| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Del" |
| Date: |
11 Jun 2005 07:15:29 AM |
| Object: |
Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
Forwarded
New legislation currently making its way through the
House of Representatives poses a grave threat. If
passed, H.R. 1528 will force Americans to inform on
their friends, family members, or neighbors within 24
hours of acquiring any knowledge about their
involvement in drug-related activity, including
marijuana.
Please http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=3D28
click here to stop this bill in its tracks.
As is often the case with new federal violations of
civil liberties, this bill is constructed to appear as
though it is designed to protect children from drugs,
but its implications are far more sinister:
* Observe one student passing a joint to another, and
you could fall under this law. You would be required to
report the incident to authorities within 24 hours or
risk prosecution and a mandatory minimum sentence of
two years in prison.
* If a neighbor under 21 mentions buying some marijuana
for a party, you would be required to report him or her
to the government or risk jail time yourself.
* If your brothers or sisters have children and mention
to you that they and their spouses sometimes smoke
marijuana in their bedroom after their kids are asleep,
you would be required to immediately inform on them or
face prison time.
You can see what a threatening new environment this
proposed legislation would create for everyone. It
would erect barriers of paranoia between friends,
family members, and neighbors and is rife with
potential for police abuse, extortion, and the creation
of false informants.
DownsizeDC.org is mounting a campaign to defeat this
bill. http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=3D28
Click here to learn more and
then http://action.downsizedc.org/wyc.php?cid=3D28 take
action by sending a message to Congress telling them
what you think of this bill. Please send a message now,
while we can still stop this terrible legislation.
P.S. H.R. 1528 is supposedly designed to protect
children but the bill is actually anti-family. It
expands mandatory minimum sentencing and increases the
ways those minimum sentences could kick in. It's
absolutely draconian.
.
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
11 Jun 2005 04:25:54 PM |
|
|
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1118474129.179364.300690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Forwarded
New legislation currently making its way through the
House of Representatives poses a grave threat. If
passed, H.R. 1528 will force Americans to inform on
their friends, family members, or neighbors within 24
hours of acquiring any knowledge about their
involvement in drug-related activity, including
marijuana.
If it passes, then what we need to do is all call the police and report the
members of congress, because they MUST have been smoking something to vote
this into law. And we can keep calling every time the administration does
something abjectly stupid, with the same claim.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
12 Jun 2005 05:24:21 AM |
|
|
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:25:54 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1118474129.179364.300690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
Forwarded
New legislation currently making its way through the
House of Representatives poses a grave threat. If
passed, H.R. 1528 will force Americans to inform on
their friends, family members, or neighbors within 24
hours of acquiring any knowledge about their
involvement in drug-related activity, including
marijuana.
Lol!
"A grave threat!"
No..."A GRAVE THREAT!!!"
Now who would ever believe that anybody with a political agenda would
stretch the truth a mite?
If I were a major league drug dealer I would be funding the fight
against the bill.
Quietly of course and through what appeared to be ligitimate channels.
An organization perhaps that is concerned about nothing more than our
rights being trampled.
It certainly wouldn't be the first time by any stretch that the bad
guys did such a thing.
If it passes, then what we need to do is all call the police and report the
members of congress, because they MUST have been smoking something to vote
this into law. And we can keep calling every time the administration does
something abjectly stupid, with the same claim.
Based on what I read in the bill I would call the cops in a heartbeat.
I am open to correction at any time and I may have missed something.
Reading a house bill can be mind boggling but it's better than simply
taking the word of political activists who have their own agenda.
It would be interesting to get comments from some who actually take
the time to read the bill.
<I nearly got a headache reading the damned thing>
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:h1528ih.txt
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
12 Jun 2005 06:16:17 PM |
|
|
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:7nnna1t31edaio7erlma9supfb08a8a6r8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:25:54 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1118474129.179364.300690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
Based on what I read in the bill I would call the cops in a heartbeat.
(snip)
Yes, I think we all should. I think we should absolutely flood them with
calls. Any time anyone does something silly or stupid, or even makes a
mistake, there should be a flurry of calls to the police. If you see a
character in a movie smoke a joint, call the police! If someone cuts you off
in traffic, call the police. If the contestant on the game show is too
excited, call the police.
At least that's one approach.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
13 Jun 2005 05:03:05 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Jun 2005 13:16:17 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:7nnna1t31edaio7erlma9supfb08a8a6r8@4ax.com...
On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 11:25:54 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1118474129.179364.300690@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
(snip)
Based on what I read in the bill I would call the cops in a heartbeat.
(snip)
Yes, I think we all should. I think we should absolutely flood them with
calls. Any time anyone does something silly or stupid, or even makes a
mistake, there should be a flurry of calls to the police. If you see a
character in a movie smoke a joint, call the police! If someone cuts you off
in traffic, call the police. If the contestant on the game show is too
excited, call the police.
That's just silly.
Would you call the police if you knew your neighbors with children
were selling drugs from their house?
If you knew someone was selling drugs to middle or high school
students would you just shrug and walk away?
Do you think I was wrong for reporting my Lt. and driver on the fire
department for getting stoned on duty?
atheist@home#1554
At least that's one approach.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
13 Jun 2005 10:51:56 AM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
Would you call the police if you knew your neighbors with children
were selling drugs from their house?
This isn't about people with children selling drugs. It
is about making it a felony to not turn in someone, like
a family member, within 24 hours. It is about making
it a felony to also not render full assistance in the
investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of said family
member. It is about making it a two year mandatory
minimum sentence in federal prison.
If you knew someone was selling drugs to middle or high school
students would you just shrug and walk away?
I bet you can't even see the elitist pretensions in this,
can you?
Do you think I was wrong for reporting my Lt. and driver on the fire
department for getting stoned on duty?
Ah. You say "motive matters," and now we see your
motive. You are trying to rationalize informing on
co-workers behind their backs (Even so, I'll bet you a
yard you didn't do it within 24 hours). People at
work suspect it was you who ratted, and don't want
anything to do with you now. You can't be trusted.
So to feel better about yourself, you think people
should be FORCED to do what you gladly did (no
doubt for reasons of envy and resentment).
Obviously you, the elitist, needed no such threat of
felony arrest to turn in your compatriots. You favor
the law to keep the inferior rabble--who do not see the
value of informing on family members--in line.
It is they who need this "incentive," not you.
That's why we have drug laws in the first place: to keep
the riff raff from getting loaded. I mean it isn't drug
laws that are keeping YOU from smoking crack, is it?
If crack was legal tomorrow you wouldn't be smoking
it on or off duty, would you? Am I right?
So clearly we don't need drug laws for elitists like yourself,
we need them for those "other" people. The peons.
s
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
13 Jun 2005 09:59:37 PM |
|
|
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
Would you call the police if you knew your neighbors with children
were selling drugs from their house?
This isn't about people with children selling drugs. It
is about making it a felony to not turn in someone, like
a family member, within 24 hours.
I know what the website says.
Can you point out anything in the bill itself that says we would be
required to turn in anyone who isn't selling to or using illegal drugs
around children?
It is about making
it a felony to also not render full assistance in the
investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of said family
member. It is about making it a two year mandatory
minimum sentence in federal prison.
Again, where does it say that applies if children are not involved?
If you knew someone was selling drugs to middle or high school
students would you just shrug and walk away?
I bet you can't even see the elitist pretensions in this,
can you?
No, why don't you elaborate?
Do you think I was wrong for reporting my Lt. and driver on the fire
department for getting stoned on duty?
Ah. You say "motive matters," and now we see your
motive. You are trying to rationalize informing on
co-workers behind their backs (Even so, I'll bet you a
yard you didn't do it within 24 hours).
I did immediately.
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
It wasn't just my safety and my fellow workers I had to worry about.
It was the welfare of the citizens who paid us to protect them and
rightfully expected us to be alert and clear thinking while we did so.
What I did was the right thing to do whether your somewhat limited
brain can grasp it or not.
The guys were good friends of mine.
I didn't do it for fun.
The Lt. was fired sometime later in a different incident for being
coked up on the job.
Would like for him to be making the call to your house?
I've known of other firefighters, paramedics and cops to work stoned.
Do you see that as a right they have?
People at work suspect it was you who ratted, and don't want
anything to do with you now.
I'm retired but like me they were upset that the guys didn't get
fired.
And I didn't do it behind their backs.
Odd thing.
You refer to my trying to protect myself, my co-workers and the
citizens who paid us as "ratting."
If the pumper had hit you head on, you barely survived, injured for
life and found out the driver was stoned, that I knew it and didn't
report him would you have supported my choice to ignore it?
Is your thinking really that skewed?
You can't be trusted.
To let someone get hurt or killed?
You are correct.
So to feel better about yourself, you think people
should be FORCED to do what you gladly did (no
doubt for reasons of envy and resentment).
I certainly believe that if people don't readily report something that
could seriously harm others he should be held legally accountable.
Obviously you, the elitist, needed no such threat of
felony arrest to turn in your compatriots. You favor
the law to keep the inferior rabble--who do not see the
value of informing on family members--in line.
It is they who need this "incentive," not you.
Give it a rest.
Your opinion <Especially considering your lack of moral
responsibility> doesn't have any effect on me.
You can pull that childish bullying crap all day long on little
children or weak minded adults but it doesn't work on anybody who
doesn't buy your sillly *****.
Btw, the tough talk doesn't impress me either and wouldn't if we were
standing face to face.
That's why we have drug laws in the first place: to keep
the riff raff from getting loaded.
We have drug laws to protect us from people who believe they have an
absolute right to get stoned on their asses, endanger the public and
raise children while ther minds are distorted all to hell.
I mean it isn't drug
laws that are keeping YOU from smoking crack, is it?
No it isn't.
It has something to do with being rational enough not to do it.
If crack was legal tomorrow you wouldn't be smoking
it on or off duty, would you? Am I right?
You are.
So clearly we don't need drug laws for elitists like yourself,
we need them for those "other" people. The peons.
You seem to assume that everybody would be doing drugs if it were
legal.
You are really bad about assuming things.
Not everybody is like you.
Btw, I also don't drive if I've had two beers.
It isn't the law that prevents me from doing so.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
14 Jun 2005 01:09:16 AM |
|
|
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:gm3sa190el0v00b7vlupdmjncso80moirt@4ax.com...
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
I did immediately.
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
Would you prefer he was drunk?
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
Drunk, stoned, what's the difference.
Oh yeah, one's ok and the other isn't.
(snip)
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
14 Jun 2005 01:34:41 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:09:16 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:gm3sa190el0v00b7vlupdmjncso80moirt@4ax.com...
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
I did immediately.
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
Would you prefer he was drunk?
What kind of silly question is that?
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
Drunk, stoned, what's the difference.
There is no difference.
Oh yeah, one's ok and the other isn't.
Lol!
atheist@home#1554
(snip)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Denis Loubet" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
14 Jun 2005 06:54:08 AM |
|
|
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:fujsa1ddinimavje5d8n66io0fmpokcq1c@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:09:16 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:gm3sa190el0v00b7vlupdmjncso80moirt@4ax.com...
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
I did immediately.
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
Would you prefer he was drunk?
What kind of silly question is that?
Well, one you have to report within 24 hours, and the other you don't.
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
Drunk, stoned, what's the difference.
There is no difference.
The law in question seems to think there is.
Oh yeah, one's ok and the other isn't.
Lol!
I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of the law. Turn in drug offenders
within 24 hours or else. But it's ok if they're drunk off their *****.
--
Denis Loubet
dloubet@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
14 Jun 2005 09:01:47 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 14 Jun 2005 01:54:08 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:fujsa1ddinimavje5d8n66io0fmpokcq1c@4ax.com...
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:09:16 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:gm3sa190el0v00b7vlupdmjncso80moirt@4ax.com...
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
I did immediately.
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
Would you prefer he was drunk?
What kind of silly question is that?
Well, one you have to report within 24 hours, and the other you don't.
Gotcha.
I missed your point.
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
Drunk, stoned, what's the difference.
There is no difference.
The law in question seems to think there is.
Oh yeah, one's ok and the other isn't.
Lol!
I'm trying to point out the hypocrisy of the law. Turn in drug offenders
within 24 hours or else. But it's ok if they're drunk off their *****.
I agree.
It's hypocritical in the extreme.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
14 Jun 2005 09:25:56 PM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jun 2005 20:09:16 -0500, "Denis Loubet" <dloubet@io.com>
wrote:
"atheist@home" <atheist@home.com> wrote in message
news:gm3sa190el0v00b7vlupdmjncso80moirt@4ax.com...
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
(snip)
I did immediately.
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
Would you prefer he was drunk?
What kind of silly question is that?
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
Drunk, stoned, what's the difference.
There is no difference.
Sure there is. The far more dangerous of the two is legal.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
14 Jun 2005 09:23:24 PM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
Would you call the police if you knew your neighbors with children
were selling drugs from their house?
This isn't about people with children selling drugs. It
is about making it a felony to not turn in someone, like
a family member, within 24 hours.
I know what the website says.
The point was that this isn't about people with children
selling drugs, as you imply.
Can you point out anything in the bill itself that says we would be
required to turn in anyone who isn't selling to or using illegal drugs
around children?
Yes. "Around children" includes any place an under 18 yo
"child" resides for any period of time, whether or not the
"child" is actually anywhere near the place at the time of the
offense. There are also a great many things wrong with the
bill that have nothing to do with the snitch provision.
You've yet to say what is good about this bill. How come?
It is about making
it a felony to also not render full assistance in the
investigation, apprehension, and prosecution of said family
member. It is about making it a two year mandatory
minimum sentence in federal prison.
Again, where does it say that applies if children are not involved?
See above. But let's say it doesn't apply where children are not
involved, for arguments sake. So what? Does that make the law ok?
If you knew someone was selling drugs to middle or high school
students would you just shrug and walk away?
I bet you can't even see the elitist pretensions in this,
can you?
No, why don't you elaborate?
There was no law to make you snitch. But you obviously
think other people need such laws.
Do you think I was wrong for reporting my Lt. and driver on the fire
department for getting stoned on duty?
Ah. You say "motive matters," and now we see your
motive. You are trying to rationalize informing on
co-workers behind their backs (Even so, I'll bet you a
yard you didn't do it within 24 hours).
I did immediately.
Sure you did. You went from zero knowledge of your "good
friends'" drug use to complete knowledge and certainty of it
and reported it in within 24 hours.
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
How do we know this was your motive? People don't usually
go from zreo knowledge of drug use to complete knowledge
of it sufficient to know the things you claim are true, in under
24 hours. That at least seem improbable and thus it is
improbable that this was your motive. So we should at least take
what I speculate was your motive into consideration when
evaluating your statements. Right?
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
It wasn't just my safety and my fellow workers I had to worry about.
It was the welfare of the citizens who paid us to protect them and
rightfully expected us to be alert and clear thinking while we did so.
Riiiight. Your motives were/are exalted. It is other people
whose motives are suspect.
Amusing that you figure that you get to tell us what everybodies
motives are, including your own. I can appreciate why you
would like to be permitted to state your own motives, but I think
it is hypocritical that you think you can also speculate with faux
certainty about the motives of others, and do so to their detriment.
What I did was the right thing to do whether your somewhat limited
brain can grasp it or not.
Yes, your motives can't be questioned. But let's say we
COULD question them. That would mean we should take
your motives into consideration when evaluating what
you say, right?
The guys were good friends of mine.
I'll bet. You turn them in the same day you first discover
that your "good friends" are using drugs. Seems they probably
were using drugs before you discovered it Amazing how your
"good friends" could be stoned on drugs around you and you
didn't even know it.
I d idn't do it for fun.
Of course not. You did it because you are so much better
than everyone else.. You can't expect the average Joe to do
what you did. You're special. That's why we need laws to
force people to do what you superior people do naturally.
The Lt. was fired sometime later in a different incident for being
coked up on the job.
Would like for him to be making the call to your house?
I've known of other firefighters, paramedics and cops to work stoned.
Did you turn them all in?
Do you see that as a right they have?
People at work suspect it was you who ratted, and don't want
anything to do with you now.
I'm retired but like me they were upset that the guys didn't get
fired.
And I didn't do it behind their backs.
But what if you did? We should take that into consideration
when evaluating what you say, right?
Odd thing.
You refer to my trying to protect myself, my co-workers and the
citizens who paid us as "ratting."
This is just what you would be expected to say your motive was.
If the pumper had hit you head on, you barely survived, injured for
life and found out the driver was stoned, that I knew it and didn't
rep ort him would you have supported my choice to ignore it?
Is your thinking really that skewed?
You seem to think it works for you.
You can't be trusted.
To let someone get hurt or killed?
You are correct.
Now who would ever believe that anybody with a political agenda would
stretch the truth a mite?
So to feel better about yourself, you think people
should be FO RCED to do what you gladly did (no
doubt for reasons of envy and resentment).
I certainly believe that if people don't readily report something that
could seriously harm others he should be held legally accountable.
Except you believe that a parent smoking a joint "could
seriously harm others" but drinking a cocktail would not.
Obviously you, the el itist, needed no such threat of
felony arrest to turn in your compatriots. You favor
the law to keep the inferior rabble--who do not see the
value of informing on family members--in line.
It is they who need this "incentive," not you.
Give it a rest.
Figure it out. It is easy to speculate derogatory motives
for people as I've just shown. All it takes is the will to
do so. It is a cheap and dirty way to smear those you don't
like. You can't prove or disprove what someone's motive is.
But more importantly, motive has NO impact on the
veracity of an argument or even a claim:
"It is a fundamental principle of rational argument that a
claim must be evaluated on the basis of the reasons and
evidence offered for its support and not on the basis of
the characteristics of the person who makes it. The
characteristics--good or bad, pleasing or revolting--of
someone who makes an assertion are irrelevant to the
assertion. They count neither for it nor against it. An
argument presented by a machine or by the Homeric gods
is judged in the same way as an argument presented by a
villian or a half-wit. The argument is the thing, and all
else counts for nothing." --Munson, Ronald. The
Way of Words. 1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.p. 287
Your opinion <Especially considering your lack of moral
responsibility> doesn't have any effect on me.
You can pull that childish bullying crap all day long on little
children or weak minded adults but it doesn't work on anybody who
doesn't buy your sillly *****.
Btw, the tough talk doesn't impress me either and wouldn't if we were
standing face to face.
Methinks thou doth protest a bit too much. You started with the
insults, the vacuous assertions and the insinuation about "motives."
You are still making accusations you can't back up--and clearly have
no intention of even trying--which is commonly called _lying_. It
was you who decided to focus on the posters instead of their arguments
(which you just handwaved away). I'm reacting to that.
That's why we have drug laws in the first place: to keep
the riff raff from getting loaded.
We have drug l aws to protect us from people who believe they have an
absolute right to get stoned on their asses, endanger the public and
raise children while ther minds are distorted all to hell.
That is not true and it is easy to show that it isn't You are
naive indeed if you believe this. If it was true the laws would
apply to whatever drug people took that got you stoned on
your *****, endangerd the public and "distorted" you mind all to
hell--like alcohol for instance--and it wouldn't apply to drugs
that didn't do this-- like pot for instance.
Not only that, but such laws do not protect us from people
who think they have an absolute right to get stoned on their
asses. They don't even try to since they go after possession and
sales and only relatively rarely go after those under the
influence of-- when it is blatantly obvious and in public.
I mean it isn't drug
laws that are keeping YOU from smokin g crack, is it?
No it isn't.
It has something to do with being rational enough not to do it.
If it had to do with being rational you'd be in
big trouble.
If crack was legal tomorrow you wouldn't be smoking
it on or off duty, would you? Am I right?
You are.
So clearly we don't need drug la ws for elitists like yourself,
we need them for those "other" people. The peons.
You seem to assume that everybody would be doing drugs if it were
legal.
Just the opposite, Clem. Drug laws are no deterent now--which
is easy enough to show (ask me)--which means drug laws aren't
holding back anyone whowants to use illegal drugs now. So
removing such laws would have a minimal effect on use
You are really bad about assuming things.
You mean like assuming that I assumed that everybody
would be doing drugs if it were legal?
Not everybody is like you.
Yeah, most people are like you (thought you believe
otherwise): invincibly ignorant.
Btw, I also don't drive if I've had two beers.
It isn't the law that prevents me from doing so.
Yeah, it's the other guy who needs those laws, not you .
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
15 Jun 2005 05:27:03 AM |
|
|
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
Would you call the police if you knew your neighbors with children
were selling drugs from their house?
<snip>
Ah. You say "motive matters," and now we see your
motive. You are trying to rationalize informing on
co-workers behind their backs (Even so, I'll bet you a
yard you didn't do it within 24 hours).
I did immediately.
Sure you did. You went from zero knowledge of your "good
friends'" drug use to complete knowledge and certainty of it
and reported it in within 24 hours.
Another assumption on your part.
I knew they smoked off duty.
A number of the guys did.
I didn't have the first problem with it.
I didn't have a problem sitting around playing guitar and smoking on
occasion with them.
*Off duty*
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
How do we know this was your motive? People don't usually
go from zreo knowledge of drug use to complete knowledge
of it sufficient to know the things you claim are true, in under
24 hours. That at least seem improbable and thus it is
improbable that this was your motive. So we should at least take
what I speculate was your motive into consideration when
evaluating your statements. Right?
If you like.
It doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
My motive was clearly stated.
Take it or leave it.
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
It wasn't just my safety and my fellow workers I had to worry about.
It was the welfare of the citizens who paid us to protect them and
rightfully expected us to be alert and clear thinking while we did so.
Riiiight. Your motives were/are exalted. It is other people
whose motives are suspect.
Where did I say that?
Where did I imply it?
What did you say about insinuation?
Your posts are full of it.
Shall I point it out to you or would you prefer to go back and re-read
your silliness?
Amusing that you figure that you get to tell us what everybodies
motives are, including your own. I can appreciate why you
would like to be permitted to state your own motives, but I think
it is hypocritical that you think you can also speculate with faux
certainty about the motives of others, and do so to their detriment.
It's called cynicism, skepticism.
It has to do with politics.
It comes in handy when one is seeking the truth.
You have a personal problem with me and it's up to you to work it out
yourself.
It doesn't affect my life one way or the other.
Unlike the regulars of a.a. whom I know and respect you are just words
on a computer screen.
You contradict yourself constantly while suggesting by your language
that you are somehow perfectly logical and superior in your thinking.
And you are a balls to the wall hypocrite.
" It is hypocritical that you think you can also speculate with faux
certainty about the motives of others."
And then this:
"Ah. You say "motive matters," and now we see your motive."
Are you one of those silly, arrogant types who can always see and
point out the faults in others but can't see the same faults in
yourself?
You remind me of some self rightous old bitty in the church
congregation who spends all her time gossiping about the faults of all
the other members while proclaiming her saintliness to high Heaven.
Which she of course doesn't see as a sin because after all...it's her
doing it.
Your posts are full of arrogant contradictions.
I don't really know what to make of it.
Either you are joking about or you are in serious need of a CAT scan.
What I did was the right thing to do whether your somewhat limited
brain can grasp it or not.
Yes, your motives can't be questioned. But let's say we
COULD question them.
Where did I so much as imply that my motives shouldn't be questioned?
That would mean we should take
your motives into consideration when evaluating what
you say, right?
Of course you should.
You would be foolish not to.
Isn't that the very thing I was trying to suggest?
Didn't I in fact state it outright?
Didn't I say:
"Reading a house bill can be mind boggling but it's better than simply
taking the word of political activists who have their own agenda."
Where did I suggest that I am exempt?
It's a bit spooky to think you might actually be serious about this.
The guys were good friends of mine.
I'll bet. You turn them in the same day you first discover
that your "good friends" are using drugs. Seems they probably
were using drugs before you discovered it Amazing how your
"good friends" could be stoned on drugs around you and you
didn't even know it.
Sheesh!
Another blatant assumption without reasonable cause.
"Trying to promote your speculation/character assassination
to the level of fact when it is both ad hominem and a non-
sequitur is an approach to logical fallacy I've never previously
witnessed."
"They would probably be against a bill that would allow
random home searches without a warrant too. So knowing
that you'd probably be for such a bill, right?"
You are really not very good at this.
Do you honestly believe you are impressing or intimidating me?
Are you even thinking before you post?
I didn't do it for fun.
Of course not. You did it because you are so much better
than everyone else.. You can't expect the average Joe to do
what you did. You're special. That's why we need laws to
force people to do what you superior people do naturally.
There you go again.
"Trying to promote your speculation/character assassination
to the level of fact when it is both ad hominem and a non-
sequitur is an approach to logical fallacy I've never previously
witnessed."
"Mr. A theist@home insinuates his conclusions."
What exactly did you just do?
You have no idea how funny you are.
You are trying so hard to pass yourself off as a superbrain and
falling on your face in the process.
How old are you?
You're in college aren't you?
Logic 101?
You believe you have discovered some profound truth and way of viewing
the world that nobody else has ever encountered right?
And you are invinciible.
Sorry kid.
We've all read a book or two on logic.
You are not in any fashion unique in that.
Immature and outgunned maybe...but not unique.
The Lt. was fired sometime later in a different incident for being
coked up on the job.
Would like for him to be making the call to your house?
I've known of other firefighters, paramedics and cops to work stoned.
Did you turn them all in?
Most were on other departments.
It's a losing battle.
Primarily because of people like you who are more interested in
condemning the "snitch" than protecting the innocent.
Do you see that as a right they have?
People at work suspect it was you who ratted, and don't want
anything to do with you now.
I'm retired but like me they were upset that the guys didn't get
fired.
And I didn't do it behind their backs.
But what if you did? We should take that into consideration
when evaluating what you say, right?
Working on another assumption there are you?
I had too much respect for them to do such a thing.
Do you really think it was an easy thing to do?
Are you really so damned stupid that you can't even entertain the
possibility that it hurt like hell to do it?
It did dipshit.
It still does.
Odd thing.
You refer to my trying to protect myself, my co-workers and the
citizens who paid us as "ratting."
This is just what you would be expected to say your motive was.
Believe whatever makes you comfortable.
I'm tired of you now.
You couldn't hold your own in a debate with a grub worm.
<snip>
"It is a fundamental principle of rational argument that a
claim must be evaluated on the basis of the reasons and
evidence offered for its support and not on the basis of
the characteristics of the person who makes it. The
characteristics--good or bad, pleasing or revolting--of
someone who makes an assertion are irrelevant to the
assertion. They count neither for it nor against it. An
argument presented by a machine or by the Homeric gods
is judged in the same way as an argument presented by a
villian or a half-wit. The argument is the thing, and all
else counts for nothing." --Munson, Ronald. The
Way of Words. 1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976.p. 287
Yeah well genius...
I already knew that and it didn't take a damned book to teach me.
You've just contradicted yourself again btw.
You have been consistent in attacking my character as a refutation of
the validity of my arguement.
Go back to class.
You either missed or are missing something.
And you are boring the absolute hell out of me.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
16 Jun 2005 02:30:36 AM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Are you even thinking before you post?
There you go again.
I didn't do it for fun.
Of course not. You did it because you are so much better
than everyone else.. You can't expect the average Joe to do
what you did. You're special. That's why we need laws to
force people to do what you superior people do naturally.
There you go again.
"Trying to promote your speculation/character assassination
to the level of fact when it is both ad hominem and a non-
sequitur is an approach to logical fallacy I've never previously
witnessed."
You seem to think there are two standards--one for you
and a much more stringent one for me, and if I descend
to your level I am the hypocrite. I would suggest that
it is *your* double standards in assuming this that is
fundamentally hypocritical. You certainly aren't trying
to play by the standards I have articulated (though you
quote them). You just attack me for playing by yours-
-since you don't like being on the receiving end of what
you do. So what else is new? Bully wannabes never
can take what they so enjoy dishing out.
Anyway you pick a poor example to try to pull off this
demand for double standards. What I speculated about
you, though facetious, was at least an argument (a
conclusion supported by reasons) which is more than you
typically offer--which is mere accusations.
"Mr. A theist@home insinuates his conclusions."
What exactly did you just do?
Hardly that. I offered an argument, actually, facetious
though it may have been. Why? Did you have a point?
You have no idea how funny you are.
Thank you.
You are trying so hard to pass yourself off as a superbrain*
There you go again. More irrelevant personal attack. If
you are going to do it yourself then why do you whine
about getting some of your own back?
*By all means point this out when you think I do it and
we'll talk about it.
and
falling on your face in the process.
I'm satisfied to let readers decide just whom has
fallen on their face here. I can see you don't think
you can afford the same luxury. And who is to
say you are wrong about that? Not me.
How old are you?
You're in college aren't you?
Logic 101?
This is the same guy who reads the following:
"It is a fundamental principle of rational argument that a
claim must be evaluated on the basis of the reasons and
evidence offered for its support and not on the basis of
the characteristics of the person who makes it."
....and then claims "I already knew that and it didn't
take a damned book to teach me."
So if we take him at his word--that he knew his "How
old are you?" series of questions were irrelevant--then
we must assume that he intentionally commits the ad
hominem fallacy here.
You believe you have discovered some profound truth and way of viewing
the world that nobody else has ever encountered right?
Hahahahahahahaha! It's a bit spooky to think you
might actually be serious about this.
And you are invinciible.
Sorry kid.
We've all read a book or two on logic.
LOL! Really? What are their names? And who is this "we"
you presume to speak for? If you have read "a book or
two on logic" then you don't have the excuse of
ignorance for your wholesale use of deceptiove tactics.
But don't take my word for this:
"Only in the rarest of instances then can falsification
and deception be defended -- they can never be
justified or advocated as a usual or ordinary practice.
"Thus, we reject lying and other unworthy modes of
persuasion, notably the conscious use of fallacious
argument." -- Johannesen, Richard L. Ethics and
Persuasion. First ed., New York: Random House, 1967.
p.32
"notably the conscious use of fallacious argument."
That would be you he is referring to here.
You are not in any fashion unique in that.
Immature and outgunned maybe...but not unique.
Why do you make all these claims/accusations, like the
above--and like this: "you are trying so hard to pass
yourself off as a superbrain"-- in isolation instead of
when they supposedly happen? I guess doing so is a bit
easier than actually providing examples that prove your
point, dishonest though it may be.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
16 Jun 2005 01:33:32 AM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
congregation who spends all her time gossiping about the faults of all
the other members while proclaiming her saintliness to high Heaven.
Which she of course doesn't see as a sin because after all...it's her
doing it.
Even if you were 100% right it would be irrelevant. It
is a different subject.
Your posts are full of arrogant contradictions.
It might seem that way if you miss the irony of my
taking up your argument that "motive matters."
I don't really know what to make of it.
Hopefully we are on the same page now.
Either you are joking about or you are in serious need of a CAT scan.
Not joking, being ironic, facetious.
What I did was the right thing to do whether your somewhat limited
b rain can grasp it or not.
Yes, your motives can't be questioned. But let's say we
COULD question them.
Where did I so much as imply that my motives shouldn't be questioned?
I didn't say "shouldn't." Why do you change my words?
I said "your motives *can't* be questioned." And you make that
plain right here:
"What I did was the right thing to do whether your somewhat limited
brain can grasp it or not."
You see? It doesn't matter what I think: your motive
is pure. But whan it comes to the opponents of the
bill you think it does matter what you think about
their alleged motives. That is a double standard.
Look, either play by your own rules yourself or
drop the irrelevant digressions.
That would mean we should take
your motives into consideration when evaluating what
you say, right?
Of course you should.
You just can't say why.
You would be foolish not to.
Because? Let's say you offer the following argument:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Ergo Socrates is mortal
Now how exactly would your motive play a part in the
accuracy or inaccuracy of your argument?
I'll save you some time: you will find no way to
connect the two things. Arguments stand independent of
the person who happens to bring those arguments to the
table. It makes not a whit of a difference if you are
Adolf H. or Mother T. It changes the argument not one
iota.
Isn't that the very thing I was trying to suggest?
Actually you stated it explicitly.
Didn't I in fact state it outright?
See? And yet you clearly don't like it when I play by
your rules. You call me a hypocrite even as you
continue to play by those same "motive-matters-
and-I-get-to-say-what-your-motives-are" rules yourself.
Didn't I say:
"Reading a house bill can be mind bogglin g but it's better than simply
taking the word of political activists who have their own agenda."
I'm afraid you did. You also said that your speculation
about what their motive might be ought to be taken into
consideration when determining ones position on the
bill. But you don't suggest we take *my* speculation
about what YOUR motive might be into consideration. Get
it? Yet? At long last?
I'm saying
1] motive is irrelevant
2] but if you insist on it, then I will accept your rules and apply
them to you.
Where did I suggest that I am exempt?
I didn't say you suggested it.
It's a bit spooky to think you might actually be serious about this.
The guys were good friends of mine.
I'll bet. You turn them in the same day you first discover
that your "good friends" are using drugs. Seems they probably
were using drugs before you discovered it Amazing how your
"good friends" could be stoned on drugs around you and y ou
didn't even know it.
Sheesh!
Another blatant assumption without reasonable cause.
What do you mean without reasonable cause? You said you
turned them in immediately upon finding out they were
using drugs. Taking you at your word means you didn't
know they were using drugs previously as they must have
been. How could you have been good friends with these
people and not know they were "stoned on their asses,"
previously? It is quite sound induction, actually. Of
course it would be ridiculous to take it seriously. But
this is EXACTLY what _you_ suggest we do regards your
speculation about the opponents of the bill in
question.
"Trying to promote your speculation/character assassination
to the level of fact when it is both ad hominem and a non-
sequitur is an approach to logical fallacy I've never previously
witnessed."
"They would probably be against a bill that would allow
random home searches without a warrant too. So knowing
that you'd probably be for such a bill, right?"
You are really not very good at this.*
You quote my text that you have rejected and call me
a hypocrite? How many times do I have to say that
I am merely playing by your rules?
* If motive matters then I could say that this is just
what someone getting hammered would be expected to say.
Isn't that right?
D o you honestly believe you are impressing or intimidating me?
"Does the sight of blood still excite you?" Didn't you learn
about interrogation fallacies in the logic books you read?
Or are you being intentionally deceptive here?
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
17 Jun 2005 04:50:16 AM |
|
|
On 15 Jun 2005 18:33:32 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
That would mean we should take
your motives into consideration when evaluating what
you say, right?
Of course you should.
You just can't say why.
Because my motives may be selfish.
You would be foolish not to.
Because? Let's say you offer the following argument:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Ergo Socrates is mortal
Now how exactly would your motive play a part in the
accuracy or inaccuracy of your argument?
That is not a complex argument concerning complex circumstances and I
have nothing to gain personally by challanging or supporting it.
Motive wouldn't normally come into play there.
On the other hand...
Socrates is a good man.
Socrates is honorable.
Ergo his motives are always honorable.
I agree with Socrates.
Ergo I am a good man, ergo I am honorable, is quite likely a matter of
seeking a personal payoff by convincing people that the argument is
true.
The claim is far more complex because there are far more
considerations involved.
We see it in politics on a daily basis.
"As John Kennedy said, as Abraham Lincoln said, as Martin Luther King
said."
That's playing to the belief of the general public, right or wrong
that the above three mentioned were trustworthy, good and honorable
men and that the speaker by invoking their names is an admirer of
their philosophies and is therefore, by implication, a trustworthy,
good and honorable man himself.
In other words by implication his motives are selfless and pure
because his mentors were selfless and pure.
<For the record, King is the only one of the three that I consider to
have been a selfless and honorable man in his politics>
I'll save you some time: you will find no way to
connect the two things. Arguments stand independent of
the person who happens to bring those arguments to the
table. It makes not a whit of a difference if you are
Adolf H. or Mother T. It changes the argument not one
iota.
I do understand what you are saying but I don't believe it works quite
so easily in the real world.
In dealing with the hard sciences an argument can be perfectly valid.
But there are no perfectly valid aguments when dealing with politics.
In the hard sciences the motive is usually to get to the absolute
truth but in politics the goal is very often to either come as close
to an acceptable "truth" as possible or convince others that the goal
has been obtained.
To say that a bill is good or bad is a slippery proposition at best.
Some people will be affected positively and some negatively.
It's unavoidable given the nature of the game.
And the game itself is one of tradeoffs.
It's a matter of what is being traded, by whom it is being traded and
for what reason.
A bill may be good for you and your argument in support of it may be
valid to a degree.
But the same bill may be bad for me and my argument against it may be
equally as valid.
The political arena is not the best place to invoke "pure" logic.
<snip>
Didn't I say:
"Reading a house bill can be mind bogglin g but it's better than simply
taking the word of political activists who have their own agenda."
I'm afraid you did. You also said that your speculation
about what their motive might be ought to be taken into
consideration when determining ones position on the
bill. But you don't suggest we take *my* speculation
about what YOUR motive might be into consideration. Get
it? Yet? At long last?
I wouldn't have thought I needed to point it out.
I'm saying
1] motive is irrelevant
2] but if you insist on it, then I will accept your rules and apply
them to you.
Where did I suggest that I am exempt?
I didn't say you suggested it.
You are implying it.
<snip>
"Does the sight of blood still excite you?" Didn't you learn
about interrogation fallacies in the logic books you read?
Or are you being intentionally deceptive here?
A reasonable man doesn't need a book to explain interrogation
fallacies if I understand what you mean by it.
It's a simple matter of common sense.
Most of us would just call it stupid *****.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
18 Jun 2005 06:38:23 PM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 18:33:32 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
That would mean we should take
your motives into consideration when evaluating what
you say, right?
Of course you should.
You just can't say why.
Because my motives may be selfish.
And maybe you have a motive for saying
what you do here. But how am I going to
know it? Sometimes people do not even
know what their own motives are. So if
you have a motive, I can't trust you to
tell me what it is and I can't know that
my speculation about your motive is
correct. That is another problem with
"motive."
You would be foolish not to.
Because? Let's say you offer the following argument:
All men are mortal
Socrates is a man
Ergo Socrates is mortal
Now how exactly would your motive play a part in the
accuracy or inaccuracy of your argument?
That is not a complex argument
Then motive doesn't always matter?
concerning complex circumstances and
Complex arguments can be broken down into some
number of simple arguments.
I
have nothing to gain personally
by challanging or supporting it.
But what if you did?
Motive wouldn't normally come into play there.
Because? You say motive always matters when
there is a political agenda. Assuming someone
with a political agenda offered that argument,
how would his alleged motive matter in terms
of the truth value of the argument?
Anyway, I haven't said that motive never matters.
I've said that when someone makes an assertion
(as opposed to an argument) and expects you to
accept that assertion merely because he says it is
true, then motive may well enter into it.
Arguments, on the other hand, are self contained.
They supply the reasons to accept a claim and
either those reasons are convincing or they are
not.
On the other hand...
Socrates is a good man.
Socrates is honorable.
Ergo his motives are always honorable.
I agree with Socrates.
Ergo I am a good man, ergo I am honorable, is quite likely a matter of
seeking a personal payoff by convincing people that the argument is
true.
But it is a simple matter to show that such an
argument is deductively invalid. That is, the
conclusions do not follow from the premises. I don't
need to speculate about motive to tell me this.
When you argue all you are doing is offering
reasons to accept conclusions
The claim is far more complex because there are far more
considerations involved.
Motive can be a reason to be suspicious of claims
and sometimes even arguments. But it is far too
easy to speculate some motive for someone and
thereby dismiss or discount his argument fallaciously.
What is to prevent you from doing this to the
proponent of any argument with a conclusion you
don't like? How do you disprove someone's
accusation about your bad motive?
If motive modifies an argument then what happens
if we take that argument away from the one with
the suspect motive and give it to someone of spotless
character, who is unimpeachable, motive wise?
Does the argument change in quality for the better?
We see it in politics on a daily basis.
"As John Kennedy said, as Abraham Lincoln said, as Martin Luther King
said."
That's playing to the belief of the general public, right or wrong
that the above three mentioned were trustworthy, good and honorable
men and that the speaker by invoking their names is an admirer of
their philosophies and is therefore, by implication, a trustworthy,
good and honorable man himself.
At which point the pol would be saying "take my
word for it." In the house bill in question, the claims
were rationally supported by the argument. Look
it is one thing to determine that a pol is lying to
you and to speculate a motive for that, and quite
another to speculate a motive for a pol and then
assume he is lying to you because of it.
In other words by implication his motives are selfless and pure
because his mentors were selfless and pure.
If you don't go by what you think his motive is,
then you could never be fooled by this ploy.
<For the record, King is the only one of the three that I consider to
have b een a selfless and honorable man in his politics>
If you focuse on the alleged motives of people you
can turn reality upside down. I've seen it: where someone
whose positive actions are considered evil because of
his presumed motive, and someone whose negative
actions were considered good because of alleged his motives.
I'll save you some time: you will find no way to
connect the two things. Arguments stand independent of
the person who happens to bring those arguments to the
table. It makes not a whit of a difference if you are
Adolf H. or Mother T. It changes the argument not one
iota.
I do understand what you are saying but I don't believe it works quite
so easily in the real world.
In dealing with the hard sciences an argument can be perfectly valid.
But there are no perfectly valid aguments when dealing with politics.
(you might want to use some other term since a "valid" argument
referrs to a specific type of argument)
In the hard sciences the motive is usually to get to the absolute
truth but in politics the goal is very often to either come as close
to an acceptable "truth" as possible or convince others that the goal
has been obtained.
To say that a bill is good or bad is a slippery proposition at best.
Yes indeed. But too often invoking the motive of
the various players only muddies the waters.
Some people will be affected positively and some negatively.
That is true regardless of any motive.
It's unavoidable given the nature of the game.
And the game itself is one of tradeoffs.
It's a matter of what is being traded, by whom it is being traded and
for what reason.
A bill may be good for you and your argument in support of it may be
valid to a degree.
But the same bill may be bad for me a nd my argument against it may be
equally as valid.
Someones motive won't change this.
The political arena is not the best place to invoke "pure" logic.
I'm invoking informal logic.
"Informal logic is the attempt to make explicit
the principles or standards that are involved in
the ordinary everyday activities of establishing
and evaluating claims and of using language
effectively in the process of communication
..=2E.Perhaps the most important thing to stress
is that informal logic is a supremely practical
enterprise...its directily concerned with such
ordinary human activites as defending positions,
attacking unsupported claims, and detecting
misleading examples and bad analogies."
Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words. 1st
ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin, 1976. p.3-4
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
22 Jun 2005 01:39:47 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jun 2005 11:38:23 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 15 Jun 2005 18:33:32 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
<snip>
That would mean we should take
your motives into consideration when evaluating what
you say, right?
Of course you should.
You just can't say why.
Because my motives may be selfish.
Sorry to take so long getting back with you.
I cannot argue with any of the points you make below.
I am at the moment in the midst of something that limits my time in
usenet for a few days.
I have enjoyed this and just received the first of two books I ordered
from the list you posted as references.
<With Good Reason by Engel>
I will be ordering more.
Do you have a favorite that you can recommend?
atheist@home#1554
And maybe you have a motive for saying
what you do here. But how am I going to
know it? Sometimes people do not even
know what their own motives are. So if
you have a motive, I can't trust you to
tell me what it is and I can't know that
my speculation about your motive is
correct. That is another problem with
"motive."
<snip>
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
22 Jun 2005 01:27:00 PM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 11:38:23 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Do you have a favorite that you can recommend?
Munson's book, if you can find it:
Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words. 1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin,
1976.
It is a text book.
L
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
22 Jun 2005 07:51:40 PM |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2005 06:27:00 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 11:38:23 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Do you have a favorite that you can recommend?
Munson's book, if you can find it:
Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words. 1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin,
1976.
It is a text book.
L
Thanks.
Got it.
Hardcover no less :-)
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
23 Jun 2005 03:55:49 PM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 06:27:00 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 11:38:23 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Do you have a favorite that you can recommend?
Munson's book, if you can find it:
Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words. 1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin,
1976.
It is a text book.
L
Thanks.
Got it.
Hardcover no less :-)
Wow, it's 30 yrs. old. You found it on line, I guess. I am
really in awe of Munson. He takes it from the ground
up. Chapter 8 "Whited Sepulchres: Fallacies and
Sophistries" is the section on logical fallacies.
Chapter 7: the first half is easier going than the
second half (where it gets into: Formal Deductive
Logic on p. 226 in my copy). You might want
to come back to it later. The beginning of the book
may be too basic for you (I read it, but not until later)
but you will at least want to check out "sufficient"
and "necessary" conditions on p. 40, if those
concepts are rusty.
Cheers
.
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
23 Jun 2005 07:59:40 PM |
|
|
On 23 Jun 2005 08:55:49 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 22 Jun 2005 06:27:00 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 11:38:23 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Do you have a favorite that you can recommend?
Munson's book, if you can find it:
Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words. 1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin,
1976.
It is a text book.
L
Thanks.
Got it.
Hardcover no less :-)
Wow, it's 30 yrs. old. You found it on line, I guess.
Amazon.com is greater than God.
Seek and ye *shall* find; ask and ye *shall* receive :-)
I recently ordered and received a first issue hardcover of One Flew
Over the Cuckoo's Nest, 1966 I believe.
Every old copy of every book I've ordered from them has been in
excellent to very good shape.
I am really in awe of Munson. He takes it from the ground
up. Chapter 8 "Whited Sepulchres: Fallacies and
Sophistries" is the section on logical fallacies.
Chapter 7: the first half is easier going than the
second half (where it gets into: Formal Deductive
Logic on p. 226 in my copy). You might want
to come back to it later. The beginning of the book
may be too basic for you (I read it, but not until later)
but you will at least want to check out "sufficient"
and "necessary" conditions on p. 40, if those
concepts are rusty.
This has been one of the most productive threads I've participated in
for quite a while.
Most of the books I've read concerning logic have been on philosophy
with chapters on logic and critical thinking.
One that I have and love is Philosophy; An Introduction To The Art Of
Wondering by James L. Christian.
My copy is old and somewhat tattered from being loaned out <A thing I
no longer do> so I need to replace it.
I appreciate the effort you put into the thread.
I've learned some things as well as being reminded of some things I
once knew.
That's the better part of usenet imo :-)
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "atheist@home" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
22 Jun 2005 07:38:06 PM |
|
|
On 22 Jun 2005 06:27:00 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 18 Jun 2005 11:38:23 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
Do you have a favorite that you can recommend?
Munson's book, if you can find it:
Munson, Ronald. The Way of Words. 1st ed., Atlanta: Houghton Mifflin,
1976.
It is a text book.
L
Thanks.
atheist@home#1554
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
16 Jun 2005 12:45:05 AM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
Would you call the police if you knew your neighbors with children
were selling drugs from their house?
<snip>
Ah. You say "motive matters," and now we see your
motive. You are trying to rationalize informing on
co-workers behind their backs (Even so, I'll bet you a
yard you didn't do it within 24 hours).
I did immediately.
Sure you did. You went from zero knowledge of your "good
friends'" drug use to complete knowledge and certainty of i t
and reported it in within 24 hours.
Another assumption on your part.
Now you got it.
I knew they smoked off duty.
A number of the guys did.
Then you didn't turn them in within that 24 hr time
frame (immediately).This law doesn't think you should
have discretion in who or why you turn someone in.
Oh sure, a kid isn't involved--at least not directly--
but if this law passes who is to say that protecting
the public is any less important than protecting kids?
The intent of the law is obvious: you cannot be
trusted to use your own discretion. And the government
wants to so impress you with this that they will
casually ruin your life if they catch you.
It is not every day a new class of felony is invented!
I didn't have the first problem with it.
It's not your decision. It is the governments. Or
will be soon.
I didn't have a problem sitting around playing guitar and smoking on
occasion with them.
Oh really.
*Off duty*
Do you really want a guy driving a heavy pumper on an emergency while
he is stoned?
How do we know this was your motive? People don't usually
go from zreo knowledge of drug use to complete knowledge
of it sufficient to know the things you claim are true, in under
24 hours. That at least seem improbable and thus it is
improbable that this was your motive. So we should at least take
what I speculate was your motive into consideration when
evaluating your statements. Right?
If you like.
No, not if *I* like.
It doesn't matter one way or the other to me.
My motive was clearly stated.
But why do you think we should consider what you
say about your motive? Merely because you are here
and able to articulate it? Why shouldn't we ONLY
consider what someone who opposes you happens
to speculate is your motive? Isn't that what you
expected of us when you speculated about the
assumed motives of the assumed opposers of the bill?
That is my point.
Take it or leave it.
It doesn't matter what your motive is or what
anyone says your motive is.
Or a Lt. calling the shots in what may be a life and death situation
while he is stoned?
It wasn't just my safety and my fellow workers I had to worry about.
It was the welfare of the citizens who paid us to protect them and
rightfully expected us to be alert and clear thinking while we did so.
Riiiight. Your motives were/are exalted. It is other people
whose motives are suspect.
Where did I say that?
Where did I imply it?
When you said drug dealers were probably behind
the opposition to the bill.
What did you say about insinuation?
Oh, I think I came right out and said what I meant.
Your posts are full of it.
Point it out if and when you see it and we'll talk
about it.
Shall I point it out to you or would you prefer to go back and re-read
your silliness?
Point it out to me, by all means. ("silliness" begs the
question, btw)
Amusing that you figure that you get to tell us what everybodies
motives are, including your own. I can appreciate why you
would like to be permitted to state your own motives, but I think
it is hypocritical tha t you think you can also speculate with faux
certainty about the motives of others, and do so to their detriment.
It's called cynicism, skepticism.
My point is you are not cynical or skeptical of your own
motives. You don't see any need to even mention your
motives only the other guys. I only did to you what
you do to the opponents of the bill. I was playing by _your
rules_ that sas that "motive matters," and that I get to
speculate about your motives as you speculate about theirs.
And as we can see, you don't like it one bit.
It has to do with politics.
It comes in handy when one is seeking the truth.
It comes in even more handy to arrive at some pre-
determined "truth." Just speculate a low or venal
motive for the person whose ideas you don't like. It is easy
to do, as I have demonstrated with you as my target.
You have a personal problem with me and it's up to you to work it out
yourself.
It doesn't affect my life one way or the other.
Unlike the regulars of a.a. whom I know and respect you are just words
on a computer screen.
You contradict yourself constantly
By all means point it out when you think it happens
and we'll discuss it.
while suggesting by your language
that you are somehow perfectly logical and superior in your thinking.
Quoting you:
Where did I say that?
Where did I imply it?
And you are a balls to the wall hypocrite.
I would say that you are the hypocrite for
complaining about me doing to you what you
do the opponents of the bill. Or don't you
think that is hypocritical?
" It is hypocritical that you think you can also speculate with faux
certainty about the motives of others."
That's right. What's your point?
And then this:
"Ah. You say "motive matters," and now we see your motive."
That's right. I was using your argument against you.
Are you one of those silly, arrogant types who can always see and
point out the faults in others but can't see the same faults in
yourself?
Now who is being silly? How would I know this if I
couldn't see the same faults in myself? Regardless, as I
stated after I turned your argument against you: motives
are irrelevant. Even yours.
Notice how difficult it is has been for you to show how
the motive of the opponents of the bill matters in terms
of the quality of the legislation. Ask yourself why that is.
You remind me of some self rightous old bitty in the church
Back to the ad hominem I see. You both complain
when I do it (for ironic effect) and do it yourself.
That isn't hypocritical?
r
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Del" |
|
| Title: Re: Inform on Friends or go 2 Jail |
16 Jun 2005 04:11:27 AM |
|
|
atheist@home wrote:
On 14 Jun 2005 14:23:24 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
atheist@home wrote:
On 13 Jun 2005 03:51:56 -0700, "Del" <jfacts@earthlink.net> wrote:
The Lt. was fired sometime later in a different incident for being
coked up on the job.
Would like for him to be making the call to your house?
I've known of other firefighters, paramedics and cops to work stoned.
Did you turn them all in?
Most were on other departments.
It's a losing battle.
The cutting of imaculate slack for ones self.
Amazingly not only doesn't he take
responsibility for his own behavior, he
actually tries to blame me for it:
Primarily because of people like you who are more interested in
condemning the "snitch" than protecting the innocent.
Of course. You get to tell everybody what
their motive is, don't you? That way you don't
have to deal with their arguments. And nothing
is ever your fault.
Do you see that as a right they have?
People at work suspect it was you who ratted, and don't want
anything to do with you now.
I'm retired but like me they were upset that the guys didn't get
fired.
And I didn't do it behind their backs.
But what if you did? We should take that into consideration
when evaluating what you say, right?
Working on another assumption there are you?
Actually I was asking you a question, which
any rational person can see. And which, as
usual, you don't answer.
My main objection has been to the idea that if it is
possible to speculate a bad motive for some of the
people who _might_ support a bill, or a policy, or
an argument, etc., that this is a good reason to
look askance at that bill or policy or argument.
My point in speculating about you, personally,
was to demonstrate that ALL such speculation--even
if it turned out to be true--is completely irrelevant to
the veracity of the arguments you make. Your argument
is either good or bad, without regard to the "true"
reasons you offer that argument.
Even those well versed in the intricacies of this
fallacy (ad hominem, and most people are not) can
find it difficult to defend against. It puts you on the
defensive which side-tracks your argument. That is, to
the degree you defend yourself you are addressing
irrelevancies instead of the topic. Even though the
accusations against you are not logically relevant,
they are EMOTIONALLY relevant. On the surface
they _seem_ to matter. If the accusations against you
are entirely false, all the better for the accuser--if it
provokes a more emotional reaction in you.
Sometimes motive or other personal attributes are relevant
t | | | | | | | | | |
