Special pleading: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|psychology|[[File:All different.jpg|450px|thumb|center|You’re all different. You’re all individuals.]]}}{{d|Special pleading|/ˈspɛʃəl/ /ˈpliːdɪŋ/|n|}}<br>1. To cite something — usually, one’s job, person or justification for sorry existence — as an exception to a general principle with which otherwise | {{a|psychology|[[File:All different.jpg|450px|thumb|center|You’re all different. You’re all individuals.]]}}{{d|Special pleading|/ˈspɛʃəl/ /ˈpliːdɪŋ/|n|}}<br>1. To cite something — usually, one’s job, person or justification for sorry existence — as an exception to a general principle with which one otherwise professes wholeheartedl agreement, without explaining or justifying the exception.<br> | ||
2. A double standard, being a standard that is so good it is worth ''two'' normal standards. | 2. A [[double standard]], being a standard that is so good it is worth ''two'' normal standards. | ||
{{quote|“No, I totally agree we need to shorten our documents, cut out the complexity and the clutter, write them in {{tag|plain English}}, and standardise. Modernisation is key.”<br> | {{quote|“No, I totally agree we need to shorten our documents, cut out the complexity and the clutter, write them in {{tag|plain English}}, and standardise. Modernisation is key.”<br> | ||
Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
{{agency paradox capsule}} | {{agency paradox capsule}} | ||
Examples abound. The JC, because he is [[sloth|lazy]] is an inveterate ''simplifier''. There is not a contract in the world, he is fond of saying, that could not be half the length it is. | Examples abound. The JC, because he is [[sloth|lazy]] is an inveterate ''simplifier''. There is not a [[contract]] in the world, he is fond of saying, that could not be half the length it is. | ||
This is hardly a controversy: you will find any practising lawyer to whom you make this observation in violent, general, agreement. So too, the | This is hardly a controversy: you will find any practising lawyer to whom you make this observation in violent, general, agreement. So too, the Law Society, any regulatory body you care to mention, and many of the world’s legislators. The [[SEC]] has written an [https://www.sec.gov/pfd/handbook.pdf impassioned tract] imploring prospectus writers to be brief. The European Commission won’t let you even market securities unless you are [[K.I.I.D.|curt to the point of bluntness]]. | ||
Yet we find a curious dissonance: for however passionately a [[legal eagle]] may agree with this proposition ''in the abstract'', it will be a different story ''in the particular''. Especially where the particular in question is ''her own document''. | It is widely acknowledged that most legal repartee is overwrought; much of it hot air. Yet we find a curious dissonance: for however passionately a [[legal eagle]] may agree with this proposition ''in the abstract'', it will be a different story ''in the particular''. Especially where the particular in question is ''her own document''. | ||
“Ah, yes,” she will say. “Generally, one should be short and to the point, but this is a [[special case]].” | “Ah, yes,” she will say. “Generally, one should be short and to the point, but ''this'' — well, this is a [[special case]].” | ||
The legal world, you see, is composed of special cases. That uniform, unbroken wall of [[entropic]] homogeneity that we know as legal “[[verbiage]]” is, if you stand close enough to it, composed of brilliant, unique, delicate, glistering particles. Every one is different. Every one is special. It is only their aggregated whole that is resembles an ocean of oatish blanditry. This we call a ''[[paradox]]''. You know how the JC loves a [[paradox]]. | |||
Now everything in the [[legal eagle]]’s armoury is arranged around the [[analogy]]. This is ''[[stare decisis]]'': the [[doctrine of precedent]]. The common lawyer proceeds exclusively by [[anecdote]]. She treats each case on its merit. | Now, everything in the [[legal eagle]]’s armoury is arranged around the [[analogy]]. This is ''[[stare decisis]]'': the [[doctrine of precedent]]. The common lawyer proceeds exclusively by [[anecdote]]. She treats each case on its merit. Merit, in the eyes of our learned friend, lies ''only in the particular''. She has no use for the general. She cannot comprehend it. The general — the [[emergent]] value of all contracts across the market, seen and unseen, is an abstraction beyond her possible [[care horizon]]. It simply isn’t meaningful. | ||
Obviously, we can agree ''in general'' that legal documents should be shorter, clearer and better, but ''[[legal eagles]] don’t deal in generalities''. They deal in particulars. Lots of beautiful, tiny, glimmering, bejeweled, [[special case]]s. Managing risk on a “portfolio” basis – which is surely what all [[financial services]] organisations must do – comes very hard to one trained in the [[common law]]. | |||
{{c|paradox}} | {{c|paradox}} | ||
{{c|plain English}} | {{c|plain English}} |