Ad hominem arguments again.
I always thought that lawyers engaged in "ad hominem" arguments all the time, attacking the individual to try and reach a greater cause. In fact, I believe I listed a few instances where you, Mr. Law, engaged in your fancy Latin wording for biased personal attacking as well.
What i find most funny is that this science student (who probably failed general english, then concluded that any subject that requires stinging sentences together is useless) is trying to take on law students , with the evidence that "i believe law is a useless degree, therefore law is a useless degree, and scientists are the only people to have ever helped humans".
humphreybear said:
i think most other professions hate lawyers because they have such a pretigious reputation for being a bunch of self important pompous bunch, though I'm sure this is a generalisation.
Well, now you have at least one example, plus he's a liberal supporter. Perhaps the faculty of law also has a bias towards the "liberal" end of Australia's political spectrum, as opposed to the real liberal end. Anyway, I'm getting off track.
Lawyers make a very important part of our society. They ensure that criminals get punished, that innocent people don't end up in jail, that democratic processes continue, etcetc.
I take back something I may have said. The idea of having a law to govern the world in which we live is not a bad idea, in fact, it's a vital idea that lets scientists, engineers, teachers, doctors, nurses and labourers get on with their job that makes the world turn round.
Having a university educate people on these matters seems to only cost taxpayers money for little reason. There is no reason for an expensive university course in law, as I've been saying, it's common sense to come up with the great things that law has done over the years.
Furthermore, the very things that everyday lawyers do don't seem to really be working, do they? I don't have links, texts or specific examples to back me up here, but it's common knowledghe that even in the civilised world (we'll ingore China for now) innocent people are being executed and sent to prison, rapists are being given lenient sentences and Australians are being sent overseas to be jailed for insignificant relations with a racist, useless (to our country) and self-important neighbouring country. Dare I say that if the AFP is not composed mainly of law grads (in high positions), then they are being advised by law grads. Dare I say that the judge sentencing the rapist is a law grad? Dare I say that the prosecutor demanding the death sentence to the man pleading continually that he's innocent is a law grad? Yes, yes I can say that and I will.
Now you may say that I'm being stereotypical. I am, but no more then you law folks generalising science communities for being death causing, nuclear loving wackos. In fact, just as a general point; it may be the scientists that come up with the weapons, but it's the leaders (many of whom are law grads) that fire those weapons in the end.
THe truth is most scientists do NOT come up with anything new, or help society in any profound way.
tHE tRIUth is THGat lawyers do NOT come up with anything new, or help society in any profound way. It is my view that scientists that have society and the world along more than lawyers have in the past. Argue all you want (I hope you will), but I certainly believe it's true.
. 
