Nowhere else on the Internet can you find a message board thread in which there are two discussions going on:
1.) “You’re stupid because you said that white people never rape black people!”
2.) “So, exactly how much damage is dealt by a young green dragon’s breath weapon?”
I love the SDMB. 
Good grief–now you’re saying that green dragons are real? What’s wrong with you?
Do you believe that this statement has any more real-world applicability than the discussion of green dragon breath weapons?
Daniel
Have you ever had such a case? Have you ever heard of such a case? Do you ever expect your point to have any relevance in the real world?
I’ve never heard any evidence like that you support ever being admissible. I’ve never even heard it proposed. Credibility, like guilt or innocence, should be determined on a case by case basis, not some general trends or statistical investigation. Proposing that it is ever relevant strikes me as distinctly unlawyerlike.
Of course, if your point is that it will never occur in the real world, but was merely a fanciful idea, great for you. A wholly stupid point, but one that doesn’t mean you’re evil.
Like Will Rogers once famously said, “I only know what I read in the Monster Manual.”
Not much. The only difference is that it leads to a discussion of things like hidden codependencies and the differences between correleation and causation - it’s the sort of thing that is common to discuss in theory. Green dragons, not so much.
But is there any actual predictive value in what I’m saying? No, of course not. Because all other things are NEVER equal. They cannot be. That’s why it’s a purely theoretical statement.
And in the orginal thread, I said about fifty fucking times that such a thing would never be admissible, didn’t I? I disclaimed that over and over again, didn’t I?
So, thanks for the heads-up.
So then why do you say this just yesterday in the Lying Whore thread:
Shouldn’t you have been telling him how silly he sounds? Instead you make fun of the very thing you’re saying is your position now.
Disingenous. Punk.
On the other hand, I now have “Pop Goes The Weasel” going through my head. 
Yes, you got me. That post to psychloan was just as serious and I will defend it just as strongly as everything I’ve ever posted here.
Or, option B, that post was a quick, throw-away, sarcastic line that did not truly attempt to meaningfully summarize the issues.
Hmmm…
Hmmm…
Man, that’s a tough one. You think about it. Someone of your dazzling brilliance should get the right answer in about a quarter-century of vigorous rumination.
For the love of god and all that is holy, LET IT GO.
Or perhaps he was being satirical in his response?
I have been lurking here for quite a while, far before my join date shows, and throughout my stay I have noticed many trends on this message board. One trend that seems to continously pop up is the sensitivity certain posters have when an issue of race is brought up. I have been following this sequence of events from the sidelines, and multiple times you with the face has prompted me to nearly step in, but I refrained. This however, finally convinced me to step into the fray. The OP is completely off their rocker with these accusations, no where do I see Bricker being inconsistent with his logic or somehow racist with his line of thought. He simply laid out statistics, regarding the incidence of inter-racial rape, and the conclusion that would follow as a result. He did not say that the lady is black so therefore she lied, he said with all things being equal there is less of a chance for a black woman to be raped by a white man. Like he has stated at least once, all things or not equal in real life, so his input deals with a theoretical academic view on the matter at hand. If it is wrong to look at things in that manner, a great majority of the threads on this board would have no reason to be here.
He is not saying because of the statistics Marie’s claim would/should be ignored, rather Janice’s claim would be more likely, and therefore more credible.
I personally much prefer “green dragons” to “hidden codependency” as a topic of theoretical discussion. Although if green dragons come up as a theoretical topic this Thursday, my poor little 4th level archivist is in for a world of hurt…
Alternatively, discussing red and maroon dragons could tie all these disparate topics together.
We could even make a sticky thread for it.
I want to share in the nits. 
According to here, it seems the other definition is also acceptable (about half way down the page)…
Phrasal Verb:
hone in
[ol]
[li]To move or advance toward a target or goal: The missiles honed in on the military installation. [/li][li]To direct one’s attention; focus: The lawyer honed in on the gist of the plaintiff’s testimony. [/li][/ol]
That’d work, right?
Bricker is very intelligent, a great source and a benefit to this board. Of course, he is also arrogant and full of himself, but what do ya expect? He’s a lawyer for fucks sakes 
and he argues like one.
It was a stupid thread and a stupid argument and Bricker was a fool to let himself be dragged into it. However, this thread is even more stupid, if that’s possible- and yet again, here’s** Bricker.**
Of course, I am here too. :smack:
What we really need to discuss is not the damage a young green dragon does, but how many HD a troll has.
Post count padder.
Bricker can be called many things, but “disingenuous” is not one of them. I know of no case in which he has said anything other than precisely what he meant. So it seems to be in this case too; you just chose to ignore the dozen disclaimers and focus on the part that could piss you off.
I didn’t read the other trainwreck, so I don’t know. I’ll just chalk it up to another pointless post by you.
You’re quite welcome. Anytime you need a little help making your silly, irrelevant points more clear to the reader, just let me know. Maybe I can help with the confusion that seems to follow you around.
Can’t we stick to green dragon breath weapons? Compare and contrast with red dragons?
Anything but another tedious round of this bull.
What kind? Normal, forest, cave, mountain, crystalline, or war?
You can’t say that Janice’s claim is more likely, just on the basis of racial crime data. You don’t have enough evidence to make that kind of statement about Janice’s claim.
By definition, evidence is anything that points to something being true. “In the absence of evidence” requires, definitionally, suspension of judgement when confronted with a case that lacks it. How are you going to make any kind of judgement of veracity (probative or otherwise) if you lack the one thing that, by definition, is a prerequisite for judgement? You can not. That’s why Bricker’s disclaimer about evidence is garbage. It is illogical.
Look, I’m not going to argue for pages about stats again because this thread is not about that. It’s about Bricker’s quality as a debator. I just had to respond to this little nugget of absurdity.
