Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9105144" data-attributes="member: 7023840">Nope. Look, if people don't have a baseline to talk about things, then we can't actually move on to the more substantive arguments.To use your hobby horse, we can only argue about the existence of Qualified Immunity because we have a shared understanding of what that means. For that matter, within the law, if I tell someone I'm filing a motion to dismiss, that means that there is an argument about the merits of the motion to dismiss; not about &quot;What is this ... 'motion to dismiss.'&quot;If I am in front of an appellate court, and I say that the standard of review is de novo, the other side might disagree and say, &quot;No, the standard of review is actually abuse of discretion.&quot; Do you know what absolutely will not happen? An argument that &quot;de novo&quot; is inappropriate jargon and a disagreement about what the means.Jargon in professional fields is almost always uncontroversial, because it aids in the communication between professionals. If it didn't ... it wouldn't be used. But sure, if you want to explain what I misunderstand about these topics with shrugs, I can't stop you. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9105144, member: 7023840"] Nope. Look, if people don't have a baseline to talk about things, then we can't actually move on to the more substantive arguments. To use your hobby horse, we can only argue about the existence of Qualified Immunity because we have a shared understanding of what that means. For that matter, within the law, if I tell someone I'm filing a motion to dismiss, that means that there is an argument about the merits of the motion to dismiss; not about "What is this ... 'motion to dismiss.'" If I am in front of an appellate court, and I say that the standard of review is de novo, the other side might disagree and say, "No, the standard of review is actually abuse of discretion." Do you know what absolutely will not happen? An argument that "de novo" is inappropriate jargon and a disagreement about what the means. Jargon in professional fields is almost always uncontroversial, because it aids in the communication between professionals. If it didn't ... it wouldn't be used. But sure, if you want to explain what I misunderstand about these topics with shrugs, I can't stop you. :) [/QUOTE]

Verification