I started going on the Net about 29 years ago and I'm not sure it was already around. But what I do know is that, to my great disappointment, the list has not grown with the years.
You forgot one of the best. A lot of these are kind of funny, but there is a certain amount of stupid sounding legwork that the attorney is obligated to do that they may slip into doing too much of just by habit. It's like the cops ask "And did he have your permission to punch you in the face? Did you consent to that?" They just have to cover the elements of the statute.
Anyway. From memory so the precise wording is not verbatim (I think this one's from a divorce trial):
Attorney: And did you ever have sex with him in Salt Lake City?
Witness: I'm not going to answer that question.
Attorney: Did you ever have sex with him in Miami?
Witness: I'm not going to answer that question.
Attorney: Did you ever have sex with him in Key Largo?
I think it's a funny meeting of worlds thing. Like the kinda of people who can afford law school are generally not the kinds who grew up in an every day setting
Also a lot of what (good) trial lawyers do is cover all the small loopholes, so questions that seem silly are because Dr X-acto got off on murder by claiming it was an autopsy in 1798 or whatever. Or it's a bad trial lawyer and it is silly.
Probably because some trans women have beards and the kind of person who would think that trans inclusiveness is a special Lemmy thing is often also the kind of person who doesn't bother to learn that sex, gender, and gender expression are different things and suspects that ignorance in jokes from a time where that ignorance was the norm to the point of being near-absolute is SUPER triggering to rational non-bigots? 🤷
Thanks. There's a lot of bad faith replies here; I appreciate the honest engagement. I get the feeling that we're heading into circular logic territory if we were to discuss what it means to be "masculine" or "feminine" in a gender-fluid, sex-abstracted context. It'd be best if we leave it here, as much as it pains me to stifle my own curiosity.
They inform each other through culture, but they are not the same thing. Just like female lions do most of the hunting. To them, hunting might end up a feminine trait.
Centuries ago, it was expected for women to wear pants, now, not so much. In the Victorian era, men wore makeup too. The social expectations that inform gender change drastically. To be gender non-conforming can mean very different things in different societies. For example; David Bowie. In the Victorian era, he'd have barely stood out at all, besides his talents.
Sex is about the physical body, and gender is about self-identification. Social norms inform what attributes are attributed to what, but it is seldom (virtually never) anything set in stone.
On top of that, the more rigid society tries to be, the more room there is to be "different" and for people to not feel included by those rigid expectations. So the hilarious irony is, conservative shitheads trying to make everyone conform does the exact opposite of what they want; It creates more dejected and excluded people, who are then more likely to be anything but "normal".
My favorite (paraphrased):
Attorney: "You are absolutely certain that [victim] is dead?"
Coroner: "Yes."
Attorney: "Were you there at the time of death?"
Coroner: "No."
Attorney: "Then how can you be sure they're dead?"
Coroner: "Well, their brain is sitting in a jar on my desk, but I suppose the rest of them could be out practicing law somewhere."
I literally got this as a chain email 30 years ago.
Subject:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd:Fwd Hilarious!!!
They try and keep it pretty fresh around here.
And this is the world we got because you forgot to forward it to 30 people in the following ten seconds!
dev.null1, dev.null2, dev.null3...
The chain emails copied it out of Reader's Digest.
I'm too young to have gotten chain emails 30 years ago, but https://www.gnu.org/fun/jokes/courtroom.quips.html may be from that era too.
I started going on the Net about 29 years ago and I'm not sure it was already around. But what I do know is that, to my great disappointment, the list has not grown with the years.
I've seen a list with more than this. Like the question of "How far were the cars at the time of collision?"
I remember being on a joke email chain on AOL and if you didn't reply saying how funny it was you'd get blocked.
You forgot one of the best. A lot of these are kind of funny, but there is a certain amount of stupid sounding legwork that the attorney is obligated to do that they may slip into doing too much of just by habit. It's like the cops ask "And did he have your permission to punch you in the face? Did you consent to that?" They just have to cover the elements of the statute.
Anyway. From memory so the precise wording is not verbatim (I think this one's from a divorce trial):
Attorney: And did you ever have sex with him in Salt Lake City?
Witness: I'm not going to answer that question.
Attorney: Did you ever have sex with him in Miami?
Witness: I'm not going to answer that question.
Attorney: Did you ever have sex with him in Key Largo?
Witness: No.
I think I might be whooshing on why the exchange you shared is funny, or maybe I’m overthinking it?
The "No" to key largo implies the other two were yesses
Ah ok, thank you, I was definitely trying to way overthink it for some reason.
Attorney: Were to present for your son's birth (asked of the biological mother). I believe I read this in "the coffee news" many years ago.
Vanessa: "My dad left before I was born!"
Deadpool: "My dad left before I was CONCEIVED!"
My dad left before he was born!
Know your audience. You'd think attorneys were better at that, but I guess witnesses don't decide whether someone gets made attorney or not.
I think it's a funny meeting of worlds thing. Like the kinda of people who can afford law school are generally not the kinds who grew up in an every day setting
Colloquial speech vs professional jargon
Also a lot of what (good) trial lawyers do is cover all the small loopholes, so questions that seem silly are because Dr X-acto got off on murder by claiming it was an autopsy in 1798 or whatever. Or it's a bad trial lawyer and it is silly.
Is the first one not offensive to the Lemmy community?
can you elaborate on why it may be?
Probably because some trans women have beards and the kind of person who would think that trans inclusiveness is a special Lemmy thing is often also the kind of person who doesn't bother to learn that sex, gender, and gender expression are different things and suspects that ignorance in jokes from a time where that ignorance was the norm to the point of being near-absolute is SUPER triggering to rational non-bigots? 🤷
That run-on sentence hurts my brain while still explaining things. TIHI
Sorry, I was on my way to bed so didn't give myself time to reformat it to something more reader-friendly
If sex and gender are two different things, can you define gender without referring to sex? Honest question
well written ☞ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sex%E2%80%93gender_distinction
This article refers to sex throughout its entirety; the ask was for a definition of gender without reference to sex
I'm not very interested in these questions, but my understanding is that gender refers to a role in society, while sex is more qbout biology.
You should stick to designing coasts.
Unlike your award winning fjords, your sealioning is tiresome and unoriginal.
Sealioning? Apologies, but I don't understand what you mean. May I trouble you to please elaborate?
Of course.
Gender is a spectrum between feminine and masculine. It is determined by society and can change depending on when and where you live.
For example, a skirt is seen as something feminine. But go to Scotland and there it is something masculine instead.
Thanks. There's a lot of bad faith replies here; I appreciate the honest engagement. I get the feeling that we're heading into circular logic territory if we were to discuss what it means to be "masculine" or "feminine" in a gender-fluid, sex-abstracted context. It'd be best if we leave it here, as much as it pains me to stifle my own curiosity.
They inform each other through culture, but they are not the same thing. Just like female lions do most of the hunting. To them, hunting might end up a feminine trait.
Centuries ago, it was expected for women to wear pants, now, not so much. In the Victorian era, men wore makeup too. The social expectations that inform gender change drastically. To be gender non-conforming can mean very different things in different societies. For example; David Bowie. In the Victorian era, he'd have barely stood out at all, besides his talents.
Sex is about the physical body, and gender is about self-identification. Social norms inform what attributes are attributed to what, but it is seldom (virtually never) anything set in stone.
On top of that, the more rigid society tries to be, the more room there is to be "different" and for people to not feel included by those rigid expectations. So the hilarious irony is, conservative shitheads trying to make everyone conform does the exact opposite of what they want; It creates more dejected and excluded people, who are then more likely to be anything but "normal".
Even if you ignore the whole beard aspect, the witness started their first sentence with He. That alone makes the next question redundant anyway