> For the sake of argument, assume all those things are true.
This is about when your client did kill a person and you're using a slowly receding circle of lies to try to give them as much time as possible to skip town.
No, as the author of my post, I can assure you that my post was quite clearly about the fact that this style of defense is not intrinsically in bad faith, evil, or in any sense responsible for the bad behavior of the corporations in question. I double-checked with myself twice to be sure.
Blaming this defense is like blaming the fact that some companies are bad actors on the fact that they are using syllogisms. It's not the syllogisms. It's very weak thinking to think it could be. The problem is not the "four dog" defense, it's the bad actions themselves.
Blaming this defense is like blaming the fact that some companies are bad actors on the fact that they are using syllogisms. It's not the syllogisms. It's very weak thinking to think it could be. The problem is not the "four dog" defense, it's the bad actions themselves.