"It's Easier to Bury a Tradition Than a Child"

[gemini5362]

Thomas, I liked the... "I'm not the one who has resorted to labels and name calling (shirkers?!?!?)"

Sorry for your taking a hit over that. I thought I was the one who cried, SHIRKER and sloth and such. Not ad hominems. Not labels in a pejorative way but honest attempts to directly use plain language to call a spade a spade. Not politically correct, obviously, but intended as the plain unvarnished truth.

Yeah i kind of did not remember saying that but in all fairness I did say that I was in complete agreement with your statements . By aligning myself with your statements then I am guilty of the thought if not the actual deed. I dont mind taking hits for your statements most of them are so prestiguous that I am just happy people might mistakenly think I have a working vocabulary that includes such highbrow language. All I know is that allan and I are probably going to have a much larger vocabulary by the time we get through reading all of these posts.

 

[patrick_g]

Thomas, Sorry to cut your lessons short but really, I just don't get enough of a bang out of this thread to continue.

An old saying keeps popping up. Well two actually but one is fit to print.

A person convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Although innocent bystanders may get more out of this exchange than some new vocabulary words, the odds of beneficially altering the reality of any significant participants is slight.

Oh, while recanting my civics lessons from ninth grade I forgot to include Oklahoma Boys State my Junior year of high school, one of the mock political process training camps run by the American Legion (not to be confused with Boy's Town) Wow, I AM a candidate for reeducation. Purge those ideologies!

Pat

 

[Defective]

On the other hand...

I think we're all now better qualified to sit on the jury when some schmuck goes to court because his kid gets scalded by hot coffee while riding on the fender of dads tractor.

 

[Egon]

At last, a post that has words I know the meaning of!

 

[N80]

I kind of thought that civics class was the point since you made certain to imply that i am ignorant of the democratic process.

Actually, if you will go back to that particular post, you will find that I very candidly admitted that I was probably ignorant of some of these processes.

Maybe I dont understand what ad hominem means since i felt like the point you were making was my lack of understanding of the process I was discussing. That kind of sounds like an ad hominem attack to me.

No, its not really an ad hominem attack if I am challenging your understanding of the point. If I call your point into question because you have made an inaccurate assertion, that is not ad hominem. If I call you stupid for making an inaccurate assertion than that is ad hominem. If you felt like I called you stupid, my apologies. I felt like I had adequately diffused that notion by, as I mentioned above, admitting that there were deficiencies in my understanding as well. I still think that your points demonstrated a misunderstanding of the process. You may disagree, and that's fine, but just because I disagree with you or think your points are not factual doesn't make my response ad hominem.

On the other hand, labeling someone a shirker who doesn't uphold their civic obligations IS the very definition of ad hominem. You may not have made that attack, I think it was Patrick. Not only was the attack ad hominem, it was baseless and unsubstantiable. An ad hominem attack can have a shred of credibility if it is true. Patrick cannot even claim that tiny shred!

 

[Soundguy]

For those of us that don't speak hi brow, or latin.. 'red herring' is a more common synonym for 'ad hominem'.

soundguy

 

[N80]

Let me see if I understand... We hold these truths to be self evident.

The SYSTEM is messed up. It is absolutely unequivocally IMPOSSIBLE to fix it. It is futile to attempt to fix the system. THEY just didn't and aren't getting it RIGHT.

I guess that's the problem. You are drawing conclusions that you cannot substantiate. Let's go point by point to avoid confusion:

Now, I do believe the system is messed up. You got that right. However, I've already pointed out that it is still probably the best system in the world. But that does not make it immune to problems or flaws. Does it? If you think I am wrong about it being messed up then you must think it is flawless, right. Would you like to argue here that our court system is PERFECT. By all means...state your case.

You then summarize, "It is absolutely unequivocally IMPOSSIBLE to fix it." No one has even suggested that. I have pointed out that there is a significant built in inertia. That is not saying change is impossible. That is another misreading and/or assumption that you have made that is incorrect. I said the system is hard to change, not impossible. That's all you. So, you got that wrong.

Then you paraphrase me by saying it is 'futile' to attempt change. Again, I never said that. Never. And what's worse, you assume that I have lived by your misunderstanding and accuse me of shirking, and complaining without action. You can't prove that. You are wrong and you fail to acknowledge that you have fasley accused. Why won't you address this Patrick?

Then you say 'they didn't and aren't getting it right'. Okay, that's fair. Again, would you care to argue that they have it perfect? Would you argue that we should stop trying to make it better. Go ahead.

It is entirely fair and reasonable that anyone should ONLY complain about the state of the system with no moral imperative to do anything but complain.

That is exactly what I said Patrick with the exception that I also used the word 'criticize'. If you think this is wrong then prove it. Show me the moral or ethical imperative that connects criticism with activism. You can't. So you don't even try.

In fact the system is so messed up that any and all THINKING folks will find themselves above it, too good to participate in the underpinnings of the system such as serving on juries with the "great unwashed." Gee, it is so hard to light a single candle that I will sit in the dark and complain.

Again, the brings us to you unfair, unfounded, uncalled for and unscroupulous assumption that that is what I/we said or are doing. You can't support this. You are wrong. Shamefully so to accuse any of us of not acting on our criticism. Why do you persist in what amounts to slander? Is it all you have left?

If anyone impugns your sloth then it is OK to employ an ad hominem.

What sloth Patrick? What shirking? Show it to me. Prove it. This is an idea you can't let go of. Where and how have I shirked? When, where and how have I been slothful. If you don't know or can't say then you need to stop saying it, admit you are wrong and then apologize.

Reality like morality is of our own definition. There are no intrinsic values just situational ones that rationalize our position du jour where it may sharply deviate from a desirable position de jure (or de facto.)

I absolutely reject moral relativism. Your assessment that it is de facto is not only debateable but easily defeatable. This is not the forum for it, but suffice it to say, that if morals are relative then you have NO RIGht to question, judge or dispute ANYTHING I say or believe. So if morals are situational....then I can't be a shirker because there is not moral DUTY at all!!

There is more, much more I think I am learning in this thread but given my extreme shortcomings and lack of ability to read and understand I do not feel competent to comment further at this time.

You said it. Will you abide by it?

 

[N80]

For those of us that don't speak hi brow, or latin.. 'red herring' is a more common synonym for 'ad hominem'.

soundguy

Exactly. An ad hominem attack is an attack against the person, not the point that person is making. In this way, the argument is diverted from its intent....like a red herring.

And Patrick has employed the 'ad hominem attack' very very well. We are no longer really discussing the merits of our current judicial system...which is where this topic evolved...somehow. When employed effectively the ad hominem attack puts the opponent on the defensive attempting to prove the he is not a 'shirker' or a racist, or a communist or a liberal, etc etc and the point of the discussion is lot. On internet discussions this often makes the one using the attack look like the 'winner' of the debate since the susbtance of the debate becomes lost and the opponent is back peddling.

For Patrick, in this case he cannot justify his attack. He has no evidence, either in the body of the discussion or in any outside facts. This has left him vulnerable to charges that amount to slander and his ad hominem attack is left looking more like sour grapes than anything else. Unfortunately the 'red herring' aspect still applies and benefits no one.

Edit: My apologies for the big words. My wife often tells me to look up the word bombastic.

 

[tallyho8]

I have learned a lot over the years from posts written by N80 and patrick_g.

I get worried sometimes when they get confrontational because I fear that one will get upset and decide to quit the forum and we will lose all their valuable input.

 

[N80]

I am often guilty of letting the 'tone' of my posts get out of hand. They sound worse than I intend them too. And even when some one calss me a shirker (which I am not, I have put myself in harms way to defend our 'system'.) or even an idiot (which I often am) it really doesn't bother me as much as my posts sound like they do. I am not offended personally.

I think Patrick has been around long enough to know that. At least I hope so. And that he feels the same way.

Funny thing is, I think he and I agree on the majority of things.

In any case, I'm not going anywhere (sorry to those who wish I would...at least not where they might suggest I go...).

And even when things get heated around here, I think there are still bits of good info and I always learn a lot....some times I'm even forced to (I had to double check Gemini's civics facts.)