california-launches-new-effort-to-fight-election-disinformation (Santa Monica: office, required, population)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I never said that homeless people should be drowned or shoved out of an helicopter. Furthermore, which arguments have I not framed logically, in your opinion?

You did, and you know I can go to the LA homeless thread and pull out the quotes from your posts.

Read above reply to OC’s post.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Ad hominems do not necessarily display weakness. Another foolish fallacy. Ad hominems can be correct and can be applied to even the strongest position, simply displaying disdain. Do you ever think before you blurt these things out?

Furthermore, what you label ‘ad hominems’ from me are frequently not. Sometimes they are direct rebuttal to claims of validation. Sometimes they are instructive, even.

Now, read Exitus’ original claim again ... and tell me how many errors of premises there are in this one sentence:

Hint: Each of the three premises are faulty.

Exitus has reported he is college educated.
Exitus has framed his statements as logical premises.
Each of the three parts of his statement fails to meet the standard of truth required to be used as an agreed premise.

The possibility of lazy intellect rears its head.

ALL of those three statement parts require specificity to be true ... no such specificity has been supplied ... which renders statistics useless.

Hint:

Then attack his argument, not his person. I’ll help. The purpose of prison as it is understood presently is to punish. There is a silly movement to go towards pure rehabilitation, but neither of those motivations is toi keep people imprisoned is to stop them from recommitting. That might be a beneficial side effect, however.

As for ad hominems not showing weakness, you’re wrong.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Hint: Each of the three premises are faulty.

Exitus has reported he is college educated.
Exitus has framed his statements as logical premises.
Each of the three parts of his statement fails to meet the standard of truth required to be used as an agreed premise.

The possibility of lazy intellect rears its head.

ALL of those three statement parts require specificity to be true ... no such specificity has been supplied ... which renders statistics useless.

Criminals commit crime. That's why they're called criminals. So you put criminals in a community, and crime results. That's called inductive reasoning -- it began with my hypothesis, I supported it, and I therefore reached my inductive conclusion.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

You did, and you know I can go to the LA homeless thread and pull out the quotes from your posts.

Read above reply to OC’s post.

Go ahead and show me where I stated anywhere on these forums that homeless people should be thrown out of helicopters.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Hint:

Then attack his argument, not his person. I’ll help. The purpose of prison as it is understood presently is to punish. There is a silly movement to go towards pure rehabilitation, but neither of those motivations is toi keep people imprisoned is to stop them from recommitting. That might be a beneficial side effect, however.

As for ad hominems not showing weakness, you’re wrong.

Lol, OC. Lawyers and judges try, win, and ajudicate cases all the time by including attacks (ad hominem) on defendants’ and witnesses’ characters. When they win, doing so is not a weakness.

Now then, the purpose of prison is not singular ... it is multifold:
1. Deterrence
2. Retribution
3. Rehabilitation
4. Incapacitation

Inductive reasoning, as Exitus claimed to be presenting, is a process of making broad generalizations from specific observations.

Basically, there is data, then conclusions are drawn from the data. This is called inductive logic.

"In inductive inference, we go from the specific to the general. We make many observations, discern a pattern, make a generalization, and infer an explanation or a theory,"

What Exitus provided, however, were three generalizations without specificity. What Exitus delivered was neither ‘inductive’ nor ‘deductive’ reasoning for his conclusion.

I am sorta sideways complimenting Exitus when I respond that he seems to be smarter than his lazy thinking habits. He, and you, both, strike me as having minds that shouldn’t be limited to many of the things you guys regurgitate onto the forum.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Criminals commit crime. That's why they're called criminals. So you put criminals in a community, and crime results. That's called inductive reasoning -- it began with my hypothesis, I supported it, and I therefore reached my inductive conclusion.

That’s a poor attempt at ‘deductive’ reasoning, Exitus. Not ‘inductive’. And it fails either way. Because “criminals” is a broad generalization containing many very different sub-categories which do not act similarly. So you can’t generalize them correctly in the manner you are trying to.

Again, for example, murderers are criminals. Yet their rate of recidivism is near zero.
People are sentenced to prison quite often for involuntary manslaughter, as well, for deaths caused by their driving drunk. And rarely re offend. Many white collar criminals are busted for embezzlement ... and don’t re offend.

You also generalized that criminals are imprisoned because they have shown a proclivity for crime. Lots of people in prison don’t have a proclivity for crime beyond having made one stupid error.

You simply show a proclivity yourself for making fallacious generalizations.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Go ahead and show me where I stated anywhere on these forums that homeless people should be thrown out of helicopters.

Ok, here you go:

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

That bum ... should get a helicopter ride from Pinochet.

And I’ll throw in a couple bonus examples of you advocating violence against a broad class of people who are comprised of many individuals not fitting the profile you attack:

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Is this bum too simply defending himself? Sure doesn't look like it to me. Filthy animals like that should be removed from the civilised world, whether they're in prison for life or otherwise.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNhe3vF8Lbw

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

It seems to be getting worse out there, folks. Stay safe.



Local student slashed in fight with homeless man - Santa Monica Daily Press

I saw the video report of this on television, and that poor kid looked and sounded like he wouldn't hurt a fly. That homeless cretin should be put down just like we put down any other sick animal that's a threat to society.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

That’s a poor attempt at ‘deductive’ reasoning, Exitus. Not ‘inductive’. And it fails either way. Because “criminals” is a broad generalization containing many very different sub-categories which do not act similarly. So you can’t generalize them correctly in the manner you are trying to.

Again, for example, murderers are criminals. Yet their rate of recidivism is near zero.
People are sentenced to prison quite often for involuntary manslaughter, as well, for deaths caused by their driving drunk. And rarely re offend. Many white collar criminals are busted for embezzlement ... and don’t re offend.

You also generalized that criminals are imprisoned because they have shown a proclivity for crime. Lots of people in prison don’t have a proclivity for crime beyond having made one stupid error.

You simply show a proclivity yourself for making fallacious generalizations.

No, you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, we were discussing criminals to whom Prop 47 applied, not people convicted of murder amd such, so that's really a case of you moving the goalpost.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Ok, here you go:



And I’ll throw in a couple bonus examples of you advocating violence against a broad class of people who are comprised of many individuals not fitting the profile you attack:

I was referring to one person, who committed a heinous crime against a 20-year-old college student who is now permanently disfigured. You implied that I want to throw homeless people in general out of helicopters, implicitly for being homeless, which I did not state anywhere.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol, OC. Lawyers and judges try, win, and ajudicate cases all the time by including attacks (ad hominem) on defendants’ and witnesses’ characters. When they win, doing so is not a weakness.

Now then, the purpose of prison is not singular ... it is multifold:
1. Deterrence
2. Retribution
3. Rehabilitation
4. Incapacitation

Inductive reasoning, as Exitus claimed to be presenting, is a process of making broad generalizations from specific observations.


What Exitus provided, however, were three generalizations without specificity. What Exitus delivered was neither ‘inductive’ nor ‘deductive’ reasoning for his conclusion.

I am sorta sideways complimenting Exitus when I respond that he seems to be smarter than his lazy thinking habits. He, and you, both, strike me as having minds that shouldn’t be limited to many of the things you guys regurgitate onto the forum.

Oh boy. Are you really this ignorant of when it is appropriate to use an ad hominem? Attacking the credibility of a defendant in a criminal or civil trial is not an ad hominem because his or her credibility is at issue. That is not the case when engaging in a debate. Go to school.