In a battle of wits the loser can't understand how they are loosing; loosing is tantamount to not understanding the winning strategy. If a loser were able to understand the strategy, they would at the very least create a stalemate. If the loser understands the strategy after the battle of wits, they come out with something, which makes them ultimately a winner. The winner of every skirmish in a battle of wits comes out with nothing; ultimately making them a loser.
When a person in America has trumped or baseless charges made against them, they may ultimately win the battle of wits in the courtroom, but the immediate outcome by default is that they lost time and money defending themselves and ultimately are punished. This encourages trumped up charges and baseless claims.
It is a perfect example of a present day system where the legal system supports a collective occurrence of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The legal community--both prosecutors and defending lawyers--benefit from baseless claims. They create a swinging door of clients. In order to evolve the system to be more scientific--one that doesn't have pseudo-science and mental disorder written all over it--the loser must be made to pay immediately.
If you disagree, you mock the validity of the reasoning process. In essence, you imply justice in the American system can't be scientific and it's just arbitrary.
Do you have a great and fantastic argument in which to use to prove me wrong--that our system isn't just a pseudo-scientific, philosophical version of capitalism designed to generate money, not justice.
When a person in America has trumped or baseless charges made against them, they may ultimately win the battle of wits in the courtroom, but the immediate outcome by default is that they lost time and money defending themselves and ultimately are punished. This encourages trumped up charges and baseless claims.
It is a perfect example of a present day system where the legal system supports a collective occurrence of Munchausen’s Syndrome by Proxy. The legal community--both prosecutors and defending lawyers--benefit from baseless claims. They create a swinging door of clients. In order to evolve the system to be more scientific--one that doesn't have pseudo-science and mental disorder written all over it--the loser must be made to pay immediately.
If you disagree, you mock the validity of the reasoning process. In essence, you imply justice in the American system can't be scientific and it's just arbitrary.
Do you have a great and fantastic argument in which to use to prove me wrong--that our system isn't just a pseudo-scientific, philosophical version of capitalism designed to generate money, not justice.
Last edited:
