What i call -Legal 'nonsense".....

Essentially, law has three nonsense:

1) one will say an extreme form of statement A, then another comments totally opposite side of statement B, then the next person will say we need to strike a balance between A & B, but the thing is how to strike a balance????& even that balance may be struck, then one will still say it is more towards statement A or B...so the argument will go on and on and forms the circularity of arguments....-_-

2)another is there is a conflict of moral principle A and principle B , then the question arises wil be is it possible to reconcile between these 2 arguments??Discuss.... -_-"

this make me sweating...cz the standard answer my gn p lecturer taught will be first, to soma extent, we can agree, but on certain points we can disapprove this argument-

then the conclusion will be sometime can , sometime cant, DEPEND THE CIRCUMSTANCES!!!!!(which make me sick!!)

3)the last will be there is always a general rule A, but in some circumstances there will be excptions in circumstances B, C and D...........
then the question wil be is it true that such general rules A still a valid claim or statement, assess and evaluate it..........

that is all the nonsense i am learning , sometimes i feel it is fun , sometimes it is funny but most of the times it make me feel confuse....

Wah, y suddenly my comment sounds like being influenced by this what i call " nonsense', as what i just say can be just = sometime i feel A , sometimes i feel C,( both positive sense) but most of the time i feel the opposite of B( negative sense) ...

haha...get it??if u dun get it, dun worry cz i also feel that i am talking nonsense too =)