Freedom of the Press

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.
Feb 7, 2007
1,713
243
1,693
Denver
I didn't dismiss it. I was making a joke at how far down in it we were. Your gut reaction was to tell me I didn't know what the word meant and that we weren't in it. You literally argued that we weren't actually talking semantics. That was my point.

Oh and the reason I didn't point it out immediately is because I actually had a rude response typed but I deleted it hoping I would at some point learn something as we were discussing things. That proved impossible.

Your guys chess metaphor is a good one. It would be like two guys play chess and before you get too far in one guys says we are actually playing "legal" chess and that move you just made isn't allowed. The rules are I can point out what moves you can't make but I don't ever tell you what moves you can make.

Oh and let's remember. My basic point is could a statement like "What about case XYZ with similar facts?" ever come up in a legal situation and hold water. Hmm... Wonder what would happen if I asked one of the dozens of lawyers in my family, friend, and work groups that basic scenario?
Hot off the presses!

Me a commoner without a legal degree asks:
"Hey need to pick your brain about a legal scenario. Would it be fair to say that an argument like this could be made in court and that it would hold water? "What about case XYZ with similar facts?"

My friend whom is a lawyer with a decades of legal experience:
"That's pretty much precedent. To say a case is "on point" and can act as precedent, the facts need to very similar to the cited case, or on a point of law broad enough that they apply the same."
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Wait, when I pointed out the incredibly pedantic behavior that I tried to ignore for a bit. Your reaction is to go on an unrelated lecture and tell me I should listen because I am in the presence of a licensed attorney?

I feel like we are just in a troll response loop where I point out pedantic behavior and you all respond with an even more pedantic response.
1612972149960.png
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Hot off the presses!

Me a commoner without a legal degree asks:
"Hey need to pick your brain about a legal scenario. Would it be fair to say that an argument like this could be made in court and that it would hold water? "What about case XYZ with similar facts?"

My friend whom is a lawyer with a decades of legal experience:
"That's pretty much precedent. To say a case is "on point" and can act as precedent, the facts need to very similar to the cited case, or on a point of law broad enough that they apply the same."
One more time, using the words "what about" does not ergo make something "whataboutism". I don't know why this is so difficult for you to understand. To again offer a definition of whataboutism:

Whataboutism: Deflecting criticism by citing examples of other things/people to whom the criticism also applies, without dealing with the criticism itself.

This is different than citing precedent, which is not deflecting criticism but making a legal argument. Whataboutism is an apple, citing precedent is an orange.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,458
20,509
1,743
I didn't dismiss it. I was making a joke at how far down in it we were. Your gut reaction was to tell me I didn't know what the word meant and that we weren't in it. You literally argued that we weren't actually talking semantics. That was my point.

Oh and the reason I didn't point it out immediately is because I actually had a rude response typed but I deleted it hoping I would at some point learn something as we were discussing things. That proved impossible.

Your guys chess metaphor is a good one. It would be like two guys play chess and before you get too far in one guys says we are actually playing "legal" chess and that move you just made isn't allowed. The rules are I can point out what moves you can't make but I don't ever tell you what moves you can make.

Oh and let's remember. My basic point is could a statement like "What about case XYZ with similar facts?" ever come up in a legal situation and hold water. Hmm... Wonder what would happen if I asked one of the dozens of lawyers in my family, friend, and work groups that basic scenario?
Oh lord.

I did NOT literally argue that we weren't actually talking semantics. My literal argument was that semantics were the ONLY thing that mattered in our discussion.

Furthermore, you absolutely did not get what our chess metaphor actually was about.

At this point, however, I do....without a doubt.....absolutely agree with you when you say it proved impossible that you would as some point learn something from our discussion....and that it will continue to be impossible.

Are we done here?

I think we are done here.
 
Jul 25, 2018
4,388
1,183
243
50
Boulder, CO
Oh lord.

I did NOT literally argue that we weren't actually talking semantics. My literal argument was that semantics were the ONLY thing that mattered in our discussion.

Furthermore, you absolutely did not get what our chess metaphor actually was about.

At this point, however, I do....without a doubt.....absolutely agree with you when you say it proved impossible that you would as some point learn something from our discussion....and that it will continue to be impossible.

Are we done here?

I think we are done here.
Something tells me No.
 

RxCowboy

Has no Rx for his orange obsession.
A/V Subscriber
Nov 8, 2004
72,330
41,275
1,743
Wishing I was in Stillwater
Hot off the presses!

Me a commoner without a legal degree asks:
"Hey need to pick your brain about a legal scenario. Would it be fair to say that an argument like this could be made in court and that it would hold water? "What about case XYZ with similar facts?"

My friend whom is a lawyer with a decades of legal experience:
"That's pretty much precedent. To say a case is "on point" and can act as precedent, the facts need to very similar to the cited case, or on a point of law broad enough that they apply the same."
Are you winning the argument with yourself?

You are creating a false syllogism. It goes like this.

God is love. Love is blind. Stevie Wonder is blind. Therefore Stevie Wonder is God.

Notice that all three propositions in that could be true:
1. God is love is stated in scripture. (1 John 4)
2. Love is blind is a commonly held concept that, while not specifically stated, is expressed in scripture. (1 Corinthians 13)
3. Stevie Wonder is in fact blind.

However, the conclusion just doesn't follow. It is nonsequitur.

Just because you can, in your overly simplistic view, use "what about" in your example of precedent doesn't ergo make it "whataboutism", any more than Stevie Wonder's being blind makes him God.
 
Last edited: