california-launches-new-effort-to-fight-election-disinformation (Santa Monica: how much, best, money)

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

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.

“Go to school.” = ad hominem. Right? Lol.

Attacking credibility can be instructive in many situations, particularly going to the point of a person’s repetitively unsupported claims. And credibility is an issue in anonymous debate, for sure, bubba.

Furthermore, judges attack defendants’ character often when meting out sentencing. Certainly that is not always an expression of a “weak position”. It is sometimes instructive to either or both the individual in question and / or the audience at large.

“Schooling” clearly doesn’t qualify a person as rational debater here on the CD forum. Kinda one of my points. Get it?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

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.

Coupla things here:
1. The “individual” you accused was ajudged not at fault by the LA County Prosecutor’s Office following an investigation that determined, among other things, that the “victim” threw the first punch against the sole, unaccompanied homeless guy, even as the “victim” was backed by a group of his similarly antagonistic college drinking buddies out on a tear that night. So, “victim” my butt ... he lost that confrontation because he can’t fight, he met a physically superior force.

2. Ya see the second quote I supplied for reference? Refers to homeless people, plural ... the “victim” #1 wasn’t any part of your referencing.

You have made a number of other similar, non-specific comments over a long period of posting. I’m not going to rummage around any further to dig up more as these three are sufficient to validate my previous point.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

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.

Lol. You’re just making my point ... and apparently can’t even see it. Lol.

[Tulemutt]

And NOW can we return to the thread issue?

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

“Go to school.” = ad hominem. Right? Lol.

Attacking credibility can be instructive in many situations, particularly going to the point of a person’s repetitively unsupported claims. And credibility is an issue in anonymous debate, for sure, bubba.

Furthermore, judges attack defendants’ character often when meting out sentencing. Certainly that is not always an expression of a “weak position”. It is sometimes instructive to either or both the individual in question and / or the audience at large.

“Schooling” clearly doesn’t qualify a person as rational debater here on the CD forum. Kinda one of my points. Get it?

You could take it that way, but it was not intended to be an ad hominem. I sincerely apologize if it was taken hat way. It was a poor choice of words on my part. In general, it is not an attack on the person to point out that they are ignorant on a given topic. In my case, I might have crossed the line for which i apologize.

You are extremely misguided on your understanding and conflation of the roles in a courtroom as opposed to how debating others works. Judges do not prove or test credibility. Moreover, in a criminal proceeding and during the sentencingphase there is often some usage of rough words. It is really part of the end of the trial and not testing credibility.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

You could take it that way, but it was not intended to be an ad hominem. I sincerely apologize if it was taken hat way. It was a poor choice of words on my part. In general, it is not an attack on the person to point out that they are ignorant on a given topic. In my case, I might have crossed the line for which i apologize.

You are extremely misguided on your understanding and conflation of the roles in a courtroom as opposed to how debating others works. Judges do not prove or test credibility. Moreover, in a criminal proceeding and during the sentencingphase there is often some usage of rough words. It is really part of the end of the trial and not testing credibility.

No apology required. But thanks for the thought.

Judges judge credibility constantly. It’s part of what judging is.

Moreover, you are ignoring the instructive use to which personal criticism is often applied ... in court and elsewhere.

Look, I irritate you, and some others on the forums, frequently. I know that and don’t care ... because ... my intent is rarely to be specifically irritating. If you were to objectively read a selection of exchanges I have with various other posters you would note that there are a number of people I engage in debate, and with whom I disagree, who I don’t antagonize at all. (One example comes to mind is Sporty & Misty.) The difference in my conversational engagements is based on several criteria:

- level of outrageousness of false declarations ... especially where such can literally be harmful to others

- tone of oppositional discourse ... I rarely start off on any “ad hominem” footings, but arrive there sometimes if the other party is persistently obtuse, disrespectful, or frankly outrageous

- perception of frank stupidity ... I very often skip commenting on even outrageous posts that are made by people who are clearly intellectually limited. Sometimes some dumb posts irresistably call for a quip or three, though.

If a person (such as Sporty) demonstrates erudition in a topic and we differ, I can really enjoying going on at length without ever attacking credibility. At some point, however, with some people who clearly have intellect to work with but who refuse to serve credibility issues (i.e. provide credible validations and references) ... I’ll point that out. If the challenge is persistent, eventually I’ll get “instructive”.

[LuvSouthOC]

Whether a view or posting is outrageous is subjective. When you strongly disagree, that means you feel it was outrageous. That doesn’t justify personal attacks. Discourse requires that one not engage in ad hominem attacks. Civility requires it too but of course modern society has given the impression to people that ad hominem attacks are ok, even encouraged. You are falling into that trap. I won’t engage in exchanges with people who engage in such attacks.

I hate typing on this phone.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

Whether a view or posting is outrageous is subjective. When you strongly disagree, that means you feel it was outrageous. That doesn’t justify personal attacks. Discourse requires that one not engage in ad hominem attacks. Civility requires it too but of course modern society has given the impression to people that ad hominem attacks are ok, even encouraged. You are falling into that trap. I won’t engage in exchanges with people who engage in such attacks.

I hate typing on this phone.

Disagree. “Outrageous” can be either or both subjective and or objective. There are standards of civilization that rise beyond subjective.

I have to express some amusement here at your “discourse require one not engage in ad hominem attacks.” Subscription to that as a lofty ideal would definitely ask that other kinds of offense toward all people be eschewed. I am not the only one on these boards who finds many of your expressions of attitude toward many posters and populations highly offensive ... arrogantly demeaning and insensitive.

So you pick and choose which offensive commentaries are “acceptable” and which are not? Heh.

Discourse can rightly include instructive personal commentaries.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Coupla things here:
1. The “individual” you accused was ajudged not at fault by the LA County Prosecutor’s Office following an investigation that determined, among other things, that the “victim” threw the first punch against the sole, unaccompanied homeless guy, even as the “victim” was backed by a group of his similarly antagonistic college drinking buddies out on a tear that night. So, “victim” my butt ... he lost that confrontation because he can’t fight, he met a physically superior force.

2. Ya see the second quote I supplied for reference? Refers to homeless people, plural ... the “victim” #1 wasn’t any part of your referencing.

You have made a number of other similar, non-specific comments over a long period of posting. I’m not going to rummage around any further to dig up more as these three are sufficient to validate my previous point.

Didn't this happen in Santa Monica? Furthermore, the kid permanently disfigured was not the initial aggressor. He was simply defending himself from being pushed in what he believed was a physical threat by a deranged homeless person who ultimately caused permanent injury to the college kid.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Lol. You’re just making my point ... and apparently can’t even see it. Lol.

No, you made my point, so LOL right back at you. Furthermore, your peanut butter is in my chocolate!