Not only are you being intellectually dishonest Will in responding to my statements, your "I didn't have the benefit of learning civics...." is one of the points you are being intellectually dishonest. I guess they taught Biodiesel creation/usage, fuel efficiency and chipping engines in your school, since you do seem proficient in that to some degree.
I've outlined them quite well, save putting a 1M candlepower spotlight on it. I really don't think anyone deserves to be publicly humiliated but if you want to continue the charade I'll be happy to point them out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Well put. I think I have a better grasp on this now. It has the appearance of being political to a layman (like, oh I dunno, me), but in actuality it's a lot more like establishing who has jurisdiction or what precedent has jurisdiction
|
See it seems this is the closest we will get to seeing you make an admission you have no idea as to what the Articles I-III state as to the separation of power and checks and balances.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Count how many times you've said "intellectually dishonest". And FYI, you're using the term incorrectly. Intellectual dishonesty requires one knowing what one advocates to be false. None of my posts fall into that category.
|
Yes they do. I'll keep saying it each and every time you keep doing it. Let's make sure we are defining the word correctly.
You are stating the wikipedia version of
intellectual dishonesty and that's fine. Using your definition, it still applies because you cannot state on one hand that you understand the separation of powers and checks and balances and then continue to make incorrect statements as to how they work or situations should be applied. Either way one of the statements you are making is intellectually dishonest. If not, then I'm giving you too much credit since the only next logical conclusion drawn is that you truly do not know what you are talking about and are ignorant of the subject being discussed and cannot admit that you do not know or understand the separation of powers and checks and balances as stated in Articles I-III of the United States Constitution.
I'm using
John T. Reed's Intellectually-honest and intellectually-dishonest debate tactics. I will list just the ones that you have used and have applied directly to this discussion:
Quote:
Name calling: debater tries to diminish the argument of his opponent by calling the opponent a name that is subjective and unattractive; for example, cult members and bad real estate gurus typically warn the targets of their frauds that “dream stealers” will try to tell them the cult or guru is giving them bad advice; name calling is only intellectually dishonest when the name in question is ill defined or is so subjective that it tells the listener more about the speaker than the person being spoken about; there is nothing wrong with using a name that is relevant and objectively defined; the most common example of name calling against me is “negative;” in coaching, the critics of coaches are often college professors and the word “professor” is used as a name-calling tactic by the coaches who are the targets of the criticism in question; as a coach, I have been criticized as being “too intense,” a common put-down of successful youth and lower level high school coaches
Changing the subject: debater is losing so he tries to redirect the attention of the audience to another subject area where he thinks he can look better relative to the person he is debating
Questioning the motives of the opponent: this is a form of tactic number 2 changing the subject; as stated above, it is prohibited by Robert’s Rule of Order 43; a typical tactic use against critics is to say, “They’re just trying to sell newspapers” or in my case, books—questioning motives is not always wrong; only when it is used to prove the opponent’s facts or logic wrong is it invalid
Citing irrelevant facts or logic: this is another form of tactic Number 2 changing the subject
False premise: debater makes a statement that assumes some other fact has already been proven when it has not; in court, such a statement will be objected to by opposing counsel on the grounds that it “assumes facts not in evidence”
Vagueness: debater seems to cite facts or logic, but his terms are so vague that no facts or logic are present
Stereotyping: debater “proves” his point about a particular person by citing a stereotype that supposedly applies to the group that opponent is a member of; dismissing criticism by academic researchers by citing Ivory Tower stereotypes is an example of this debate tactic
Redefining words: debater uses a word that helps him, but that does not apply, by redefining it to suit his purposes
Straw man: debater attacks an argument that is easy to refute but which is also an argument that no one has made in the debate.
Rejecting facts or logic as opinion: It is true that everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But everyone is not entitled to their own facts or logic. Facts are facts. 2 +2 = 4 is not my opinion. It is a fact. Rich Dad Poor Dad author Robert Kiyosaki says incorporating enables you to deduct a vacation to Hawaii as a board meeting on your federal income taxes. He’s wrong. It’s not my opinion. It’s the Internal Revenue Code Section 162(a) which you can read for yourself at http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...2----000-.html. Whether you can deduct a trip to Hawaii has nothing to do with whether you are incoprorated. And you cannot deduct a vacation. It has to be an “ordinary and necessary business” expense. Travel expenses which are “lavish or extravagant” are explicitly not deductible according to IRC §162(a)(2). The fact that Kiyosaki and his CPA co-author differ from my statements on that subject are not matters of opinion. They are either lying or incompetent. I am accurately describing the law.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Willravel
Also, I'm not going to Berkeley Law in the fall. I'm going back to get my BA in Political Science. After that, I'll take the LSAT. Then I'd like to get clerical experience in the law field. Then, if my grades, scores, and recommendations are worthy, I'll apply to Boalt (or Berkeley Law, as they call it now). No where in this thread have I resorted to calling someone stupid. You cannot say the same.
|
You've clearly stated that you were going back to school to be a lawyer, not maybe go to law school, but be a lawyer. You've stated the illustrious profession of public defender on many occasion and then moving on to private practice because the pay is high. Delusion? Daydream? Pipe dream? What? Or is it more intellectual dishonesty, your definition, or even self-deception? Or is it more like that personal situtation I have found myself in we've discussed in PMs which I've asked your assistance; the one you helped with kind words and links to many resources?
You've not recanted or even restated that position. You've even
started another thread that demonstrates very clearly that you still do not understand the separation of power and the checks and balances that Articles I-II of the United States Constitution clearly define.
I'm not taking the bait on the changing of the subject with the Bush as a democrat scenario because it has no relevance to the discussion at hand which is: you stated that the method of selecting a Supreme Court Judge is stupid, and flies in the very face of checks and balances as the method that is currently used. You are still stating political when they're judicial.
The posit of the Bush scenario shows you still don't understand the foundation of the discussion of separation of powers and the checks and balances stated in the US Constitution. If you are seriously making this a What If? It may be a discussion, but it's simple and one dimensional since it doesn't matter as to what the partisan politics, they have some bearing maybe, but not all bearing. That's about as far as that discussion can go.
Back to selecting Justices post#13, how is it stupid? post#15 How is it that they are representing partisan politics?
__________________
I don't care if you are black, white, purple, green, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, hippie, cop, bum, admin, user, English, Irish, French, Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, Muslim, indian, cowboy, tall, short, fat, skinny, emo, punk, mod, rocker, straight, gay, lesbian, jock, nerd, geek, Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, Independent, driver, pedestrian, or bicyclist, either you're an asshole or you're not.