Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 7:24 am
Your legal analogy is a fail, because it is the equivalent of asking a lawyer to lie in court, by defending a client they know to be guilty, as if they are innocent, which they are not supposed to do.
I've gotten guilty people acquitted for murder[...]
-Alan Morton Dershowitz
Seems the responsibility of a lawyer to defend their client, matter of fact, that seems to be the entire point. The legal system as it exists today, just as it was under Hammurabi, is about getting just as much justice as you can afford.
The idea that a lawyer isn't supposed to defend a guilty man is just so counter to our concept of law in general as to be an insult to the court.
Nessie, that is a very special strain of naivety you have there...
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 7:24 am
Or,
- it cannot be done, for reasons I have been explaining to you for a long time now and you lack the intellectual ability to understand that, or you are too invested to be able to acknowledge the weaknesses.
If you are unable to steelman the position, that's perfectly acceptable. It looks extremely disingenuous on your part of course, because you are debating against a position you are admitting you don't understand, and refuse to offer the the principle of charitable interpretation. This in turn then makes you look like a bad faith actor.
I have been explaining, at length, why every single argument you use, is flawed, which is why I am now quarantined, so you can avoid my critiques.
I have not debated positions I admit to not understanding. I admit to not understanding the chemistry, but I do understand the argument that uses the results of chemical testing. I have started to steel man arguments here;
But it has been largely ignored. Why is that? You want me to act in good faith and be compliant to your instructions, and then when i am, I am ignored.
Your legal analogy is a fail, because it is the equivalent of asking a lawyer to lie in court, by defending a client they know to be guilty, as if they are innocent, which they are not supposed to do.
No it's not, you muppet. Your steelman is expected to be honest, and argued with integrity. If you're lying in your steelman, then you have already sabotaged it.
@Archie this has to be in the hall of fame. Unbelievable.
There is a difference between a desperate, or weak argument and one that is so obviously fatally flawed, that it is indefensible. So-called revisionist arguments fall into the latter category. I have been honest with you, you just do not like what I have to say.
Nessie wrote: ↑Mon Jan 12, 2026 7:24 am
Your legal analogy is a fail, because it is the equivalent of asking a lawyer to lie in court, by defending a client they know to be guilty, as if they are innocent, which they are not supposed to do.
I've gotten guilty people acquitted for murder[...]
-Alan Morton Dershowitz
Seems the responsibility of a lawyer to defend their client, matter of fact, that seems to be the entire point. The legal system as it exists today, just as it was under Hammurabi, is about getting just as much justice as you can afford.
The idea that a lawyer isn't supposed to defend a guilty man is just so counter to our concept of law in general as to be an insult to the court.
Nessie, that is a very special strain of naivety you have there...
If a lawyer, who knows his client is guilty of murder, spots a fatal flaw in the investigation, he should bring that to the attention of the court. If that flaw is enough for the case to collapse, then he has got a guilty person acquitted. What the lawyer cannot (or at should not) do, is lie in court and pretend his client is innocent, when he knows he is guilty, with actions such as withholding evidence or concocting a false alibi.
A guilty man can be defended in court, as guilty. That is what happened to the SS death camp staff. They were defended at the Belzec trial, for having acted under duress. There is the famous defence of acting under orders. Mitigation refers to forms of defence, excusing someone of the crime they committed, often due to a diminished responsibility.
It appears you did not know any of that, when you criticised me.