Re: OT: Snit, the blasphemous liar

Steve Carroll wrote:
>
> In article <BF5CD236.30B9B%SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> Snit <SNIT@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > "Wally" <wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> stated in post
> > BF5D9725.8C56%wally@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx on 9/25/05 9:16 PM:
> >
> > >> To be found not guilty one needs to show how there is a reasonable doubt of
> > >> the charges. There is no requirement to refute (disprove or show the
> > >> falsity of) the charges. If you understood the concept of the presumption
> > >> of innocence this would not have to be explained to you.
> > >>
> > >
> > > Can you provide an example where one is showing that there is reasonable
> > > doubt, yet at the same time not be refuting the charges?
> >
> > Sure: but let's set terms right from the start: To refute an argument is not
> > just to have that argument fail to make a difference in the real world, it
> > is to show that the argument is wrong,
>
> Show? Or prove? To what extent and to the satisfaction of whom?
>
> Regardless of the argument and where it is made, these questions are
> always a consideration... but they become of paramount importance in
> arguments that allege guilt.
>
> Remember... you stated that your evidence didn't prove anything,
> especially in a "logical" sense.... so you **must** mean "show" here.
> The next question is: Show to whom? If it only 'shows' the argument is
> wrong to certain people then it appears that it depends on who is doing
> the 'looking', doesn't it? You see your problem YET?
>
> > either factually or logically.
>
> Bush's guilt is the "fact" in question here, Snit. You're saying you
> have 'shown' it "factually"... we're saying that you haven't. Now your
> statement must go with the words "show" and "logically". It will now
> read:
>
> To refute an argument is not just to have that argument fail to make a
> difference in the real world, it is to show that the argument is wrong
> logically.
>
> Well, according to this definition, many of us have 'shown' you logical
> reasons why your argument isn't 'right' (as opposed to wrong). Some of
> those reasons you admitted to not having fully read the material. That's
> a real problem for a guy who claims his argument stands without
> refutation. A guy who claims his argument has been 'shown' "factually".
> But 'shown' to whom?
>
> > Here,
> > from some dictionaries:
> >
> > -----
> > Onelook.com
> > Refute: prove to be false or incorrect
> > -----
>
> Opps... you have a problem here... the word 'prove' kills you.
>
> > Encarta
> > prove something wrong: to prove something to be false or somebody
> > to be in error, either through logical argument or by providing
> > evidence to the contrary
>
> Opps... again... the word 'prove'.
>
> > For the record, Encarta *also* states that refute can mean:
> > deny something: to deny an allegation or contradict a statement
> > without disproving it
>
> Exactly. Maybe now you'll see why... wait for it... CONTEXT is important.
>
> > That is *not* how I am using the word when I talk about refuting an
> > argument.
>
> Oh... so you're willing to provide context when you deem it necessary?
> Or were you unaware that is what you are doing here... providing context?
>
> > -----
> > Compact Oxford English Dictionary
> > 1 prove (a statement or the person advancing it) to be wrong.
>
> Prove? No good for you.
>
> > 2 deny (a statement or accusation).
> >
> > USAGE Strictly speaking, refute means ?prove (a statement) to be
> > wrong¹, although it is often now used to mean simply ?deny¹.
> >
> > Again, to be clear, I am using it in the strict since of definition 1, not
> > the more informal sense of definition 2
>
> Then you're fucked.
>
> > -----
> >
> > Etc. I looked at several other dictionaries, most of which had similar
> > definitions... with the first definition being the more strict sense of the
> > word and the way *I* am using the word. I cannot speak to how Steve is
> > using the word, but likely he is trying to play word games
>
> Word games? Like using definitions that YOU provide?'
>
> > by pretending
> > that I meant the second sense of the word. The context of my usage makes
> > this very clearly false, and Steve's claims about me outright silly.
> >
> > Whew... with that said:
> >
> > There are many examples where people do not refute (disprove)
>
> Disprove? As opposed to prove? Such language from you!
>
> > the argument
> > against them but still are not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Here is a
> > hypothetical example.
> >
> > Say a Fred is speeding down a street. Fred is guilty of breaking the law no
> > matter what else happens; actually guilty, though not found guilty in a
> > court room (at least not yet!). Now say a Officer Jones catches Fred with
> > his radar gun, pulls him over, and gives him a ticket. Fred decides to
> > challenge the ticket (even though he is guilty of the offense) and it goes
> > to court. In the trial Fred is able to show that the radar gun was test and
> > found to be malfunctioning the day after he got his ticket. There was no
> > test done on the gun the day of the ticket. This is enough to create a
> > reasonable doubt about his guilt in the minds of the jury (even though we,
> > the observers of this event, know Fred is guilty). Being that in the minds
> > of the jury there is reasonable doubt, they fail to find Fred guilty beyond
> > a reasonable doubt. Fred did not refute (disprove) the fact that he was
> > guilty (he could not possibly do so - he is actually guilty), he merely
> > showed how, from the perspective of the jury, there should be reasonable
> > doubt about his guilt.
>
> Yeah... we got it, your context isn't a legal context. But then, it's
> not a moral, criminal or psychological context either according to you
> (see my other post to you today... the one you claimed you'll read - "I
> will read your response"). So how IS Bush guilty if it isn't in any of
> these contexts? Oh... that's right, your context is an "actual" context
> and Bush is guilty simply because 'he did it' based on *your* say so.
> How does that refute the presumption of innocence for *me*?
>
> Hint: It doesn't.
>
> See, among other things, one of the things I have 'proven' to myself is
> that the War Powers consideration is untested Constitutionally... so to
> say that Bush is guilty of breaking a law would be doing so before all
> "logical", "legal" arguments were made exhausted.
>
> So where does that leave your argument? Does the idea of a theoretical
> legal context ring a bell? It should, you rejected it when I suggested
> it in the past. Ready to reconsider YET?
>
> How is the condition of me not being convinced any different than these
> jurors? BTW... if we shouldn't be talking about court rooms, juries,
> prosecutors, verdicts etc. in this discussion, why do you keep bringing
> them up as examples? More contradictions from you.
>
> See, you've let your agenda slip here... you've admitted that, even if
> Bush goes to court, you're going to analogize Constitutional law down to
> the level of traffic regulation and say he's guilty even if he's "found"
> not guilty after solid refutation in court and a verdict of not guilty
> is rendered. This is not only disingenuous, to do so, you'll overlook
> the fact that the prosecution didn't "prove" their case to the jury to
> the level required, (there ALWAYS a level) thereby, showing them unable
> to refute the presumption of innocence argument that exists without
> having to make it.

I agree with you, and that is why the courts show a training
movie for prospective jurors on some legal definitions. I
got called up for jury duty, so I know. All snit-wit is
doing is yanking chains and is nothing more than a
pseudo-intellectual twit. You're wasting your time with
him. He's like Clinton in many ways... "All depends on what
you mean by IS."
.

Loading