[asif]

Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong. While I would never trust a non-lawyer's legal advice over a lawyer's legal advice, there could certainly exist a person in the world whom I trust more than any given lawyer, that also has an experience pertinent to my situation. You'd be foolish to bypass that person's opinion. Just take it with the knowledge that that person isn't a lawyer.

[raganwald]

Fine, construct some hypothetical edge case "There *could exist..." and then try to apply some reduction ad absurdum to conclude that Matt's advice is wrong.

Only, Matt's advice is correct. You should not ask for legal advice on HN, even if it is possible that in one of the many parallel universes there exists an entity you trust more than a lawyer.

[asif]

I concede that HN is not the place to solicit legal advice. The level of trust that I was referring to most likely does not exist between users of this site.

Nonetheless, I believe it is incorrect to state that one would be putting one's self in harms way by discussing legal matters with a non-lawyer, as the article implies.

Here's an example: My neighbor has a large tree bordering my yard, from which a branch is hanging over the fence and interfering with my shit. Is it legal for me to chop the branch? Maybe in some jurisdictions, but who knows? Should I call a lawyer right away? Let me see what my wife thinks.

Me: "Hey honey, what should I do about this branch? Should I call a lawyer?"

Honey: "A lawyer?!?!? For God's sake why would you do that? That's just Ethel's tree. Just cut the damn thing down."

-- or --

"Umm, Johnny Cochrane, Jr. lives there. Call five lawyers."

[raganwald]

I agree that you are not putting yourself in harm's way by discussing legal matters with non-lawyers, even HN non-lawyers.

I have often discussed legal matters with experienced businesspeople and investors. Of course, when the conversation turns to "Ok, what is the next action step?" the consensus is nearly always "Talk to a lawyer" :-)

[mattmaroon]

You don't put yourself in harm's way as long as you realize that what you are giving or getting is not a substitute for legal advice. Unfortunately most people tend to forget that very easily, as humans are often misled by confident, and often confident that they know more than they do.

[raganwald]

Exactly. One should always differentiate "legal advice" from "advice about a legal matter."

[donw]

Perhaps you should try shitting indoors.

(Sorry, it was there, I had to...)

[briancooley]

You are taking Matt's advice out of context. No one is asking HN about cutting a tree branch.

When you consider the legal questions that are asked, his advice seems very sound.

[jon_dahl]

Personally, I think the article is half-right. "Let an attorney handle your legal questions" is absolutely correct - Random Guy on Internets should not be making legal decisions for you, and you should always have good legal representation if you're doing business of any sort (even as a freelance programmer).

But sometimes you aren't looking for specific legal advice - you're looking to educate yourself as an entrepreneur. I've learned quite a bit about contracts, business formation, tax law, etc. from my attorneys - but I've also learned a bit from other entrepreneurs.

[ph0rque]

> Black and white statements such as this are almost always wrong.

Good thing you included the word "almost"... :~)

[asif]

I can, without hesitation, proclaim that eating children is categorically wrong.

[cosmo7]

> I can, without hesitation, proclaim that eating children is categorically wrong.

You are captain of a cruise liner full of children. The ship is boarded by pirates. These pirates are utterly evil and utterly truthful. They demand that either you eat one child, who happens to be about to die of a congenital heart defect, or they will blow up the ship and kill hundreds of children.

What do you do?

[asif]

I'm not sure what I would do, but I know what Jack Bauer would do. He would eat the pirates.

[khafra]

Absolute veracity is generally acknowledged to be a virtue, conflicting with the "utterly evil" trait. Thus, the pirates disappear in a puff of logic. This once again proves that conjectural sophistry based on impossible examples is categorically un-compelling.

[rokhayakebe]

Dude, you have a wild imagination.

[mrtron]

I find this sentence hilarious. Is it not a pun in itself?

I can, without hesitation, not delaying for one second, not second guessing myself whatsoever, with certainty as broad as the universe itself...

[jessewmc]

This is a different kind of wrong though... You're talking about morally wrong, while the parent is talking about factually wrong.

Also, though, in reference to the silly pirate example below, something being absolutely wrong does not prevent the possible necessity of doing that thing to prevent greater wrongs. Its still wrong, just possibly less wrong.

So I would agree that eating children is wrong.

[ntoshev]

Your original statement would apply to itself if it didn't have the word "almost".

[asif]

Ha. Thanks for pointing that out. Perhaps I instinctively avoid blanket generalizations so as to avoid the criticism that I am currently unleashing on this article.

[PStamatiou]

in our culture. in others not..

[ntoshev]

I don't know why the parent gets downmodded, he is right. What is considered morally right and wrong is culture specific, it is not absolute. For example, some cultures used to sacrifice children to their gods. We may consider this wrong, but they certainly didn't.

[jimbokun]

We're right.

[Eliezer]

Name me a human culture that eats babies. Also you've committed the classic error of confusing "Culture X thinks Y isn't wrong" and "Y isn't wrong". Is it true in some societies that the Sun goes around the Earth?

[jauco]

You're confusing ethically wrong (as in 'considered to be not nice') with scientifically wrong (as in 'considered to be not consistent with observations')

[ph0rque]

and our species... I eat (potential) baby chickens for breakfast almost every day.

[Tichy]

murderer!

[ph0rque]

Well, in my culture, this is acceptable; I'm considered a consumer in that regard.

[sant0sk1]

There are some absolutes in the world which cannot be bypassed by cultural mores.

Eating a child is wrong regardless of how one would justify it.

[ars]

No, there are no absolutes.

Lets break it down. Is killing children always wrong?

In many countries it's legal (today) to kill children. In some cultures surplus children were left to die of exposure (Sparta for example).

And once the child is dead - well some cultures eat the dead as a form of burial.

There goes your absolute.

Just so you know: it's not possible to create a moral system from first principles. It always has to be imposed from outside. In most countries the bible serves as the starting point.

If you want, you can have one guy decide, and use his ideas. But you can never defend them as absolute and correct. Another person, just as logical, can come up with conflicting ideas, and you can never prove one is right and the other wrong.

[lehmannro]

How come you think that?

I cannot see any biological advantage of not eating your children in emergency situations -- i.e. where you need to eat the child (survival, extortion, ...) and she won't survive anyways.

[asif]

By that logic, you could justify absolutely anything.