accidentally stole pack of gum

[seniorjudge]

Ok, second time: shame on me. I'm chuckling along with you.

I always think that if someone cannot explain something to a fifth grader, that he or she does not know what he is talking about.

I don't know if I agree with you or not.

Try clear, plain, and simple English.

 

[seniorjudge]

Google sobriety test gum for enlightenment.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

I'm not speaking to 5th graders, and I expect a competent command of the language for professional positions.

Here's why it doesn't matter what 5th graders think: Take a conservative and a liberal and have them ask a 5th grader to clarify an obvious truth. The liberal asks about war, the 5th grader says its wrong. The conservative asks about abortion, the 5th grader says its wrong, yet hardly any adult shares both those views and fits in line with a party. A position is only as good as the nuanced explanation behind it, and by your standards, both questioners in that scenario would then begin to babble.

I don't walk around feeling like a genius, but you're good for my ego, thanks.

 

[Silverplum]

I'm not speaking to 5th graders, and I expect a competent command of the language for professional positions.

Here's why it doesn't matter what 5th graders think: Take a conservative and a liberal and have them ask a 5th grader to clarify an obvious truth. The liberal asks about war, the 5th grader says its wrong. The conservative asks about abortion, the 5th grader says its wrong, yet hardly any adult shares both those views and fits in line with a party. A position is only as good as the nuanced explanation behind it, and by your standards, both questioners in that scenario would then begin to babble.

I don't walk around feeling like a genius, but you're good for my ego, thanks.

What "obvious truth"??

Your explanations get more obscure and convoluted each time.

 

[seniorjudge]

I'm not speaking to 5th graders, and I expect a competent command of the language for professional positions.

Here's why it doesn't matter what 5th graders think: Take a conservative and a liberal and have them ask a 5th grader to clarify an obvious truth. The liberal asks about war, the 5th grader says its wrong. The conservative asks about abortion, the 5th grader says its wrong, yet hardly any adult shares both those views and fits in line with a party. A position is only as good as the nuanced explanation behind it, and by your standards, both questioners in that scenario would then begin to babble.

I don't walk around feeling like a genius, but you're good for my ego, thanks.

You obviously did not read my post or if you did, you did not understand it. Here's what I said:

And if they were to take you to court over late fees, the court would probably rule that the fees were unconscionable.

 

[fakeworest]

i am totally confused what each side is trying to argue.

 

[seniorjudge]

i am totally confused what each side is trying to argue.

The poster intentionally took the gum and did not pay for it.

You intend the natural and probable consequences of your actions.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

What "obvious truth"??

Thank you for the set up:

that there IS NO obvious truth, only opinions and positions. This is why things like the definition of 'intent' is always going to be voraciously argued no matter how many attempts are made to oversimplify it. And each party is going to do so in a manner that fits their particular goal, and the fact is that there is room for each interpretation.

If and when ZINGer becomes a defense attorney, he'll be declaring 'intent' can't be proven simply because some other people intended that when they did something similar. It won't need to be so cut and dry.

I really do apologize if I'm not making my point clearly. It does me no good to obscure my points.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

You intend the natural and probable consequences of your actions.

That is a fairly benign statement. The problem comes in when you try to imply only one such probable consequence.

If you slam on the gas to beat a light and hit a truck, you did not intend to hit a truck or whatever the worst possible and punishable outcome could be.

 

[Zigner]

Thank you for the set up:

that there IS NO obvious truth, only opinions and positions. This is why things like the definition of 'intent' is always going to be voraciously argued no matter how many attempts are made to oversimplify it. And each party is going to do so in a manner that fits their particular goal, and the fact is that there is room for each interpretation.

If and when ZINGer becomes a defense attorney, he'll be declaring 'intent' can't be proven simply because some other people intended that when they did something similar. It won't need to be so cut and dry.

I really do apologize if I'm not making my point clearly. It does me no good to obscure my points.

You really don't make sense.
Look - it's apparent that our OP INTENDED to take the gum. He INTENDED to take it - INTENDED to take it.
It didn't just fall in to his outstretched hand

 

[fakeworest]

The poster intentionally took the gum and did not pay for it.

You intend the natural and probable consequences of your actions.

yeah, and that's why I say bring the box to a jury. If one of them think that the probable consequence of taking a piece of gum from said box with ambiguous text was enjoying a free promotional give-a-way then he gets off. If they all think the only probably consequence for taking the gum was arrested then he is convicted. I still think it works.

 

[Zigner]

yeah, and that's why I say bring the box to a jury.

Go back and re-read the thread. There was no box
Furthermore, the gum said Sobriety Test Gum. Our OP knew EXACTLY what he was doing. He's forum shopping to get answers he likes.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

Guys, you are lawyers and judges. I've read a few laws and some excerpts from tax code and heard a few arguments made to a supreme court. In all cases I have no clue what the heck they're even trying to convey, so please don't pretend there's anything AT ALL difficult about understanding me. This should be a cakewalk in comparison.

 

[Zigner]

Guys, you are lawyers and judges. I've read a few laws and some excerpts from tax code and heard a few arguments made to a supreme court. In all cases I have no clue what the heck they're even trying to convey, so please don't pretend there's anything AT ALL difficult about understanding me. This should be a cakewalk in comparison.

I understand THIS post. Your conclusion is wrong.

 

[PhlawedPharmacy]

I understand THIS post. Your conclusion is wrong.

There's a lot of that going around.

For instance, you guys don't do homework (or do you?).

We were split up into groups of 6 and given a scenario to try in a mock trial. The Pharmacist defense was floated to you guys and you pounded it senseless. Yesterday we ran it out and the pharmacist won. So now I have to decide which better represents a real-world result, and I have to say it's not an easy task.

I will add though that my boss (defense attorney to which I perform research) found all your feigned ignorance at my arguments here in this post very entertaining lol.