Kansas transcends itself - Page 4

crimresearch · 14th May 2012, 06:52 PM

Originally Posted by Ziggurat

Your own words don't constitute a strawman. And when your tactics become an impediment to discussion, as they were with your refusal to define your TOTC acronym (which seems to be nonstandard even if the phrase isn't), then it becomes a legitimate target for criticism.

Given that you have never addressed what I actually said, or even the actual contents of the law, you're really in no place to criticize anyone else for not offering anything relevant to the thread.

You quoting my own words, and claiming they mean the opposite of what I said, is a classic strawman.

And given that I've specifically addressed the contents of the law in post #47 et al. your repeated denial of reality is simply not believable.

Ziggurat · 14th May 2012, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

You quoting my own words, and claiming they mean the opposite of what I said, is a classic strawman.

And yet, you never bothered to explain what they did mean. You seem to have a habit of not explaining anything you say, even though apparently you think lots of people can't understand you.

To quote again from XKCD, "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works."

Quote:

And given that I've specifically addressed the contents of the law in post #47 et al. your repeated denial of reality is simply not believable.

Oh, the post where you said the law was either redundant or benign. That appears to be the full extent of your criticism. So why did you start this thread again?

marksman · 15th May 2012, 04:22 AM

Originally Posted by crimresearch

If you have no clue what is meant in the law by the 'totality of the circumstances', or what 'legislative intent' is, etc. you aren't going to 'win' anything by making the absurd claims that you keep trying to put in my mouth, or by spinning things.

Not realizing that the "totc" acronym was intended to indicate "totality of the circumstances" does not mean I do not know what the term (as opposed to the acronym) means. Particularly since "totc" is not used as an acronym for "totality of the circumstances" in any legal circles of which I am aware, andI told you where I looked, and you haven't supplied any evidence to the contrary.

Quote:

Nothing in that Columbia law review article disagrees with what I've said, it disagrees with the strawmen you've created.

I quoted the portions of the law review article that directly refuted what you told Darat. Your blanket denials aren't going to convince anybody. Are you sure you understand how skeptical discussion operates?

Quote:

I'll only ask this once, do you have anything that is either correct or useful relevant to my actual points?

Yes. I cited links and quoted them. You responded with bald denials unsupported by argument. All you've done is act rudely, insult people, and deny reality. I'm perfectly content to let the record of this thread stand for itself unless you have something of substance to contribute.

You're really not doing yourself any favors here, crimresearch. Bluster and bravado will onl get you so far. You need to actually do the effort of substantiating your claims and refutations if you want people to take your statements seriously.

JoeTheJuggler · 15th May 2012, 10:38 AM

Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to check back in and see if Muldur has simply walked away from his twice made false claim that Obama's Justice Department says it will act to force sharia law on anyone.

Guess so.

14th May 2012, 06:52 PM	#121
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618	Originally Posted by Ziggurat Your own words don't constitute a strawman. And when your tactics become an impediment to discussion, as they were with your refusal to define your TOTC acronym (which seems to be nonstandard even if the phrase isn't), then it becomes a legitimate target for criticism. Given that you have never addressed what I actually said, or even the actual contents of the law, you're really in no place to criticize anyone else for not offering anything relevant to the thread. You quoting my own words, and claiming they mean the opposite of what I said, is a classic strawman. And given that I've specifically addressed the contents of the law in post #47 et al. your repeated denial of reality is simply not believable.
crimresearch Alumbrado Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 10,618

14th May 2012, 06:58 PM	#122
Ziggurat Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 26,220	Originally Posted by crimresearch You quoting my own words, and claiming they mean the opposite of what I said, is a classic strawman. And yet, you never bothered to explain what they did mean. You seem to have a habit of not explaining anything you say, even though apparently you think lots of people can't understand you. To quote again from XKCD, "Anyone who says that they're great at communicating but 'people are bad at listening' is confused about how communication works." Quote: And given that I've specifically addressed the contents of the law in post #47 et al. your repeated denial of reality is simply not believable. Oh, the post where you said the law was either redundant or benign. That appears to be the full extent of your criticism. So why did you start this thread again?
	__________________ "As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law

15th May 2012, 10:38 AM	#124
JoeTheJuggler Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: St. Louis Posts: 26,833	Sorry to interrupt, but I just wanted to check back in and see if Muldur has simply walked away from his twice made false claim that Obama's Justice Department says it will act to force sharia law on anyone. Guess so.
	__________________ "That is a very graphic analogy which aids understanding wonderfully while being, strictly speaking, wrong in every possible way." —Ponder Stibbons

15th May 2012, 04:22 AM	#123
marksman Reality Checker Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Tarrytown, NY Posts: 5,003	Originally Posted by crimresearch If you have no clue what is meant in the law by the 'totality of the circumstances', or what 'legislative intent' is, etc. you aren't going to 'win' anything by making the absurd claims that you keep trying to put in my mouth, or by spinning things. Not realizing that the "totc" acronym was intended to indicate "totality of the circumstances" does not mean I do not know what the term (as opposed to the acronym) means. Particularly since "totc" is not used as an acronym for "totality of the circumstances" in any legal circles of which I am aware, andI told you where I looked, and you haven't supplied any evidence to the contrary. Quote: Nothing in that Columbia law review article disagrees with what I've said, it disagrees with the strawmen you've created. I quoted the portions of the law review article that directly refuted what you told Darat. Your blanket denials aren't going to convince anybody. Are you sure you understand how skeptical discussion operates? Quote: I'll only ask this once, do you have anything that is either correct or useful relevant to my actual points? Yes. I cited links and quoted them. You responded with bald denials unsupported by argument. All you've done is act rudely, insult people, and deny reality. I'm perfectly content to let the record of this thread stand for itself unless you have something of substance to contribute. You're really not doing yourself any favors here, crimresearch. Bluster and bravado will onl get you so far. You need to actually do the effort of substantiating your claims and refutations if you want people to take your statements seriously.