It was a vacuous response.bearsfan23 wrote:ClubberLang gave you a legitimate response, and you respond by being a fucking douchebag.Nebby wrote:The burden of persuasion lies at the foot of the one making an assertion. It was you who initially asserted that felons shouldn't be able to practice. It's your job to prove it. You can admit that you have no real reason for it other than conjecture, you can actually explain your reasoning, or you can evade and instead attempt to shift the burden to me.ClubberLang wrote:No; I expressed an opinion, you didn't. You are just asking a likely endless cycle of questions. I will respond If you (1) make a reasonable defense of felons being allowed to practice law, and (2) state which felonies have no bearing on the practice of law.Nebby wrote:
Can you please elaborate on two things: (1) why is public perception of lawyers the determining factor of who gets to practice?; (2) how does allowing felons to practice law harm public perception of lawyers?
It's apparent that you are self-aware enough to realize the incompetency of your opinion and opted to instead evade and attempt to shift the burden.
Unless you're willing to actually support your initial assertion, then I think we're done here. See Proverbs 26:4
Good work Nebby. I didn't think it was possible, but losing your virginity has made you even more insufferable
If by "being a fucking douchebag" you mean pointing out the response's lack of substance or reason, then yes; I was being a fucking douchebag.