Law Professor To Students: If You Say 'I Feel' Rather Than 'I Think,' You Must Cluck Like A Chicken

[The Conservative]

What a goddamn clown show. Guy's as obsessed about virtue signalling, as his students are claimed to be. And no mention of "isms"? I guess they are not allowed to discuss the four primary schools of jurisprudence (look up what two of them are called)? By all means discourage dramatics and PC behavior, but he is also introducing more of the same by creating a safe space of "bad" words by creating a moronic rule about not using "isms". He should make demands that the students understand what they're saying, make demands that they're able to defend what they're saying, not make demands that they aren't allowed to use certain words. Otherwise he's just being the excat same thing he pretends to criticize.

I thought lawyers were supposed to think and use logic to argue their points not emotion or feelings. They are meant to let the jury or judge error on that aspect?

Funny, I thought lawyers were supposed to help their client by using both logic and appeals to emotion, if that's what's required in best aiding their client. Yes, being adept at both thinking logically and having empathy would be a tremendous boon in that regard, but we're discussing his desire to ban certain words, including any "isms". It's retarded, and you can't learn to think logically if your mentor illogically wants to prevent the use of professionally relevant terms.

A lawyer should never use the words "I feel" when arguing a case, the feelings should be left, as I said before, to the judge/jury.

[Speaker to Animals]

I thought lawyers were supposed to think and use logic to argue their points not emotion or feelings. They are meant to let the jury or judge error on that aspect?

Funny, I thought lawyers were supposed to help their client by using both logic and appeals to emotion, if that's what's required in best aiding their client. Yes, being adept at both thinking logically and having empathy would be a tremendous boon in that regard, but we're discussing his desire to ban certain words, including any "isms". It's retarded, and you can't learn to think logically if your mentor illogically wants to prevent the use of professionally relevant terms.

A lawyer should never use the words "I feel" when arguing a case, the feelings should be left, as I said before, to the judge/jury.

LOL, no. If the jury is mostly women or feminized men, you probably want to scatter in some pathos and feelz. The job of the lawyer is to convince the jury. A substantial portion of the American population is now convinced, not by reason, but by emotion, comedy, and social pressure.

[The Conservative]

Funny, I thought lawyers were supposed to help their client by using both logic and appeals to emotion, if that's what's required in best aiding their client. Yes, being adept at both thinking logically and having empathy would be a tremendous boon in that regard, but we're discussing his desire to ban certain words, including any "isms". It's retarded, and you can't learn to think logically if your mentor illogically wants to prevent the use of professionally relevant terms.

A lawyer should never use the words "I feel" when arguing a case, the feelings should be left, as I said before, to the judge/jury.

LOL, no. If the jury is mostly women or feminized men, you probably want to scatter in some pathos and feelz. The job of the lawyer is to convince the jury. A substantial portion of the American population is now convinced, not by reason, but by emotion, comedy, and social pressure.

You can do it without interjecting yourself as the lawyer into the dialogue. The purpose of the lawyer is to attract or remove guilt from a person, not to bring themselves into the conversation. They can suggest what a person feels, but a lawyer should never bring their own personal feelings into a debate, it won't do well overall.

[Speaker to Animals]

A lawyer should never use the words "I feel" when arguing a case, the feelings should be left, as I said before, to the judge/jury.

LOL, no. If the jury is mostly women or feminized men, you probably want to scatter in some pathos and feelz. The job of the lawyer is to convince the jury. A substantial portion of the American population is now convinced, not by reason, but by emotion, comedy, and social pressure.

You can do it without interjecting yourself as the lawyer into the dialogue. The purpose of the lawyer is to attract or remove guilt from a person, not to bring themselves into the conversation. They can suggest what a person feels, but a lawyer should never bring their own personal feelings into a debate, it won't do well overall.

The purpose of the lawyer is to convince a jury. It begins and ends there. If using feelings and pathos does that, then lawyers will break out the emotion. They do it all the time.

This is the main criticism of common law that people from civil law proponents bring up most often.

[The Conservative]

LOL, no. If the jury is mostly women or feminized men, you probably want to scatter in some pathos and feelz. The job of the lawyer is to convince the jury. A substantial portion of the American population is now convinced, not by reason, but by emotion, comedy, and social pressure.

You can do it without interjecting yourself as the lawyer into the dialogue. The purpose of the lawyer is to attract or remove guilt from a person, not to bring themselves into the conversation. They can suggest what a person feels, but a lawyer should never bring their own personal feelings into a debate, it won't do well overall.

The purpose of the lawyer is to convince a jury. It begins and ends there. If using feelings and pathos does that, then lawyers will break out the emotion. They do it all the time.

This is the main criticism of common law that people from civil law proponents bring up most often.

They can bring out emotion, I am not saying that can't. What they shouldn't do is inject themselves into the conversation, they are supposed to interject the jury into the conversation. Saying "I feel" is bad anyway, it could be construed as leading the jury.

[Speaker to Animals]

I feel is a great way to do it when you are trying to reach women in general. Talk in terms of feelings and social impact.

[BjornP]

I like it too. The “I feel like...” expression is ridiculous.

And the isms are a good shorthand to use with people who are in the same field or the same in group, but it becomes a jargon and when you are a lawyer how much of your crucial conversations are with other lawyers? A lot I am sure, but when you are talking to a jury or a client those isms don't mean anything you are not communicating effectively. They are also a shorthand when you could be making a larger point.

It's one class and it's a decent mental exercise what is the Viking's problem.

It goes without saying that they should try and sound as objective as possible when addressing a jury, client or judge, and it's not the "I feel, that..." aspect of his education I object to. It's the focus on use of specific "bad words", rather than focusing on teaching his students to argue cases, I object to.

Then there's this:

MacLeod tore into the idea of what he called “ chronological snobbery,” the idea that “moral knowledge progresses inevitably, such that later generations are morally and intellectually superior to earlier generations, and that the older the source the more morally suspect that source is.”

I agree with that criticism personally, but while that's a fair view to have as both a public and private person, it should not form a basis for policing or punishing the expressed views of progressive views on judicially relevant topics of discussion during his lectures.

[The Conservative]

I feel is a great way to do it when you are trying to reach women in general. Talk in terms of feelings and social impact.

Your feelings mean shit to women, you have said it over, and over again. So why should this be any different? Especially with the SJW women oozing out of the moras now?

[Speaker to Animals]

I feel is a great way to do it when you are trying to reach women in general. Talk in terms of feelings and social impact.

Your feelings mean shit to women, you have said it over, and over again. So why should this be any different? Especially with the SJW women oozing out of the moras now?

That's not what I said. To convince them, you often need to use emotive language. It's true that many of them, especially of those who are convinced through pathos and social pressures, couldn't care less about your feelings, but when you try to speak to such women in terms of cold reason, I think you sound to them like the teachers in Peanuts. You shouldn't use emotive language to get them to empathize with you. You use the language to create an emotional weight to your premises.

You are autistic and I would not attempt that with you, because it's the complete opposite situation. I wouldn't doubt that emotive language sounds like "ra ra wa ra wa wa wa" to you in the same way that cold reason sounds to emotional people.

I am not saying emotion and reason are mutually exclusive, most of us operate in between, but it has been shown that the more emotion one has, the less reason, and vice versa. If you are serious about persuading people rather than just shit posting/talking (admittedly, I prefer just shit posting), then you really must account for these differences in people.

I suspect most good attorneys would mix it up to cover the three forms of persuasion (logic, ethics, emotion) in an effort to reach the entire jury. If he leaves out emotion, then he could very well lose the case.

I am mainly talking about criminal law here. I doubt pathos helps in something like contract law.

Go read some of Clarence Darrow's arguments. Pathos was cranked to 11 at times.

[DBTrek]

I feel this thread is headed in a ridiculous direction.