I didn’t distort your argument; I simply used a phrase different from what you prefered. If I had criticized you for using a slightly different term, everyone would have jumped on me for nitpicking. I don’t see why you should be held to any different of a standard.
You know, saying more and more stupid things isn’t going to suddenly convince me that you’re right. I did imply that I wanted better evidence. Sure, you can quote parts of my posts that contain no request for evidence. But I never claimed that I requested more evidence in every single sentence. Just how stupid are you, that you think “you didn’t ask for evidence here” disproves my claim “I asked for evidence there”?
That is not what I said. You just picked two phrases (from two different posts!) and inserted them into your own sentence. In the first post, I said that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, as I already mentioned. In the second, I said “I’d expect better evidence than ‘well, all the sociologists [no one in particular mentioned] agree that it does so’”.
How can you say that I did not ask for evidence?
I see that among the many things that you do not understand is the difference between an ad hominem attack and an insult.
You have the burden of proof here, not me.
“Must inevitably” is redundant. There is no difference between “must inevitably” and “inevitably”.
As for the first
In other words, “Americans are just as violent”. And the second was clearly marked as being said by kabbes. I never claimed or implied that you said it. It was not evidence that you were using ad hominem attacks, simply another example of an ad hominem attack.
I meant that I didn’t see a definition presented in your post. Your accusation that I am unable to follow other people’s arguments would have more strength were you able to follow mine.
When did I define violence as pushing? I said that pushing is a form of violence, but I don’t think I said that it’s the definition of violence.
No, you used a phrase that refers to something different than that which I am referring to. “A bunch of people” is not the same thing as “a crowd packed so tightly people can barely move”. This distinction forms the basis of my argument and it is not “nitpicking” to insist that you acknowledge it.
All you’re demonstrating here is that you’ve mentioned previously that evidence wasn’t provided. You are not showing that you actually had any interest in seeing that evidence. Since you object to my summing up your statements which demonstrate otherwise, I’ll quote them in full here:
First, you ended the same paragraph where you made that statement about “extraordinary claims” with the sentence:
… which is nothing if not an out-of-hand rejection of the sociological work on this subject.
Later on, you said that the conclusion these sociologists have reached
… which is nothing if not an out-of-hand rejection of any evidence which reaches a conclusion other than the one you already hold.
You dismissed the research without ever asking to see it. Be a big boy and admit it.
This is great. Can I put this in my sig?
You have the burden of proof here, not me.
[/QUOTE]
You make the positive assertion and I have the burden of proof? What planet are you on???
Which would mean you were wrong to say that dropping a $1000 bill would “inevitably” lead to someone picking it up: it is possible, although unlikely, that no one would do so. The essence of the fire-in-a-crowded-theatre analogy is that it would be not merely unlikely but virtually impossible to prevent a panic. If you think I’m pulling this out of my arse, read the SCOTUS cases I cited earlier. It’s pretty basic First Amendment stuff.
TR, let me explain to you the convention of putting words in quotes as I did with “violent” in that post. This is done to indicate that somebody else said it. Now between that, and the fact that most of the posters lined up on this side of the OP have disputed that the Hillsborough victims were engaging in violence at all, I would expect it to be understood that I do not, in fact, consider that these crowds - either the British or the American ones - are violent. Apparently, I expect too much.
Secondly, by definition an ad hominem attack addresses the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. When many of the posters here imply that this “violence” (notice the quotes, TR) is a peculiarly British thing, and I reply that what they consider “violence” exists in America as well, that is taking issue with the substance of the argument itself, not the person(s) making it. Therefore by definition that is not an ad hominem attack.
Thirdly, one person here did, in fact, say that Americans were violent. He also said that the British were violent. Both ad hominem attacks, under your definition. His exact quote was: “I think both nationalities are overly violent.” Anyone want to guess which poster that was?
I took issue at your implication that I was being negligent in failing to make the same word choice as you. I agree that it is legitimate for you to ask me to acknowledge that the two terms mean different things to you; it is insisting that I perceive them as different that I take offense at.
What, do I have to officially declare my desire to see more evidence? Is there a form I have to fill out? I did want more evidence, I did refer to this desire, and when it became clear that you were not aware of this desire I specifically mentioned it. I think that I am a better judge than you as to whether I wanted more evidence.
Apparently you consider “what some sociology academic says” and “sociological work” to be synomynous. I don’t. Sociologists often reach conclusions which are simply not supported by the evidence.
[/quote]
To state that one knows something is to say that one would reject any evidence contradicting it? Not in my world. When I said “what I know to be manifestly true”, I meant “what there is an overwhelming evidence for”. When I have overwhelming evidence for something, that means that I require even more evidence to be convinced otherwise. It doesn’t mean I will ignore all other evidence. Have you ever heard the saying “Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out”? I have an open mind about people losing free will in crowds. That doesn’t mean I automatically believe every piece of evidence that purports to prove this.
If you wish to advertise your ignorance.
My statement was in response to your (implied?) statement that nothing is illegal because it encourages irresponsible behavior. It is your positive assertion, so you have the burden of proof.
You’re using two different standards here. For my hypothetical, your standard is “impossible to prevent” and for your hypothetical it is “virtually impossible”. The difference between “unlikely” and “virtually impossible” is one of degree, not nature, and furthermore is highly subjective.
Then there’s the fact that none of this addresses my point: you have failed to establish that when the Court speaks of someone’s actions being “inevitable”, they mean that that person has no free will. If you can produce a cite that establishes that the Court believes that not only is the shouter of “Fire!” with blame, but that the people involved in the panic are without blame regardless of their actions, I will concede that the Court is indeed on your side in exonerating the fans.
I said that you said the Americans are just as violent. If you believe that neither side is violant, then certainly you believe that the Americans are just as violent. Zero is just as large as zero.
This explanation would have much more strength if the statement had been directed against a particular argument. Instead, you directed it those who disagreed with you in general. I certainly never suggested that this behavior was uniquely British, and so when I saw a statement which quite possibly was meant to include me, and which gratuitiously mentioned the violence (or “violence”, if you prefer) of my countrymen, I saw it as an ad hominem attack. It implied that I was unaware of my countrymen’s actions, and therefore my argument was flawed, an additional factor in my seeing it as an ad hominem attack. Simply saying “this is not uniquely British” isn’t much of an ad hominem attack, but implying that the disagreement with your views is due to your opponents ignorance of this fact shifts the focus from the fact itself to your opponents.
Which definition?
And note that I did not imply anything about the implications of this on people’s arguments. That’s what differentiates a simple statement about an opponent from an ad hominem attack.
So why is a Brit writing this on an American board? Aren’t there any English boards to write this on? Are they so backward on the other side of the Atlantic that they don’t have these boards?
Let me fan the flames a little more.
I also found it funny in the last World Cup that the Brits told off the French that if it wasn’t because of them (the Brits) “the French would be Krauts”. Absolutely untrue. The truth of the matter is that if it wasn’t because of the Yanks, both the Brits and the French would be Krauts. I thought it was funny they tried to take credit for this. The Brits actually sank French ships in North Africa and almost came to blows.
“A Brit” indicates one British person posts here - I am British and post here, and so are several others who have previously made themselves known.
“The Brits told off the French” - The whole population of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland got together to come up with 5 words of wisdom for the French? Of course
Whether or not that’s true, it isn’t the point. There are clearly things that apply to one that do not necessarily apply to the other.
Everything you’ve said thus far contradicts this statement, but never mind. If you were, in fact, asking for evidence, you were doing it in such a way that clearly implied it would be a waste of my time to provide it. And note Twisty’s post earlier, I’m obviously not the only one who thought so.
But I suppose you’ll blame that on us rather than on your posting style …
Oh yeah. Everyone would read that and say “wow, that ruadh must be really ignorant, The Ryan says so!” :rolleyes:
Even after all the posts about you in the Pit over the past however-long, you still think you’re right and everyone else is wrong, don’t you.
Even accepting for the sake of argument that I did in fact make an assertion, it would have been a negative assertion. And it was in response to your explicit statement that some things (fire in a crowded theatre) are, indeed, illegal because they encourage responsible behavior. So if you want to trace this back argument by argument (which shouldn’t be necessary, as the person making the positive statement is always responsible for backing it up, regardless of which positive statements preceded it), we still find the burden of proof rests on you.
And yet it’s the standard for deciding when protected speech crosses the line into prohibited action. Whether you like it or not.
What part of the “speech brigaded with action” concept do you not understand?
I’m not aware of any case in which the Court has had to make that sort of decision. However, it does strike me as unlikely (to say the least) that if such a case were to come before them, they would reverse decisions of eighty years and find that the person who shouted Fire in a crowded theatre wasn’t the guilty party.
And this is an ad hominem attack???
Time to go back on the meds, TR.
Implying that you’re wrong because your facts are wrong is ad hominem? Well, they’ve sure changed the rules since I went to college.
BTW Major Feelgud, I don’t know if you’re talking about me, but I’m not a Brit.
Please forgive me Kabbes, I have risen to the bait.
But I,m not going to rise to it here. This thread is long enough as it is and good ole major needs a whole thread dedicated to him.
So because I used a term that does not serve your purposes, I’m distorting your argument?
Not everyone. Just people who can’t tell the difference between “inevitable” and “no free will”, people who use quotes from other people to make statements about my beliefs, people who say that no hypothetical has been presented when one was presented, and in fact she even quoted it, people who say that since one of his statements was clear, that proves that the rest of his statements are also be clear, people who say that “similar” and “equal” mean the same thing. Those sort of people.
I find this absolutely ridiculous. You asked a question, and when I gave an answer you didn’t like you jumped on me. If you solicit a statement, I don’t think you have much standing to demand a cite, seeing as you were implying that I didn’t know the answer, a positive assertion. What’s your age? And do you have a cite? What was the world swallow population in 1817? Do you have a cite? What was the major factor that led to the Crimean War? Do you have a cite? If I wanted to write research papers, I’d take a history class.
Is that supposed to be a counterargument? You really don’t seem to have grasped this “debate” concept. See, one of us makes a claim, and the other either accepts it or explains why it’s wrong. Simply asking questions is not a debate. But to humor you: “speech brigaded with action” means that the crime is intrinsic to the speech. For instance, if I ask someone to kill someone for me, my asking is intrinsic to the crime of conspiracy to commit murder. But this is very different from an absence of free will. The person can say “no, thanks” if he wants.
You still aren’t getting my point. To say that the people who panicked are responsible in no way reverses the decision that the person who shouted “Fire!” is responsible. “’The’” guilty party”? Just where did the definite article come from? Since when is guilt limited to one party per crime? If I ask someone to kill someone, we’re both guilty. If my shouting “Fire!” causes someone to kill someone else in the rush to get out, we’re both guilty. If police incompetence causes a fan to kill another fan, both the police and the fan are guilty.
I never said that. I said that implying that people are ignorant [not wrong, but ignorant (it was even bolded before, I don’t know how you missed it)] of (irrelevant) facts is ad hominem.
Well, I suppose you could just be too thick to comprehend the difference in the two terms, but I’m giving you the benefit of the doubt.
And yet you complain when people accuse you of hair-splitting…
In other words, everyone who dares to argue with you :rolleyes: How many people will it take to tell you you’re wrong before it occurs to you it might be true?
You asked for a cite (and I gave several) when I made a positive assertion about why SFIACT is illegal. Yet when you make a positive assertion about why selling cocaine is illegal, you’ve no obligation to back it up.
Unbelievable.
Let me get this straight. If I ask you a question that I don’t think you have an answer to, you can just give me any old answer and I have to prove it’s incorrect?
Where in God’s name are you getting this from?
I’ll remember this quote next time I see you ask someone for evidence of something.
OK, soliciting crime. That’s only one part of it. The cases I cited refer to a different part, which would generally be termed “inciting crime”. These cases note that incitement becomes a crime in itself only at the point where the action becomes virtually inevitable. Now use the head for a minute. Why would the First Amendment prohibit such incitement, and not incitement that doesn’t have such an effect, if in either case the listener could simply make up his own mind whether to engage in the prohibited conduct?
As I said, I don’t believe any court would find someone guilty of accidentally crushing someone else to death in the rush to get out. The person who created that rush, on the other hand…
Ah, I see. Now you’re splitting hairs about the difference between not being aware of facts, and being ignorant of them and, furthermore, inferring from my posts that I consider these people the latter and not the former (and it is simply your inference, as I did not use that word myself). And calling that an ad hominem attack, which of course is different to an insult, the latter being (judging by your own use of it) acceptable in debate whereas the former isn’t.
ruadh, I think you deserve some kind of medal for persisting with this logically-impaired smart arse, but I’m not sure it’s going to get you anywhere. I’m beginning to agree with Twisty on this one:
This has gone so far off the point, with semantics about the exact meaning of words the OP seems to have been forgotten.
What is going on ? This a courtroom? is Bill Clinton in the house ?
Your expertise can only ever be an opinion on this matter since it has been deemed by the UK judiciary that the police bear responsability for what happened.
This was not a knee-jerk verdict but rather a comprehnesive review of the issues of crowd control, behaviour, and protection lasting several years.
The effect of the Taylor report changed the face of soccer in the UK completely and cost the sport hundreds if not thousands of £mill in refurbishments,stadium rebuilds, staff recruitment and training and its percieved status in British society which has been changed almost beyond recognition.
Yet you seem to claim to have an insight not considered by Lord Justice Taylor, you don’t happen to think that the issue of the crowds own responsability was missed do you ?
Even so the inquiry found against the police.
Walk away with your opinion that’s fine by me but better minds than yours or mine have been excercised by this tragic event and they have delivered their verdict.
Nitpick, ruadh and The Ryan–when you speak of shouting “Fire!” in a theatre, make sure you remember the context of that quote in its entirety:
–Oliver Wendell Holmes, Shenck v. United States. (my emphasis)
Anyway, while it’s a pretty phrase, it’s no longer tied to the guiding legal precedent in the matter. (Schenck set out the “clear and present danger doctrine” and Brandenburg v. Ohio expanded the franchise of free speech by allowing only speech that is a “clear incitement” to action. Any lawyer know if Brandenburg has been modified substantively by later cases?)
My nitpick is probably immaterial to the discussion at hand, though. Carry on.
Actually, neither of those two phrases appears in the text of Brandenburg. The relevant phrase is “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and … likely to incite or produce such action.”
“Likely”, btw, has been interpreted to mean “almost inevitably” - or, as one of my ConLaw professors put it, “if the illegal action doesn’t follow, it wasn’t illegal incitement”. It’s almost a tautological definition, and certainly not without problems. But ConLaw never was an exact science.
Douglas’s concurring opinion in this case really best sums up what I’ve been on about in this thread. He says:
Bolding mine. He’s saying that this is a case where speech causes illegal acts. Not “encourages” (to use TR’s word), not advocates, causes. And it’s pretty damn clear he doesn’t mean this in the same way that someone dropping a $1,000 bill would “cause” someone else to pick it up.
Brandenburg is still essentially the law, but R.A.V. v. St Paul is the most applicable recent(ish) case I can think of.
Where did you get the idea that these people compose the entirety of everyone who has argued with me? There are plenty of people who are able to sustain a rational argument.
About half a dozen people in this thread have disagreed with you. I don’t see you switching to whichever side the wind is blowing.
No, you gave a cite for one reason, then proceeded to infer a separate reason, and have refused every request for a cite to establish that your interpretation is correct. As it stands, your cite is useless in establishing your position.
I’m not trying to convince you that this is the reason selling cocaine is illegal. I have no interest in arguing why selling cocaine is illegal, and the only reason it came up is because you brought it up. You, on the other hand, very much want to convince me that the reason why SFIACT is illegal is because it deprives people of their free will, and yet have no cite to back that up. Do you understand the difference? I’m not trying to convince you, so I have no obligation to produce a cite. You are trying to convince me, so you do have an obligation to produce a cite.
You don’t have to do anything. But if you’re going to try to convince me that I’m wrong, a cite would be quite a bit more effective than just insulting me.
Solicit:
To entice or incite to evil or illegal action.
Looks to me that “solict” and “incite” are the same part.
Just what criteria are you using to distinguish solicitation from incitement? Isn’t “If you don’t leave this room immediately, something bad will happen to you” essentially the same as “If you don’t kill this person, you’ll miss out on a lot of money”?
First of all, I really don’t understand what you mean. To what do the terms “such incitement” and “incitement that doesn’t have such an effect” refer?
Secondly, the last time I intepreted one of your questions as an honest inquiry into my thinking rather than simply an attempt to elicit an additional opportunity for derision, I was sadly mistaken. Why should I fall for that again?
In other words, you’re content to beg the question. The issue of whether the person who “created” the rush is responsible is irrelevant to the question at hand, as I have already stipulated that the police and the event organizers were partly at fault. Since what is at issue regarding the Hillsborough situation is whether the fans had any fault, the analogous question in the SFIACT hypothetical is whether the panicking people are responsible for the damage they cause. You can produce all the cites in the world proving beyond a doubt that the person shouting “Fire!” is responsible, but that in no way addresses whether the people that panicked are responsible. I am quite aware of your belief that they are not responsible, but simply stating this belief will not convince me of it.
I don’t recall ever using the word “aware” in my post.
No, you didn’t use the word “aware”. Neither did I!. Argue about the validity of hypothetical inferences all you want, but the ones I actually made are fully supported by your statements. Perhaps there is a rational explanation for your behavior, but frankly I am at a loss to think of it. Why are you pointing out that you never used the word “aware” when I never said you did?
Calling a statement directed to the person rather than the argument, and intended as an attempt to discredit the person, “ad hominem”! Imagine that! Next I’ll be referring to horizontal surfaces designed for supporting various items as “tables”.
My insult was an aside, and was not meant to be part of a debate. Had this been GD, I would not have included it. Your comment, on the other hand, seemed very much to be a rhetorical device.
Now, please let this drop. Stop tryiong to make a mountain out of a molehill and find something else to pick apart like a ravenous vulture. your routine is dated and no longer humourous.
Ruadh, in the thread you decided to hijack, you said something that I think explains why you’re reacting so irrationality to my answer to your “why is it illegal?” question.
AFAIK, Douglas was never a member of a legislative body. Since it is the legislative, not judicial, branch that decides what is illegal, the opinion of Douglas is irrelevant. You did not ask why laws prohibiting SFIACT were upheld, but why they were passed in the first place. The answer to this question is “because it encourages irresponsible behavior”. Before you criticize my knowledge of constitutional theory, you should at least familiarize yourself with the basics (and I can’t think of many things more basic than the difference between the legislative branch and the judicial branch).
