Scrat wrote:IF YOU FOLLOWED the exchange above, you must acknowledge that Walter is claiming that I should care what this specific judge thinks, purely because the man is a judge, yet Walter acknowledges that he himself holds no such standard, in that he disagrees with some judges.
Followed it, see no contradiction in any of the above whatsoever. Coulda been me.
I claim, for example, that when people talk soccer, they should care for what Van Marwijk, the Feyenoord coach, has to say about it. He obviously is an expert on the matter, and I, too, will listen a lot more closely to what he has to say about the game than what my second-floor neighbour has to say about it. Yet when Van Marwijk says that his Feyenoord is gonna win against (my) Ajax, I'm a-gonna respectfully disagree. And?
Scrat wrote:Clearly Walter's argument that I "should" care and heed this man's opinion purely because the man is a judge is not a standard to which Walter holds himself.
I think the simple bit where our universes collide is that, in yours, "I should care what he thinks" is apparently synonimous to "I should agree with him". But nobody's made that latter point. When Walter - and I think I can speak for both of us here - points out that you should "care what this man thinks" because he is an expert, he doesnt mean you have to necessarily agree with him in the end, just that the man is an expert and his opinion therefore deserves to be paid closer attention to than that of just anyone. "**** him" not being the most succinct expression of close attention.
Perhaps, sadly, it's a deeper difference of worldview we're bumping up against here ... I am perfectly able to consider people with whom, bottom line, I often still have to disagree, experts on a matter, and will "care for what they think" a great deal
even if in the end I sometimes can't agree with them. To you, however, apparently, such reasoning is evidence of a "silly [..] absurd and inconsistent" logic. After all:
Scrat wrote:"Ah, then your position is that even if all judges are "experts of law", that does not mean they are incapable of reaching a flawed conclusion in your opinion. Then of what value is your appellation "expert of law"?
Well, the value is exactly that - they are an expert of law, and sometimes one disagrees even with the experts. It's just that cause of knowing they're experts, you'll have listened to them closely. And posted their comments on a thread like this. Especially when they're not just any judge. Which brings us to ...
Scrat wrote:I could easily come up with a judicial ruling with which you would disagree. Would you accept it if I claimed you must care about the opinion because it came from a judge [..]? Walter did not argue that I should care about this man because of his specific credentials, nor did he argue that it was this man's specific credentials that made him an "expert of law". He claimed being a judge did that, and said that alone should make me care what the man thinks.
Talk about "playing fast and loose with replaying the exchange" ... no, it wasn't
just that he was "a judge". Lemme make a list - no editing, just Walter's words - the man is:
- "One of Britain's most senior judges"
- "[a] Law Lord"
- "a quite wellknown expert. Even in the USA."
or, in short, as Thomas reiterated:
- "an expert of law, in a legal system not too different from America's"
To which your reaction was: "F#$% him. [..] who gives a rat's ass what he thinks?"
And yes, if you came up with an interesting story, defending the Guantanamo Bay practice, from one of America's most senior judges, who sat on some foremost legal institution and was recognized as a wellknown expert even in Europe, I would gladly accept it if you claimed that I should care about his opinion. I might still end up disagreeing with him, but I'd definitely read what he had to say (as opposed to going, oh, **** him, who gives a rat's ass).
Funny thing is, you have given no other rationalisation for rejecting Lord Steyn's opinion out of hand other than that you disagreed with it. Kinda like the most extreme possible example of the practice you were accusing Walter of (caring only about whether someone agrees with you rather than about his credentials). "Mirror, mirror ..."
Well, the good thing there I guess is that at least you apparently see what is so annoying in this thing you do - it's just that thus far, you're projecting it on the other person rather than recognising that it's you, yourself ...
Ah well. Sh!t happens.