[ThereBeDragons]

Unless you are willing to post credentials, sort of against the rules.

Nothing about disclosing your full identity through PoFo is against the rules.

One thing you seem to be conveniently forgetting when you dismiss "sebby's discussions with lawyers" as heresay is that I am a lawyer and I am giving my view. That means its the opposite of hearsay.

Even if I were a scientist, unless I was talking about my own personal research in my lab, I would still (if I wanted to participate in an informed discussion with someone, regardless of how wrong I think they may be,) be forced to rely on scientific journals and other publications, with relevant citations, if pressed on a scientific issue. Saying "I'm a scientist, and I know many scientists" (the latter happens to be true, the former is not) "so I'm correct" is not good enough unless the other people agrees that it's enough. I read someplace that you had access to law journals, so surely the things you are asserting can easily by looked up and cited there?

[sebbysteiny]

Therebedragons

Even if I were a scientist, unless I was talking about my own personal research in my lab, I would still (if I wanted to participate in an informed discussion with someone, regardless of how wrong I think they may be,) be forced to rely on scientific journals and other publications, with relevant citations, if pressed on a scientific issue. Saying "I'm a scientist, and I know many scientists" (the latter happens to be true, the former is not) "so I'm correct" is not good enough unless the other people agrees that it's enough. I read someplace that you had access to law journals, so surely the things you are asserting can easily by looked up and cited there?

My first degree was in science, so I fully get what you are talking about. However, while you are right that in science, a scientific paper is what relevant not what a man who has studied science says, law is not quite the same.

The problems with your analogy are: 1) law is not a science and requires certain interpretative training. However, this does not make it "subjective" as such because a good lawyer will identify where the law is unclear and indicate not just his view but the possible views a judge might come to. When you add that component, then it becomes far more objective; and 2) in science, the views of the scientists do not change the laws of physics. But in law, the views of the lawyers do change the law, and the more senior the lawyer, the greater the extent the law is changed by his opinion. What I mean, of course, is if you can prove a very senior lawyer has a view of the law that supports you, then a judge would be much more inclined to support that position.

Although I do not pretend to be one of the most senior lawyers in the world, my training is very good and my analysis of the law (from an impartial prospective) is evidence to the same extent an experiment may be evidence in science. What matters is that I know how to interpret it. If another lawyer disagreed, then we would have to have a discussion and together we would come to some kind of agreed conclusion. Such a consensus opinion would then be even stronger evidence, but sadly I'm the only lawyer here so that is all you guys can get.

If you could demonstrate that I have allowed my impartial assessment of the law to be in any way affected by any political viewpoint I might have, then my opinion will lose all its validity (since it will not be possible to determine if I have given the law an objective assessment), but I have been very careful to avoid such political spin.

Of course, as I'm the only lawyer, it seems I am the only one trying to separate the law from politics. People here are just slipping in their political views on the guise of law but because they don't have any legal training, they don't understand how this completely undermines their view.

[redcarpet]

my impartial assessment

You're a human being, so you're not 'impartial'. The same as the rest of us.

You dismiss views given by a sitting law professor simply because you disagreed with him, how's that for impartiality?

Being a law student in the pursuit of a law degree doesn't make you a lawyer. You become one once you get the degree. You won't be able to quote your law license here because you haven't got one.

[sebbysteiny]

Redcarpet

Actually I do have one. I'm holding my practicing certificate in my hand as I write this.

A lawyer is trained to give impartial analysis (at least proper lawyers are). If you cannot, you will not be able to give decent legal advice. So my certificate I'm holding in my hand demonstrates that I am capable of this.

[redcarpet]

I'm holding my practicing certificate in my hand as I write this

And without a photo, we have no reason to believe you. You can fuzz out your name for privacy reasons, the date would be good enough ID for it for me.

Still you casually dismissed a sitting law professor simply because you disagreed, and didn't try to prove him wrong. That, along with other instances, proves you cherry pick facts to suit your apparently pro-Israel biases.

[sebbysteiny]

Redcarpet

What you believe is irrelevant. All that matters is the truth.

And I have not dismissed a sitting law professor simply because I disagreed. Who exactly are you talking about?