No, because at a guess, that would be tantamount to recognizing that they have engaged in the sort of behaviour they’d use to define other people as vile and hateful and, well, can’t admit that, can they?
No once again dumb fuck you get everything wrong. First of all, the comment about the touch of a woman was directed solely at you and being that I compared it with your familiarity with logic it’s obviously not a literal statement. I would still bet it’s essentially true but whatever. And I never said making assumptions is wrong. That’s just you failing at reading comprehension once more.
What I said is making assumptions without evidence is wrong and there is no contradiction. You assumed that I was possibly lying about law school etc without any valid evidence that would even serve to cast doubt on that claim. That is making assumptions without evidence because you have exactly none. And yes it is an incontrovertible fact, because your belief in the truth of my claim or whether I provide evidence to convince you has absolutely nothing to do logically with whether something factually occurred you stupid, stupid, fuck. Yet another breath-taking logic fail on your part.
And my comment about the general public being terrible at logic has everything to do with your argument you massive waste of space. You claimed that if my posts were logical it would be self-evident. So the fact that most people are terrible at logic, a group of which you are a prime example, would be a direct rebuttal to that assertion wouldn’t it? How could the logical quality of an argument possibly be self-evident to the average reader when the average reader is terrible at logic? Can you at least follow the logical thread of those few sentences?
As to debunking your logic re Trump voters and how it is completely at odds with Christian theology, if you’re stupid enough to make the statement in the first place you’re too stupid to see how incredibly wrong and assholish it was. But it’s actually pretty simple. Self-righteousness is in no way a Christian virtue, quite the opposite in fact. That and the Bible lists exactly one unforgivable sin and according to virtually all mainstream Christian theology all other sin either condemns the sinner or is redeemed via Christ. Once again this is pretty basic and agreed upon theology and it would take a special kind of self-righteous asshole to believe that voting for one’s political opponent or whatever was a sin worthy of damnation versus all that murder, rape, and what not which is ostensibly forgivable through repentance.
Another example of you missing the point entirely because you can’t parse simple logic is that credentials in a field of study are incredibly relevant to issues concerning that field of study. A fact which should be obvious to anyone who isn’t a moron. So yes my legal education and experience is entirely relevant in a thread about a court case that deals with those legal issues.
As far as the “accolades” etc those were never offered as support for the logic of my initial arguments but as a rebuttal to subsequent accusations made by you and the others that I don’t understand logic, fail at reading comprehension etc. Accusations which were either bare assertions offered without any support or with some feeble attempts at logic on your part. As rebuttals to those accusations those “accolades” are also entirely relevant and once again whether you believe they occurred or not has nothing whatsoever to do with whether they are factual.
I also never made the argument that because I have been logical in the past that my current argument is logical. That would indeed be fallacious reasoning which is why I never said it or even logically implied it. Instead it’s ust you confusing two separate arguments because of your own failures at reading comprehension and logic. The arguments I made in this thread about the legal issues involved or the nature of objective fact vs subjective opinion are right there and speak for themselves, you and the others were just too stupid and ignorant to understand them.
But go ahead Big T, I’ll provide logical arguments for whatever you still don’t get. They’ll almost assuredly go right over your head and you’ll likely refuse to acknowledge their inherent logic or correctness but one of the benefits of actually being smart, unlike you, is being able to easily recognize stupidity when you see it and I know I have nothing to worry about.
I don’t know, I believe they could actually be this stupid. If it’s an act it’s just a different variety. Unfortunately, I encounter people like them all the time. It’s the downside of being smart, the depressing realization that you’re all too frequently surrounded by stupid people.
Well Obscenity Law is a part of Free Speech/Press Jurisprudence but beyond that who the fuck doesn’t know the essentially one kind of porn that is banned in the US? The fact that you see this as some sort of secret, esoteric knowledge really underscores what a colossal dumb fuck you are.
Eh, the publicity surely wasn’t unwanted but lawyers don’t file frivolous suits simply for publicity as that’s a serious ethics violation. Personally, I’ve always felt that asking for a ridiculous and completely unsupported amount in damages perhaps should be considered a potential ethics violation as well but so far it isn’t in any jurisdiction I’m aware of. Injured parties should only be compensated commensurate with their injuries and not because the defendant is wealthy. If part of the damages awarded are punitive or meant to act as a deterrent then the rest of the money should go… somewhere else. And not to the lawyers.
Look at that Oc, you’ve got somebody for your echo chamber/hive mind! Hope he likes snails.
So you’re saying the Big Evil Mass Media made him attack an old man? How clever are they!?!
:rolleyes:
For a group who loves to toss around the term “snowflake” like you’re in the middle of a blizzard, you sure like to play the victim card a lot.
B-O-O, H-O-O.
The old man attacked him if anything, not vice versa.
Go ask Matthew Shepard’s family what “a hate mob piling on a kid” really looks like. :dubious:
By playing a drum? What is this, the Desi Arnaz Defense?
It’s people like this “kid” who have allowed Trump to be so deplorable. Trump is a symptom. People like this are the disease.
I prostrate myself before your supreme legal understanding of the law as demonstrated by your ability to fork over $190 to take the LSAT, but would humbly ask that with your new found mastery of all things legalistic, you would point to the statutes that would restrict the extent of the legal argument presented in the case to only accusations of sexism and racism.
It would seem to my somewhat less logical mind (having only a PhD in statistics with an H-index of 59, so being thus a far inferior intellect to the high and mighty law student) that this basically would open up any “news” organization whose disparaging remarks about someone resulting in them being hounded by social media to a multi million dollar law suit. Given that riling up the masses against some random liberal is the bread and butter of right wing media, be careful where you throw them stones.
He initiated contact with the kid. It’s not much of an attack, but you were the one who introduced that word—which to you apparently means “just standing there instead of getting out of the way”. :dubious:
What would you instruct your child to do in that situation? Stand there and stare and smirk? Or maybe just walk away?
“Son if a man comes up to you and starts drumming in your face, the best thing to do is stand there and stare at him with a shit eating grin”, somehow something tells me that is not what you would say to your son before he attended a political protest rally.
And this translates into “attacking an old man” how exactly?
I would do a lot of things differently, like not send my kids to a religious school as his parents did. But I don’t think we are going to shame every parochial-schooled kid in America, are we?
ETA: Upon further reflection, I have to just laugh at your premise—as if the scenario of an old man getting in your face with his drum is something all parents naturally teach their teenagers about. :rolleyes:
I wasn’t attempting to defend the phrase “attacking an old man”. I was disagreeing with the idea that there wasn’t anything at all that kid could have done differently that would not have resulted in him being all over social media.
I think talking to your kids about how to deal with strangers getting in their personal space is a pretty common thing to talk about. I would also be pretty reasonable to expect parents to have a talk to their kid before they attend a protest rally as there is potential for situations to arise that they may not know how to handle that may turn dangerous. It’s pretty weird that you think this is funny actually. Seems like pretty standard good parenting to me.
Uhhh…you think my response was unfair to your comment, but this one is accurate about mine? Where did I ever say there was nothing he could have done to make it less likely he was attacked on social media?
My dad taught me to stand up for myself and not shrink away from belligerent strangers.
Why did you put kid in “scare quotes”? He is a kid. We don’t hold kids to the same standards as adults.
Fair point. He’s more of a pawn.
You’ve consistently argued that he bears no responsibility for how he was viewed on social media. If that’s not your argument, then it sure seems like it.