Again, you’re ducking the point. You acted GD in MPSIMS. Now you’re decrying those who act MPSIMS in GD. I’m not sure we can make that point any clearer.
Wow. We’re almost there.
See, when I acted GD in MPSIMS, and was called on it, I apologized, acknowledged the error, and (at least implicitly) resolved to not repeat.
The folks that acted MPSIMS in GD are staunchly defending their approach and are not the least bit discomfited by it.
Wait a minute, who acted GD in MPSIMS? All of the posts you have cited to make your case were posted in MPSIMS.
I appreciate the kind words. And I simply don’t believe that in this instance, I’ve acted inappropriately. I agree I was snarky and a bit mean in my response, and that there’s undoubtedly a way to convey the clarification without being a dick…
… but seriously. If I complained abvout each instance of much meaner stuff directed at me in GD, it would be a full-time job. It’s not clear to me why I should be the most noble of all GD participants.
I am now defending the conduct as though the thread had been in GD all along.
If you want a concession that my behavior was out of line for IMHO or MPSIMS, I have already given it twice, and I’ll give it again: it was assholish to leap on that comment in MPSIMS and attack it like that. MPSIMS is the thread for unsupported, casual discussion, and it’s absolutely wrong to treat it as I did.
If this entire debate is continuing because I acted wrongly for IMHO or MPSIMS, we can all stop now. I did.
I’m contending that what’s right for GD isn’t right for IMHO or MPSIMS, and I did NOT act wrongly for GD purposes.
Are you on drugs? You just said: “The folks that acted MPSIMS in GD are staunchly defending their approach…”
So exactly who the fuck are you arguing with? Nobody acted MPSIMS in GD. It’s one thing to say that you are now arguing as if the thread had been in GD. You’re actually accusing people of acting MPSIMS in GD, which is something else entirely.
Right you are. Let me explain that very poorly written sentence.
I haven’t gotten the sense that the key component of complaint in this thread is MPSIMS vs. GD. My sense is that the key component is different.
But if that sense is mistaken – if the gravamen of the complaint is that I acted poorly for MPSIMS, then we’re done, since I readily admit that.
So when I said, “The folks that acted MPSIMS in GD…” I spoke poorly.
I mean to refer to the folks who are now defending the action of acting MPSIMS in GD. No actual folks did that in the thread, I agree.
But here, I believe people are defending the practice of acting MPSIMS in GD.
If I am wrong, then this thread has an easy resolution.
Right after **Der Trihs **wins Miss Congeniality.
I just want to take this moment to point out that the Kelo decision was unconstitutional.
Well, duh!!
Not sure about that. Probably a little of column A, and a little of column B.
I contend that there are not different rules for IMHO, GD or IMHO. Or should I say there “should not be different rules?”
Contend away.
Sometimes, yes, it does. A small change in wording makes a difference in how one might respond, as well as who the poster is. If I know the poster is one of the cadres of basement radicals who tends to post “facts” from their favourite blog as if they were gospel, then yes, I will “destroy” their argument. If the poster is just one of the general public then I respond differently. Or if the post has any sort of questioning tone to it, rather than a pronouncement tone, then that makes the difference. For example:
Poster A: “You need to use anthracite coal - it’s the best coal there is.” - I’m going to pounce on that. It reads like an absolute assertion of fact, with no modifiers.
Poster B: “I believe anthracite coal is the best coal there is” - I’m going to explain it to them like I’m talking to one of my students. In other words, nicely.
However, when it’s the same Goddamn factoid which I’ve debunked scores of times on here repeated again, I sometimes get testy, no matter what the situation. Meaning of course, “most of our electricity comes from oil.” Those people need to be consigned to the 8th level of Hell, somewhere near the back by the Sphincter Hounds.
Gun control debates need exact terms and need pouncing on bad facts because the issue is so important, and yet key facts are often completely unknown by the participants on either side. Example: conflating “semi-automatic” with “fully automatic” puts the entire argument on an unsound basis. Such as “shooter X used gun A (a fully automatic weapon, already banned or restricted), thus we should ban guns B, C, and D (semi-automatic weapons, not related to gun A for this example).” While there may be logical reasons a person might extend the use of A to call for a ban on B, C, and D, unless those reasons are explained it appears that they’re engaging in a blog-jerk reaction to something. Or pro-gun posters assuming that a “castle law” is universal to the US and stating that they absolutely have the right to do M, N, and O.
Oh, and I support Bricker in the case highlighted in the thread.
Wow, what a substantive and thoughtful response. I expected better of you, but your self-defense in this thread is kind of circling the drain at this point, so I’m not sure why.
Continue to make obviously incorrect assumptions about people’s meaning, then. Continue to condescend. And the rest of us will continue to talk past you and ignore you as appropriate.
It’d be just fine with me if you were to ignore me. In fact, that’s one of the first things I’m asking Santa for this year, since I don’t really recall your aggregate contributions to any thread as being of great value, ever.
Likewise! Merry Christmas, Bricker.
Wow, this is fucking dorky. I bet you wrote a skit for the “Law School Follies” or whatever. But that’s an aside to this thread.
Also, a big – oh wait I can’t say that now, but the point is that I have been reduced to agreeing with Duke of all fucking people. Come the fuck on.
Anyway, the main ideas in this thread and its progenitor are best compared to two trains passing in the night. For the laymen, the problem is not that Bricker was wrong. He is correct, albeit in the narrow sense of being correct from a certain stance on constitutional theory (and wildly incorrect from the stance of other, just as valid, theories on constitutional law). I find his stance repugnant and the refuge of bigots and fascists and the morally bankrupt, but that’s neither here nor there.
What’s offensive vis a vis the discussion is that in the original thread Bricker either a) attempted to shut down debate by appealing to a supposedly omniscient, perfect authority or b) made a pedantic correction and then spent about 3 pages fighting with people who said “Fine, whatever, but you know what I mean”.
Neither of those are appropriate, especially in the presence of so many people that have only the most base understanding of the law. By insisting on the correctness of a very narrowly held view on con law that is at best barely tangent to the issue under discussion, you’re guilty of attention whoring at best, and at worst misleading a bunch of laymen to advance some authoritarian vision of the law that is at odds with how the court system actually works.
(My evidence for this is all the non-lawyers in this thread that have swallowed your line of B.S. as some sort of writ from God – gratz, B, on being just like Nancy Grace. Note how a lot of the actual legally trained people, versed in pedantry and specificity, are rolling their eyes at your insistence that you are fighting the good fight against ignorance.)
It’s not about the point you made. It’s about you thrusting it into the middle of a discussion to steal the limelight, and only secondarily about you aligning with a fairly fringe stance on constitutional law/theory.
“Steal the limelight,” eh?
I’m too tired of this topic to be snarky in return, so I’ll simply say I disagree.
This discussion started with a claim. That claim was either that a law being enforced against an individual was unconstitutional, or that the law should be considered unconstitutional. I rebutted the first interpretation of the claim. If the debate skills of the participants in the thread are such that this rebuttal works to absolutely foreclose the discussion about whether it should be unconstitutional, I cannot feel particularly guilty.
Nobody is asking you to feel guilty for having such awesome logical skills, Bricker. They’re asking you to knock off a distracting irrelevant line of argument that you repeatedly put up with sufficient rhetorical flourish that it takes a lot of work to disentangle it from the issue at hand.
Of course the claim was that the law should be considered unconstitutional, not that it’s currently settled law that it’s unconstitutional. THe latter claim–the one that you rebutted–is obviously stupid, and nobody in the thread indicated that they were dumb enough to make it. It’s a classic straw man.