So then, Lib, what would separate a Poison Well from a legitimate point of information? Intent? The type of information? What our society does or does not view in less than favorable light?
Information that is pertinent to the assertion.
Example: Dr. Gish’s paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology cannot be trusted because it states that speciation has never been observed when in fact it has.
We’ve discussed this before in Great Debates:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=122490
General consensus: lawyer out of line. He’s trying to instruct the jury on the law in the guise of voir dire.
A “home rule city” is a local government that’s given a certain degree of autonomy by either state constitutional or state statutory provisions, so long as they abide by certain conditions.
But if he’s a “scientific” creationist, his background and possible bias is relevant for a paper on molecular biology, surely. It doesn’t mean he’s necessarily biased this particular paper, but it does mean that I’d want to scrutinize it more closely.
I’ve always believed it’s important to know the background of someone claiming to be a primary source (There’s the old line “Tell me where you sit before you tell me where you stand”). You wouldn’t want to bring up unrelated things, of course: Dr Gish’s paper in the Journal of Molecular Biology cannot be trusted because he is a member of the Elk Lodge. But isn’t it relevant to point out that a paper on biology is being presented by someone who belongs to an organzation that throws out a huge chunk of basic science?
Or, to use an example more in line with the OP, wouldn’t you want to scrutinze more closely a paper about “gun risks and violence” if you knew that the paper was written by someone from Handgun Control Inc.?
Fenris
I had a great deal of trouble believing any attorney would claim “home rule” would supercede the U.S. Constitution. That’s just nuts. So I googled around a little bit and found this from the Las Vegas Review-Journal:
“Unfortunately the judge did not say that, nor did I. Those were the words of Mr. Bryant, who reported them in his, whatever, on the Internet, not a very unbiased observer. What I did tell him in the courtroom was that Denver, as a home rule city, has a right to pass reasonable regulations on the carrying of weapons. That’s under there home-rule status and the constitution of the state of Colorado, and I referred him to a recent court of appeals case finding that ordinance constitutional. But no, the rest of it is fiction.”
That makes a heck of a lot more sense.
The defendant may be correct that the ordinance violates the U.S. Constitution, and the judge may even privately agree with him (hell, the whole 5th Circuit agrees with him), but he’s grandstanding, demonizing the judge, and seriously, seriously mischaracterizing the proceedings.
RickJay’spost was pretty spot on: what’s up with challenging the judge to name the Constitutional provision that protects his right not to testify? Did he seriously want the judge to trot a high school civics student in to reference the Fifth Amendment? He’s being antagonistic towards the judge and trying to imply the judge doesn’t know the Constitution, unlike he the heroic defendant.
Another Coloradan weighing in. Fenris is right. Stanley is a nut case obsessed with being on the front page. Most of us in the state have learned to begin shaking our heads whenever we hear the first sylable of his name.
I first interviewed him when he was complaining about floridation of the water in a community that had had it for years (and is miles away from his home community). In his conversations he will bring in random conspiracies and will attempt to make as big a play for a disruptive spotlight as humanly possible. This has also been true in his multitudinous court cases as well. He has made three-ring circuses out of parking ticket violations. I understand he has scores of law suits scheduled for trial. I feel for any judge that has to put up with him and his attorneys.
I may well be advancing a “poison well” fallacy, but the duck rule* has some validity here too.
*[sub]If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck maybe you should give it no more credence than you would a duck.[/sub]
Fen
It might be relevant, but not to the argument. In fact, he could be cited as an authority, since his doctorate is in molecular biology. Incidentally, he has published dozens of articles in that journal, which is peer reviewed.
A modus ponens is valid even if it is from Osama bin Laden.
Besides, you’re all disparaging the wrong person. Stanley was not the attorney.
Pravnik and Fenris, thanks for those links; it was enlightening reading what some of the more law-inclined posters have said, and humorous reading how nutty Stanley is (although, I really care who the defendant was).
While I still think that “home rule” stuff is absolute nonsense, and I believe that the 2nd amendment SHOULD apply to the states…but yeah, I can see why the judge would say what he did.
Ironic, coming from an asshole piece of shit like you.
Oops, should be “I don’t really care who the defendant was”. Sorry.
Actually, that’s not really irony. If Tejota were an idiot and called you an idiot, that would be ironic. Similarly, if Tejota had called you an asshole while him/herself was also being an asshole, that too could be considered ironic. But an asshole calling someone an idiot isn’t ironic, it’s just an asshole acting true to his or her nature. Unless you’re getting your definitions out of the Alanis Morisette Unabridged Dictionary of Improperly Defined Words.
Note that I am not taking a stand on either the issue of Monster being an idiot or Tejota being an asshole.
This post brought to you by the makers of Maxwell House Instant Coffee, the letters F and U, and my irrepressible urge to be a smart-assed know-it-all.
Well, by saying it was ironic because I think he’s an idiot, as well as an asshole piece of shit. Although I didn’t say right out in that post that he’s an idiot in addition to being an asshole and a piece of shit, but saying his statement was ironic should have implied that I think he’s the idiot.
But, I know what you mean.
So, I sleep in late this morning, I have a big dinner, and while everyone else is sleeping it off I log on here to see what might be going on in the world. I find this. I say to myself, this is debate stuff, what is it doing in the pit? Then I scan down and see the exchange between Monster and Tejota, and I see who the whole thing is about and I say to myself, this is not about freedom of speech or bearing arms or jury nullification, this is about getting on the computer and calling people names. That is why it is in the Pit. Good place for it.
“The best and brightest of America’s youth” my foot.
It’s not like I started this thread with the intent of starting a flamewar with Tejota, but rather he came to this thread intent on insulting me.
And I guess consistantly being in the 95th percentile of students in the US has no bearing on whether I am among the best and the brightest or not (which I never really claimed myself, because I know plenty of people better and brighter than myself, but at least I’m far more educated, and apparently more intelligent than many American youth). :rolleyes:
I love your rather pointless contribution to this thread, if you can even call it that.
'Course, 'cuz the thread title is “Tejota, I’m calling you out!” by Monster104.
Oh wait…
Now, if that had been the title, that would have been ironic.
You will note “dumbfuck judge” in the initial posting. This thread started out on the low road. The fact that our friend the 95th percentile guy had no idea what he was having the vapors about was no help. Having started from a position of ignorance, a claim of extraordinary intelligence does not help the poster’s position.
Yeah, well I’m part of the 5% that thinks you suck.
No, but really.
The judge in this case is following pretty well established convention in not allowing a defendant to make broad based arguements about the constitutionality of a particular law, especially because there seems to be little constitutional debate over the ability for the City of Denver to create this ordinance.
And especially not during the freakin’ jury selection.
As a Denverite who’s been checking in on this clown since he waved this pistol at a rally, I think it’s stupid that this guy is becoming so angeredat the fact that he is actually having to deal with the laws he so flagrantly violated.
Coming from a person consistenly grouped within the 99th percentile of students… blah blah blah
And a Libertarian generally opposed to gun control.
It bugs me that the public gets its impressions of Libertarians from people like this. So, Lib, does this qualify for best and brightest status?
Intelligence != Knowledge, likewise Ignorance != stupidity.
Further, I never claimed any sort of extraordinary intelligence.
So, are you criticizing me for my little exchange with Tejota, or for my initial, ignorant angst against that Judge?