 The semantic sting really does seem a gruesome fate for a lawyer, because those who suffer from it would have to say that no one really disagrees with anyone about the law: whenever people think they disagree about how to identify the law on any point, that fact in itself would demonstrate that there is nothing to disagree about: there is no law on the point at issue, if the agreed ways of identifying the law do not decide the point. So if you suffer from the semantic sting, you will conclude that sincere, competent lawyers who know the facts of a case will never disagree with each other. When an apparent disagreement arises, they ought to throw up their hands and say that there is no law on the point. If you suffer from the semantic sting, you will think that at least one party to any dispute over the content of the law is either legally inept and philosophically misguided, or dishonest.