Whack-a-Mole did something really stupid

The BBQ Pit
1

…and I felt the urgent need to call him an idiot, which GD isn’t suited for.

So, Whack-a-Mole, here, you’re an idiot.

The thread is in GD and is about whether Tom DeLay is “scum.”

Now, I realize that the ‘con’ side of that debate is not a popular position here on the SDMB, but surely in GD we must confine ourselves to facts and the inferences to be argued from those facts. And so we’ve had a contentious, but productive, discussion.

Until the turd post I link to above. In trying to explain that DeLay may well have opposed a law because it didn’t do the best job of addressing a problem, I said… well… I said that DeLay may well have opposed a law because it didn’t do the best job of addressing a problem.

And Whack-a-Mole triumphantly blurts out, in essence, “Oh yeah? What about that rational basis you’ve been saying over and over when we discuss gay marriage? You kept saying a law didn’t have to be the best solution, and now you’re changing it!! Which is it, counselor?”

And I find myself in awe at the stupidity. Do you really not see the difference between a court’s application of the rational basis test to a passed law and a legislator’s decision to support, or not support, a law because he doesn’t believe it’s the best solution?

Are you a monkey, a parrot, just grabbing words and phrases vaguely related to the concept and tossing them in the debate hoping you’ll sound smart? Are you still, after all this time, genuinely confused about how the COURTS will use the rational basis test to analyze a passed law, but legislators will use whatever test they like to decide to support a law proposed by other legislators? You really don’t get the difference between the two cases?

Take whatever position you like on Delay. It’s obvious your mind is made up. But for all that’s good and holy, are you truly so brainless that you don’t see why what you just asked is completely stupid?

2

Get a life

3

Hi, Bricker! Are you aware that someone recently described you as being perhaps “too polite to complain about being harassed”? I’m glad to see that you are still you.

My mind is not sharp enough to take a stand on this Pit thread though.

4

I think rather than making extraordinary efforts to understand, I’ll just go with Dan Blather’s assessment.

5

It’s very simple.

Can’t call him stupid in GD.

Needed to call him stupid after that statement.

Here we are. Sadly, this is my life.

6

Which makes me wonder - do you actually have a job, Bricker?

You spend a hell of a lot of time here, and a quick search shows that you post an awful lot during working hours. For a number of years you’ve claimed to be a lawyer, but I wonder, what kind of lawyer spends his day trying to win arguments on the Internet?

And even if you’re not currently practicising law, don’t you have an ethical obligation to your employer to actually conduct office business during working hours and not play around on the Dope?

7

Well, get a new life.
And lose some weight!

8

What do you want us to do, big guy? How can we lift this burden from your slender shoulders?

You want us to take turns, like Point/Counterpoint, but you’re always the guy who argues hey, they bought their tickets, let 'em die, and we switch off on ignorant slut?

A handicap, maybe, we get into a thread argument, you get coffee, while we gotta do shooters of tequila and bong water? That be more fair?

Should we pretend to respect arguments we find laughable? You wouldn’t catch on? Sooner or later, you’d figure that out, six months, tops.

And anyway, it is as it was Written. “…the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.” Well, now, it follows that if the leftys are the vast majority on the Boards, which is your position…then we must be the group that is not comprised of total dipsticks. Leaving one other.

This is not me talking, this is The Cecil!

You lose arguments because you’re wrong, not because you’re outnumbered.

And if this unfortunate fact affects your self-esteem issues, be assured that we are here for you, you need to talk it out. Well, I’m sure somebody will be. I’m maybe not the best person for that.

9

It’s flattering you’re so interested, but disappointing you’re not interested enough. I’ve said dozens, if not hundreds, of times that I no longer practice law.

But thanks for bringing this up in a thread in which I’m Pitting someone else for a logically flawed argument. Much better we think about me than that, right?

[/quote]

My company is quite pleased with my performance at work, and my use of computing resources is well within my company’s guidelines for such use. Again: very relevant for this thread.

10

Bricker, I had the same reaction when I read that post. I’m amazed you had the energy to respond with anything beyond a “you have got to be kidding me.” That was one of the more blatant non sequiturs I’ve seen around here–and that’s saying a lot–and the fact that it was delivered with such self-righteousness…well, sheesh.

By the way, not that this will matter in the echo chamber this is our beloved board, you were clearly offering a reasonable argument throughout that thread. Unfortunately, anything other than “DeLay is self-evidently a scum” was not going to win the day with that crowd.

11

And I’m more than willing to admit it.

When it happens.

But it seems to me your position here is akin to, “i KNOW DeLay is scum, so arguments against the position are lcearly wrong; arguments for the position clearly right. I don’t need to actually examine the merits of the argument to know that.”

But do me this favor. Let’s say for the moment that I agree DeLay is a miserable scum. It’s all true.

Can you truly not see that this SPECIFIC leap of logic that Whack-a-Mole made is foolish? That in one case, we’re talking about a court’s test of the validity of a statute after it’s passed, and in the other a legislator’s decision to support the statute?
That the rational basis test the courts use has ZERO to do with the discussion of why a legislator would choose to support a law?

12

Here’s a recent example of my conceding a point when I’m wrong.

I have others.

But do you? Do you have a single link of when you’ve conceded you were wrong? One?Two?

I argue facts, and I admit when I’m outargued.

Have the decency to admit when an argument against me is not just bested but utterly idiotic.

13

Thank you – but unfortunately your agreement may well be seen as partisan as well.

I certainly agree that someone can make good arguments for not liking DeLay, and for the claim that his position came from bribery or improper influence. Hell, maybe it’s LIKELY. I don’t agree, but the evidence supports that inference. I object to the definitve certainty that he’s “scum,” as though it’s impossible to reach any other conclusion. But I acknowlegde there’s smoke on the other side, and thus the possibility of fire.

What pisses me off is the utter refusal to return that fair-mindedness.

I would like for a board liberal to read that exchange and say, “Yeah, utterly stupid argument.” Even someone unwilling to budge on DeLay’s being anything other than evil ought to see how stupid that Whack-a-Mole post was.

14

Uncle Cecil may have said that, but you got it totally backwards.

15

Hey, I’m very firmly on the “Tom DeLay is scum” side, even being the one to introduce the term, and yeah, that particular argument was, shall we say, creative.

16

Liberal here. The argument was completely fatuous.

17

At a guess, one who really likes to argue? Which, I imagine, would describe a significant percentage of the law profession as a whole.

18

Most of the people that post here are conservative?

19

Yep, that was stupid.

But how about this post, by someone, ironically, who calls himself “The Facts”?

20

I agree with the distinction you’re making here. I think it’s an important distinction, and one we should be mindful of whenever we discuss issues where politics, morality, and the law intersect.

I would, however, have more sympathy for your complaint if you yourself didn’t do something similar ALL THE FUCKING TIME!

I’ve lost count of the number of times when you have attempted to rebut a moral or a principled or a political argument with a legal response. Someone will make an argument based very clearly on particular political ideals or on particular moral or principled grounds, and you chide them for their inaccuracy and point out the ways in which their argument is not supported by legal decisions and judicial precedent.

You did it again just the other day. Someone drew a moral and political analogy between slavery and restrictions on gay rights. Nowhere in the whole post did he make a legal argument, nor even imply that the legal ending of slavery provided legal precedent for the legalization of same-sex marriage. And yet your response completely ignored the substance of his post, and made a legal rebuttal to an argument that he never made.