Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sharks in the Septic Tank -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73560)	8/27/2003 7:00:43 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

"I only argued that there are those, religious and non, who wouldn't lie under oath... You have provided no argument, simply a pat statement. I only asked for a convincing rational. I have not seen one. However, it is a nice thought even though totally unsupported. And my original concern was simply whether or not the oath has any value at all. How do we know?

To: Lane3 who wrote (73560)	8/27/2003 8:53:59 PM
From: The Philosopher	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 82486

Do you really think that a mother faced with the prospect of turning her kid over to her ex who she believes molested the kid would let the threat of hell be the determinant? I don't presume to know, but I wouldn't be surprised if most moms would rather go to hell than turn over the kid. I had a client once who was a devout born-again Christian. She and her pastor knelt and prayed (aloud) in the lobby before every hearing. Fortunately, she didn't need to lie for us to prevail. But I do believe that even if it had meant losing her children, she would not have lied under oath. She is the only client I feel confident saying that about. Not that I had many at all who actually lied under oath, partly because I am fairly careful about who I agree to represent. But that client is one who would not have lied to save her own life.