Yeah, and Jeff gave an attorney's example of that last week. See if I can find it. Yep, from last Thursday:
"This is a classic self-defeating argument in the face of an injunction. It’s so simple. Let me explain how lawyers often torpedo their own cases. To illustrate, I’ll using “me” as the lawyer seeking the injunction, and “them” as th…
Yeah, and Jeff gave an attorney's example of that last week. See if I can find it. Yep, from last Thursday:
"This is a classic self-defeating argument in the face of an injunction. It’s so simple. Let me explain how lawyers often torpedo their own cases. To illustrate, I’ll using “me” as the lawyer seeking the injunction, and “them” as the lawyer opposing the injunction:
ME: Judge, we need this injunction to stop the defendants from further harming my client.
JUDGE: Okay. Counsel for the defense, what say you?
THEM: Judge, there’s no need for an injunction because my client isn’t even doing the stuff that Mr. Childers claims is happening. This whole thing is a joke.
JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Childers, how do you respond?
ME: Well, Judge, they just made this pretty easy for you. If they aren’t doing it, then there’s no harm in you entering an order forbidding them from doing it, is there?
JUDGE: An excellent point. I will grant the injunction. Please send me a proposed order.
The Washington Post’s third-grade-level article stepped right into that classic logical fallacy. If the government isn’t actually censoring Americans, or if it was “always fairly minimal,” then there’s no harm in an injunction forbidding them from censoring Americans, is there?"
Yeah, and Jeff gave an attorney's example of that last week. See if I can find it. Yep, from last Thursday:
"This is a classic self-defeating argument in the face of an injunction. It’s so simple. Let me explain how lawyers often torpedo their own cases. To illustrate, I’ll using “me” as the lawyer seeking the injunction, and “them” as the lawyer opposing the injunction:
ME: Judge, we need this injunction to stop the defendants from further harming my client.
JUDGE: Okay. Counsel for the defense, what say you?
THEM: Judge, there’s no need for an injunction because my client isn’t even doing the stuff that Mr. Childers claims is happening. This whole thing is a joke.
JUDGE: Okay. Mr. Childers, how do you respond?
ME: Well, Judge, they just made this pretty easy for you. If they aren’t doing it, then there’s no harm in you entering an order forbidding them from doing it, is there?
JUDGE: An excellent point. I will grant the injunction. Please send me a proposed order.
The Washington Post’s third-grade-level article stepped right into that classic logical fallacy. If the government isn’t actually censoring Americans, or if it was “always fairly minimal,” then there’s no harm in an injunction forbidding them from censoring Americans, is there?"
From https://www.coffeeandcovid.com/p/lobotomized-inconsistency-thursday
Yes I thought of that too 🙂 Thank you for copying the relevant section of the post.