innit?"

― milo z (mlp), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:26 (nineteen years ago)

"innocent until proven guilty" is (to me) like a basic rule without which the "game" cannot proceed

my two (contrary) impulses likely to produce er intervention are:
i. ok you are playing the game for the right motives but you are playing it BADLY
ii. ok you are playing the game for the right motives but to PLAY THEIR GAME is to CONCEDE THE FUNDAMENTAL THING

if i am in a mood to get ratty, either one of these will do it, but the combo will get to me even if i am in a great mood (tho in that case i tend to be more mischievous than pedantic)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:32 (nineteen years ago)

don't hate the player, mark.

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

tv lawyering involves oodles of logic of narrative AND drama of the ethical dilemma -- both of these strike me as lawyerly modes, even if the specific content of cop and court shows is highly unreliable (i've no idea about that -- i've never been in an actual real courtroom in any capacity)

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:37 (nineteen years ago)

i like court scenes as in 'the wire' which are a bit "how the fuck did this happen?", which is how i think a lot of people in the game see it. the court/penal system was never conceived for the sort of mass-correction project they're apparently going for.

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:40 (nineteen years ago)

TV lawyering (and copping) seems to have more "Eureka! Case winner!" moments than I'd imagine real lawyering has.

― ONIMO feels teh NOIZE (GerryNemo), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

haha y'think.

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:41 (nineteen years ago)

'hooray we sent a low-level drug dealer to a prison -- problem solved'

― benrique (Enrique), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:42 (nineteen years ago)

haha once a pleeceman came round to my flat to ask if i'd heard anything -- the entire nabe wz bein trawled after a crime across the street -- and i was watching the bill, so i said, "do you guys watch it at all?" and he said "oh, yes we all love it! they always catch the villain and we never do!"

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:44 (nineteen years ago)

but sadly he failed to use the word "scrote"

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:45 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think I do at all - which is a shame as (especially since my 'move') I work in a legal office (non-legal background at all) - I have developed legal knowledge and skills appropriate to the level of my job (*all* on the effing job, training schmaining although I am pushing hard for some more in my 'new' office) but still can feel like I'm floundering at some times - even in terms of phrasing things, it's obvious that the qualified lawyers will put their points better than you do, sigh.

― Bhumibol Adulyadej (Lucretia My Reflection), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:48 (nineteen years ago)

i am good at succinct but not always quite so good at clear!

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:51 (nineteen years ago)

My 'rents always said I did but only because I always wanted to be right (according to THEM) and was extremely stubborn AND always wanted to have the last say. Of course I disagree cause I don't have an analytical mind (like you do, Mark S). I watch CSI but stupidly. I often think of you, Mark, when I watch it thinking "What would Marky Mark have to say about this? Probably something extremely SMRAT!"

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

I'm good at picking holes in other people's arguments and I'd probably win cases if there was a point scoring system rather than stupid decision reached by a jury of peers based on the balance of evidence.

That's 21-17, you're free to go!

― ONIMO feels teh NOIZE (GerryNemo), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:54 (nineteen years ago)

Parents also say stuff like that because THEY probably want to believe you will become a lawyer and take care of them in their old age.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:55 (nineteen years ago)

There are some words which are now DANGER WORDS in my head because the lawyers will pick them up and run with them, eg 'right' -- DO NOT USE THIS EVER in negotiation ever! A good point in law I think is taking one word and then talking about it's meaning and definition for the next half an hour (whilst yrs truly goes 'huh, don't they both mean the same think, oh but I don't have an LLB so I'll just shut up now' - and it turns out they DID mean the same thing and one was just a more American term and BOTHERED BOTHERED IT MADE NO DIFFERENCE IN THE END now gimme paycheck).

― Bhumibol Adulyadej (Lucretia My Reflection), Thursday, 16 November 2006 16:55 (nineteen years ago)

Sorry to interrupt with this stupid question, but what does ILR mean? Is it a typo for IRL or is it something else I don't know about?

― StanM (StanM), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:17 (nineteen years ago)

"In legal reality"

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

it stands for "i love reality"

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:20 (nineteen years ago)

My parents used to think I would be a good lawyer because I like arguing with people. I think I would be a crap lawyer because I am a bad loser and cannot be bothered with the minutiae, preferring just to go "ha you said something wrong therefore you are completely wrong about everything and I can (occasionally) convince you of same, or else just bore you until you just give up and admit I'm right".

(this doesn't happen often enough for my liking. It happens a lot with my parents, but this is because they think I'm cleverer than them, and I can do a good job of convincing them so, even though I'm not really)

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:26 (nineteen years ago)

i dont think like a lawyer, but i do dress like one!

― i've dreamt of rubies! (Mandee), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:29 (nineteen years ago)

(I would totally become a lawyer if it was like what Gerry suggested up there. Lawyers jumping up and down and going "PWNED!" whenever they say something smart that the other lawyer can't come back on)

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

I PUT IT TO YOU!

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:31 (nineteen years ago)

(this only happens after someone's come in and handed you a wee bit of paper and whispered something quickly in your ear, which you can then extrapolate into a half-hour show-stopper in the manner of Tom Cruise v Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men)

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:34 (nineteen years ago)

I imagine my lawyering skills to be more like My Cousin Vinny.

― ailsa (ailsa), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:38 (nineteen years ago)

[WHAT_IS_A_YUTE.JPG]

― ONIMO feels teh NOIZE (GerryNemo), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:40 (nineteen years ago)

[Marisa_Tomei_puts_it_to_you.jpg]

― mark s (mark s), Thursday, 16 November 2006 17:43 (nineteen years ago)

Parents also say stuff like that because THEY probably want to believe you will become a lawyer and take care of them in their old age.

Well, it sort of worked out. Actually worked out better than becoming a lawyer: I'm stuck with their shop while they cavort (ew!) in Japan. :-)

Now I realize I should have said to them: well it takes two to continue beyond infinity, no? No?

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Thursday, 16 November 2006 20:26 (nineteen years ago)

I am very badly paid for a lawyer.

― J (Jay), Thursday, 16 November 2006 20:32 (nineteen years ago)

You are all suggesting that the interest in separating good argument from bad, picking holes and building up from foundations, is a specifically lawyerly pursuit. Surely it is actually more of a trait of philosophy, from whence lawyers have picked it up?

― emil.y (emil.y), Friday, 17 November 2006 02:26 (nineteen years ago)

I don't think anyone is suggesting that it's a "specifically" lawyerly pursuit, but it is a pretty essential part of lawyering. There, now I've nitpicked your argument.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 17 November 2006 02:57 (nineteen years ago)

Ah, but the question is 'do I think like a lawyer?' And the first piece of evidence is 'i get a kick out of separating the good bits of a position with from the bad bits'. People have then gone on to suggest that this suggests Mark does think like a lawyer (I note that you covered yourself nicely). But it does not suggest this without further evidence, and points two and three are not particularly good pieces of evidence.

Thus, I put it to you that whilst it may be a necessary component of thinking like a lawyer, it is not a sufficient one.

― emil.y (emil.y), Friday, 17 November 2006 03:07 (nineteen years ago)

I agree, necessary but not sufficient.

― A-ron Hubbard (Hurting), Friday, 17 November 2006 03:19 (nineteen years ago)

Mark analyzes like a litigator, copy edits like a corporate partner's wet dream of an associate, and has a playful sense of humor = a good law school would have him thinking like a lawyer quickly, ten minutes at a Magic Circle firm would beat all of it out of him, along with his will to live.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 17 November 2006 08:34 (nineteen years ago)

Magic Circle?

― Nathalie (stevie nixed), Friday, 17 November 2006 09:03 (nineteen years ago)

Surely it is actually more of a trait of philosophy, from whence lawyers have picked it up?

OBJECTION!!!!

(sorry, just wanted to get that in, having watched several squillion episodes of LA Law)

Actually, my degree is in Philosophy and it's only arguing points of pedantry that would interest me about being a lawyer. Fuck all the boring stuff (have also been watching This Life, and standing in court whilst publicans get their licences renewed etc = DULLSVILLE)

― ailsa (ailsa), Friday, 17 November 2006 09:28 (nineteen years ago)

is there any historical basis for the claim that philosophers came before lawyers (the latter broadly defined)?

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 17 November 2006 09:37 (nineteen years ago)

Magic Circle = the fancy-ass London firms.

― Colin Meeder (Mert), Friday, 17 November 2006 10:03 (nineteen years ago)

Lawyer = needs some system of justice to be in place
Philosopher = some dude wondering about shit
xpost

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 17 November 2006 10:07 (nineteen years ago)

I went on a date with a lawyer in the not-too-distant past and I have never been interrogated like that in all my life. To the extent that, by the end of the evening, I felt terrified of saying anything in case it was used against me in what was clearly some sort of bizarre prolonged psychological battle I was frankly unprepared for.

We then played a lengthy game of 'guess when the other one is lying' WHICH I WON BY MILES = I would clearly be a better lawyer than her.

Actually, I would be a shit lawyer because my preferred method of debating is 'say something with enough authority that everyone else is convinced its true', which is fine until someone asks me to back it up with actual evidence or something.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Friday, 17 November 2006 10:12 (nineteen years ago)

a philosopher has to be published, and his thoughts preserved, i think. a lot of philosophy -- locke, rousseau, erm, someone not from 'lsot' -- is about what the law is about.

― benrique (Enrique), Friday, 17 November 2006 10:12 (nineteen years ago)

Well in that case Thales is considered the first philosopher, and there was already a legal and political system well in place by his time.

― ledge (ledge), Friday, 17 November 2006 10:21 (nineteen years ago)

I went on a date with a lawyer in the not-too-distant past and I have never been interrogated like that in all my life.

Heh. I'm a lawyer and I felt the same way when I went out on a date with a cub reporter for the local paper!

― J (Jay), Friday, 17 November 2006 15:11 (nineteen years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.