|
By using that comparison, you just lost the argument, KaVir. Thank you for making it so simple.
1) I rarely speak about software design with absolute certainty in the "know it all" tone you use about the law, precisely because I know there is a lot about software design I am not trained in. Perhaps you should follow the example. That's the problem. You don't just offer your OPINION of the law, you claim to *** KNOW *** with absolute certainty what the law is, and how the situation would be resolved legally. If anyone disagrees with you, you simply declare they are wrong. And you do all of this despite any formal training in an extremely complicated and obscure discipline.
2) Software design is nowhere near as complex as the law. Software design is generally logical and follows logical rules. The law often is not. Furthermore, the law is often written to be DELIBERATELY obscure so as to guarantee lawyers their jobs. Almost anyone can teach themself how to design software - and often be quite good at it. The law is a human construct that is the product of thousands of years of evolution (pretty much starting right around the Magna Carta). Your attempt at a comparison is totally fallacious.
In fact, your comparison demonstrates such a fundamental lack of understanding of the law, that it actually discredits any legal analysis you might engage in.
|