Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you know what a reductio ad absurdum argument is? If I make such an argument to show that it is unlikely that he did not see Ward. Does that require expertise?
Does a jury need expertise in order to convict Tony of 2nd Degree murder?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
when you made the claim that tony saw ward, when you made the claim that tony is guilty of second degree murder, when you made the claim that the video is plenty of evidence to convict tony. need i go on? you constantly make claims of authority, but you refuse to back those claims with noted expertise. be it a proper college degree, actual experience, or a proper solid investigation on your part.
so you either have the experience and expertise, or you are being the typical moronic idiot that likes to spout off on things they know nothing about, and still try to sound important and knowledgeable, because the internet is anonymous, and therefore you can act like you know what you are talking about, when the real experts know you are full of crap.
Where do I make an argument on the basis of authority anywhere in this thread? Please show me.
You don't, yet you make very specific factual and legal claims based on your armchair analysis of some still frames. Since you now demand non-anonymous expertise from others to validate their opinions and conclusions, show us yours. If you can't or won't, you're admitting you're just another internet loudmouth with an agenda.
Do you know what a reductio ad absurdum argument is?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
You don't, yet you make very specific factual and legal claims based on your armchair analysis of some still frames. Since you now demand non-anonymous expertise from others to validate their opinions and conclusions, show us yours. If you can't or won't, you're admitting you're just another internet loudmouth with an agenda.
Do you know what a reductio ad absurdum argument is? If I make such an argument to show that it is unlikely that he did not see Ward. Does that require expertise?
Does a jury need expertise in order to convict Tony of 2nd Degree murder?
yes its a fancy word for you being too chicken to put forth your own expertise to show that you have an idea of what you are talking about. and since you have no expertise, you have no clue about which you speak. so again i implore you to stop embarrassing yourself.
as for the jury, no they dont need any expertise to do their jobs, but what they DO need is evidence, and if you gave a jury the evidence you have you would in fact lose your case because the defense would show evidence that counters your so called evidence very easily by recreating the conditions of the incidence, and that too would be admissible in court, and would show what tony would have seen from the cockpit, video evidence which you wouldnt have, and that would create enough doubt in your case that the jury would acquit tony.
so like is say again, please please please stop embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.
Look I do not make claims on the basis of an appeal to my authority at all in the thread. If I did I would be more than willing to give up my anonymity.
All I have been arguing is that many of the claims that Tony supporters make do not make sense they are easily contradicted by just looking at the video. And the fact cloud surrounding Tony Stewart from media reports, interviews etc coupled with the video is enough for one to conclude that this was 2nd Degree murder on a circumstantial basis. I readily admit that this might not be enough to convict the man in court. But, it is certainly enough for one to reasonably believe that he committed 2nd Degree murder.
You don't need to be an expert to make this argument.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drover
Since I'm not an expert logician who is willing to share my name, my answer to the question would be irrelevant to you.
Since you know what one is then why all the pretending that you need expertise to make conclusion about Tony's ability to see based on lighting and the suit?
Really, you think that jury out comes are that predictable?
So, a jury does not need expertise to make a finding of 2nd Degree murder, then why do I?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
yes its a fancy word for you being too chicken to put forth your own expertise to show that you have an idea of what you are talking about. and since you have no expertise, you have no clue about which you speak. so again i implore you to stop embarrassing yourself.
as for the jury, no they dont need any expertise to do their jobs, but what they DO need is evidence, and if you gave a jury the evidence you have you would in fact lose your case because the defense would show evidence that counters your so called evidence very easily by recreating the conditions of the incidence, and that too would be admissible in court, and would show what tony would have seen from the cockpit, video evidence which you wouldnt have, and that would create enough doubt in your case that the jury would acquit tony.
so like is say again, please please please stop embarrassing yourself with your lack of knowledge.
Since you know what one is then why all the pretending that you need expertise to make conclusion about Tony's ability to see based on lighting and the suit?
Really, you think that jury out comes are that predictable?
So, a jury does not need expertise to make a finding of 2nd Degree murder, then why do I?
because a jury is going to hear ALL of the evidence presented by both sides in the case, should it go that far. you on the other hand are making judgements based on flimsy evidence at best, and only a couple of piece of that evidence.
and you are making these claims as though you are an expert byt eh very statements you make. you are suggesting by rote that you are an expert, because you make definitive statements, you are not saying that YOU think tony is guilty, you are saying that tony is guilty and its that difference that suggests that you have expertise.
but since you refuse to expound on your expertise, you are essentially just another loud mouthed idiot spouting off on things of which you know nothing about.
so either pony up your expertise, or shut the F up about this subject.
Since you know what one is then why all the pretending that you need expertise to make conclusion about Tony's ability to see based on lighting and the suit?
Because you're not merely reaching a conclusion, you're making very specific factual and legal claims, based by all appearances on little or no subject-matter knowledge, experience, or expertise.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinoza 1454
So, a jury does not need expertise to make a finding of 2nd Degree murder, then why do I?
Juries don't make factual and legal arguments like you're making; they evaluate those arguments as presented by each side. As part of that evaluation process, they also evaluate the credibility of those making the arguments based in part on their knowledge, experience, and expertise. Your knowledge and experience has been deemed lacking by, among others, us "jurors" in this thread who happen to have knowledge and experience in dirt racing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spinoza 1454
Look I do not make claims on the basis of an appeal to my authority at all in the thread.
Great, that makes it that much easier to dismiss your claims as the uninformed ramblings of an internet loudmouth.
You have missed my point entirely about juries. It shows that you do not need expertise in order to judge whether or not someone is guilty of 2nd Degree Murder. You do acknowledge that this is true? Yes or No?
You also do not address the point I made about how you do not need expertise to make the argument I am making. Please show me why I need expertise to show via Reductio Ad Absurdum argument that Stewart is guilty in this case. You know its true. All you can say is shut up you are not a race car expert. Anyone on this board with critical thinking abilities will see right through you.
A film that shows Stewart running right into the man is "flimsy evidence"?
You are not giving an argument that counters the argument I gave about how you don't need to be an expert or have expertise to come to the conclusions that I made. Why is it that you don't address what I have said.
I have shown that many of the things said about this case by Stewart supporters is contradicted by the video. You do not address that head on at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rbohm
because a jury is going to hear ALL of the evidence presented by both sides in the case, should it go that far. you on the other hand are making judgements based on flimsy evidence at best, and only a couple of piece of that evidence.
and you are making these claims as though you are an expert byt eh very statements you make. you are suggesting by rote that you are an expert, because you make definitive statements, you are not saying that YOU think tony is guilty, you are saying that tony is guilty and its that difference that suggests that you have expertise.
but since you refuse to expound on your expertise, you are essentially just another loud mouthed idiot spouting off on things of which you know nothing about.
so either pony up your expertise, or shut the F up about this subject.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
