I see how I can come across as that. Mmm. I think its ok in this sense: lawyers think such things are necessary even if they have problems with such arguments in their day to day life. They believe their job is to get their clients off no matter what (I don’t agree with that to be clear). So when I see these lawyers making these arguments I don’t have as bad of a judgment of them. I am aware of examples of lawyers who don’t do such things and only make good/reasonable arguments (or at least try to).
I don’t think its beneficial/necessary. I just think its normal. Normal not even necessarily meaning ok. Maybe this is a mistake I’m making? Its kind of like corporal punishment in my head. Depending on the context, some parents I judge worse for hitting their kids vs other parents. I judge my parents, and the Bangladeshi community I grew up in, less harshly for hitting me, and their kids, then I do for the average westerner. In both cases I don’t think its fine for parents to hit their kids, I just judge it a bit differently. Is that a mistake?
Hmmm. I think I didn’t take it seriously because I heard the argument in a legal setting. I thought of it as something Lindt was doing to avoid legal trouble. I think because of hearing a lot of bad stuff about courts, I’ve become a bit biased in thinking that doing anything to avoid issues in court is fine. Now that I think about it a bit more though their are probably companies/individuals who fight cases without using bad arguments/doing shady things.