Yeah, no, that’s still bollocks. Not that I object in the least to getting DT to shut up, but the method is sloppy and dishonest: sling in a bunch of cheap sexual taunts and shift the focus on to arguing about that instead of whatever it was the person was saying that you don’t want to deal with. Like I say, time enough to argue about him being a nice guy who can’t get women to sleep with him the day he complains about women refusing to sleep with him because he’s a nice guy; not before.
Beyond that, how old are you? (I’m already taking it that you see more pussy than a boarding cattery.)
Meanwhile, the lying whore…? A surprising number of people objected to the label, although I felt the LW didn’t have a leg to stand on given that she was (a) mendacious and (b) a sex worker.
He’s not nice. He’s got a certain acerbic charm, but he’s definitely not “nice”.
ad hominem means “towards the man”, which is to say launching an attack on your interlocutor rather than on his positions or arguments, for example insulting someone’s sexual prowess in place of debate.
I certainly know what it means. I was simply noting the irony of accusing me of engaging in engaging in “ad hom’s” while accusing critics of “mens’ rights” groups of being “retards”.
Beyond that, I never questioned Der’s “sexual prowess”. I did call him an asshole which is an ad hominem though.
I do. I don’t think you have a fucking clue however.
My use of the word retard. Was an a means to directly insult you and others that commonly use this form of ad hom from the typical ultra liberal herd mentality displayed here on the SDMB when ever men’s issues come up. It wasn’t an actual attempt to claim your intellectually challenged. Because it’s obvious you aren’t. You can use a computer, form coherent sentences.
You on the other hand claiming that DT has angry blue balls and can’t get any pussy in order to detract from the point he made regarding the difference between men and women and sentencing when it comes to crime is a real ad hom.
Secondly if you’re going to criticize my use of an abbreviated form of an already abbreviated form of the latin phrase argumentum ad hominem at least use it correctly when you’re trying to school me.
I think she and the other stripper got into an argument because she botched the gig with the lacrosse team, by being real drunk and obstreperous, and exchanging racial and sexual insults with those at the party. After they left, the other stripper called the cops because she (Magnum) wouldn’t get out of the other stripper’s car. Then the cops took Magnum in to the drunk tank, and she claimed rape at that point.
And that’s pretty much where the story should have ended. No claims of rape until being threatened with the drunk tank, inconclusive rape kit results, and the other stripper should have been the first person they interviewed, and she would have told them it was almost certainly baloney 'cause she was with 'em the entire time.
That the story not only continued, but actually resulted in files being charged, is terrifying. If the state is doing that to three middle/upper-class white men in a high-profile media case, think of the injustices being heaped on other, less-privileged members of society with no major media storm to shed a spotlight on their situation.
That’s not really a logical jump. It looks like the lacross players were gone after specifically because of their status. Nifong seemed to disparage the defendants for being rich kids with expensive lawyers paid for by daddy’s money in multiple interviews. Maybe he was jealous because they were privileged Duke students and he went to UNC. Maybe he had disdain for a certain section of the populace because he was involved in the counterculture movement of the late 60s-early 70s (which he was). Maybe he just wanted to make a name for himself and liked being on TV (which he wouldn’t be going after some low income schlub). Using just this case you could conclude that rich kids get a bad break because of their status. Which of course is not true. Instead you can’t think of “the state” as going after people. Its individuals. Most of those individuals will do just enough to earn a pay check. Some will be knights on their white horses championing the people. And some will be scumbags stomping on others for their own purposes. I don’t know where you live but here it is big news when there is official misconduct regardless of the socioeconomic status of the victim. And the press love to uncover it.
I seem to remember something also about he would have qualified for a larger pension with being elected. I believe he was appointed to the DA position when his predecessor left and he gave assurances he would not seek election, but maybe I’m mis-remembering that part.
There was a blog called Durham-in-Wonderland that I would follow during the case that a Brooklyn history professor ran. I think some of his blog research was actually used by the defense attorneys.
Just found it for the link and it looks like there’s a post from yesterday about Magnum: