If DeSantis wins

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,519
2,183
118
He cites actual evidence of people being bias against Trump. An AG in New York iirc ran on a platform to go after Trump, compete impartiality there...
No, he reports a couple of people expressing their distaste for Trump, but I repeat, the report concludes that there was no undue bias against Trump that affected decision-making.

The idea that someone wanting election to public office in oversight of justice cannot campaign on the back of combatting criminality (perceived or actual) is just insane.

BLM was about people being upset cops aren't impartial to who they go after. You don't have riots over a politician obstructing justice.
Firstly, there's a false equivalence here. Obstruction of justice is a term referencing certain specific crimes. Impartiality is a broad principle, which may or may not involve crimes.

Secondly, BLM is people upset about perceived injustice against black people in a much wider sense than you are making out. This is not just impartiality. It includes excessive use of force, poor police management and police-community relations, lack of accountability for police officers, and so on. Obstruction of justice, of course, may be part of this wider injustice.

Thirdly, you are attempting to argue this by comparisons of specific cases. It's not just the false equivalence involved, but as previously mentioned, severity of a problem may vary depending on circumstances. Simply cherry picking circumstances to suit you is just ignoring a point already made to you and bad reasoning.

In other words, your argument here is deeply flawed and facile.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
I go by what my automatic response is for a pronoun. If the person looks enough like the other sex (through physical changes), I'll instinctively you the pronoun associated with that sex.
So not by sex, then.

Hence why I initially brought up Miss Doubtfire. Then you go and change it into the fact that it's a deception, which didn't matter in the point I was making. For example, I will never refer to someone KNOWN as they (since you'll in bad faith being up referring to an unknown person as they).
Uhrm, no, I'll bring up the fact that 'they' has been used as a singular pronoun for 700 years regardless.

If there are definitions that are contrary to each other for the same word for the same purpose, then yes. Cup is a cup for drinking or for protection (down below) and based on the context, you know what definition is being used. You can't use both definitions for cup for the same thing because each definition is referring to something different.
And yet you do make exceptions in usage of pronouns, sometimes aligning with sex and sometimes with gender. So you prove to yourself already that it's perfectly possible to use both.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,033
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
No, he reports a couple of people expressing their distaste for Trump, but I repeat, the report concludes that there was no undue bias against Trump that affected decision-making.

The idea that someone wanting election to public office in oversight of justice cannot campaign on the back of combatting criminality (perceived or actual) is just insane.



Firstly, there's a false equivalence here. Obstruction of justice is a term referencing certain specific crimes. Impartiality is a broad principle, which may or may not involve crimes.

Secondly, BLM is people upset about perceived injustice against black people in a much wider sense than you are making out. This is not just impartiality. It includes excessive use of force, poor police management and police-community relations, lack of accountability for police officers, and so on. Obstruction of justice, of course, may be part of this wider injustice.

Thirdly, you are attempting to argue this by comparisons of specific cases. It's not just the false equivalence involved, but as previously mentioned, severity of a problem may vary depending on circumstances. Simply cherry picking circumstances to suit you is just ignoring a point already made to you and bad reasoning.

In other words, your argument here is deeply flawed and facile.
Not Durham's report.

Those are all literally have to with the police not being impartial...

So not by sex, then.



Uhrm, no, I'll bring up the fact that 'they' has been used as a singular pronoun for 700 years regardless.



And yet you do make exceptions in usage of pronouns, sometimes aligning with sex and sometimes with gender. So you prove to yourself already that it's perfectly possible to use both.
I've explained it many times...

For an unknown person.

Aligns with physical characteristics that align with sex. You're still avoiding the fact you can't use both definitions at the same time, you have to pick one.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
I've explained it many times...
You have indeed. And I've responded many times.

For an unknown person.
Nope, not necessarily. In fact, the earliest known use of singular They-- from the 14th century-- is a context in which the gender is known to be male.

Aligns with physical characteristics that align with sex. You're still avoiding the fact you can't use both definitions at the same time, you have to pick one.
You don't do that. You align pronouns sometimes with bio sex, and sometimes against it.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,033
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You have indeed. And I've responded many times.



Nope, not necessarily. In fact, the earliest known use of singular They-- from the 14th century-- is a context in which the gender is known to be male.



You don't do that. You align pronouns sometimes with bio sex, and sometimes against it.
Outside of you not liking how people use pronouns, you haven't made any points.

Not true.
The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern.

Again, based on physical appearance. And you can't use both definitions at the same time, that you still won't admit to.
 

Ag3ma

Elite Member
Jan 4, 2023
2,519
2,183
118
Not Durham's report.
Yes, Durham's report. It's been well analysed and looked at by lots of people, and what it emphatically does not conclude is that there was undue political bias or pressure in the FBI's decision making. It's not magically going to grow the conclusion you want because you refuse to admit the truth in an internet debate.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
There's a difference between stuff being connected and stuff being connected in a legal sense. If Trump is going to found as an insurrectionist, it's not going to be because of Jan 6th. The other stuff about fake electors and all that stuff I could see potentially being a solid legal argument. Again, if Trump were to win this year and the left attacks the Capitol in the same fashion because of all the Trump Russia-collusion that was pushed for like 3 years (and many of the left still think that happened) along with the democrats saying this election is to save democracy, all the people that were part of that rhetoric that contributed to the event would not be considered insurrectionists. It would be anyone that directly helped and supported the violence and that would be all. If someone committed murder based on a lie (say they were told their SO cheated) and they kill their SO, the person that said the SO cheated would not be accessory to murder.
That's an awful lot of waffle that fails to present an actual argument. You are not disputed the substance of anything I've said, nor identified a flaw in any of it, you've simply declared that "There's a difference between stuff being connected and stuff being connected in a legal sense" without ever specifying what - or more importantly why - anything I brought up does not qualify as "connected in a legal sense". You've instead opted to spin a hypothetical that you evidently hope will invoke a tribalistic defensive response in me. Your response can be adequately paraphrased as you trying to sidestep the substance of what was posted by saying "you wouldn't be making this argument if it was the democrats that had done this". Mind you, I have given you no cause to believe anything of the sort, so I think that your assumption says more about you than it does about me.

Once again, we are not talking about isolated events. We are talking about a several months long campaign in which all the mentioned details were components of the same effort to overturn the election results, orchestrated by the same people for the same goal. What you're doing is taking a single piece of evidence for the case and insisting on treating it as the sum total of the case, pointedly ignoring even the storming of the Capitol that Trump's rally was a prelude because you want to pretend that January 6th was confined to nothing more than Trump making a speech.

Never mind that you're once again brazenly trying to bullshit your way out of a conversation by treating your ill-informed presumptions as if they were self-evident truths. In this case. "If someone committed murder based on a lie (say they were told their SO cheated) and they kill their SO, the person that said the SO cheated would not be accessory to murder"

As I've already said, context is vitally important. And depending on context, they might very well be charged. The short version is that if the liar's actions were planned, had reason to suspect the impending murder and either instigated or helped bring it about through those actions, they very much would be on the hook for murder charges, potentially first degree. Under those circumstances, that is pretty much solicitation to murder. If the liar had intended some other illegal consequence (such as someone else being the target of the murder), but the murder in question was an unintended consequence, they'd still be on the hook for up to second degree murder. There are contexts in which the liar would not be legally culpable, but the operative word there is context. It is not the given that you imply.

The classic (quite literally) example of this would be Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. As put by Law Professor Michael Vitiello: "No competent lawyer in America would argue that Iago or Lady Macbeth was entitled to a First Amendment defense. In fact, our legal system would find them both guilty of murder despite the fact that their only conduct involved speech. While Marc Antony may appear to have a more plausible First Amendment defense, I argue that, consistent with the Supreme Court's First Amendment case law, he could nonetheless be found guilty of inciting violence or encouraging murder". The Model Penal Code even specifies that a person may be guilty of a criminal offense based on speech in various contexts, such as "if he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct", or "with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he solicits such other person to commit it", or even by offering words of encouragement. In encouraging a particular crime, an instigator adopts the criminal behavior as their own as far as the law is concerned.

In the case of Iago, provocation is a partial defense to murder for Othello, potentially reducing Othello's culpability while increasing that of Iago. As a matter of policy the provoked actor is less culpable than the one who acts rationally, making it quite possible that Othello would only be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and that Iago could be convicted of up to first degree murder. Case law has long since established that one can be an accomplice to a crime simply through encouraging words, and moreover, Iago is entitled to less protection than under normal circumstances because the law also gives less protection to lies than the truth. The question is not whether or not Iago could be held culpable, but what proportion of culpability is appropriate.

So contrary to your claim, if someone committed murder based on a lie (say they were told their SO cheated) and they kill their SO, the person that said the SO cheated they absolutely can be judged as accessory to murder.

Phoenix? By your own admission, you do not know the facts of the case. By your own arguments, you have demonstrated not only that you are unfamiliar with the arguments of the case that is being put forth, but also that you do not have anywhere close to a competent understanding of the law. I want you to consider the very real possibility that, as a direct consequence of those factors, you do not have an informed opinion on this subject.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
Outside of you not liking how people use pronouns, you haven't made any points.
If you don't read the posts, i can see why you might come to that conclusion.

Not true.
The Oxford English Dictionary traces singular they back to 1375, where it appears in the medieval romance William and the Werewolf. Except for the old-style language of that poem, its use of singular they to refer to an unnamed person seems very modern.
I'd encourage you to actually read the section of the poem in question. Because while the person is unknown, the one thing we do know about them is that they're male.

Again, based on physical appearance. And you can't use both definitions at the same time, that you still won't admit to.
At exactly the same time? You mean like how I can't use "rock" to refer to both stone and music at exactly the same time in the same sentence?
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,033
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
Yes, Durham's report. It's been well analysed and looked at by lots of people, and what it emphatically does not conclude is that there was undue political bias or pressure in the FBI's decision making. It's not magically going to grow the conclusion you want because you refuse to admit the truth in an internet debate.
Again, not in Durham's report.

That's an awful lot of waffle that fails to present an actual argument. You are not disputed the substance of anything I've said, nor identified a flaw in any of it, you've simply declared that "There's a difference between stuff being connected and stuff being connected in a legal sense" without ever specifying what - or more importantly why - anything I brought up does not qualify as "connected in a legal sense". You've instead opted to spin a hypothetical that you evidently hope will invoke a tribalistic defensive response in me. Your response can be adequately paraphrased as you trying to sidestep the substance of what was posted by saying "you wouldn't be making this argument if it was the democrats that had done this". Mind you, I have given you no cause to believe anything of the sort, so I think that your assumption says more about you than it does about me.

Once again, we are not talking about isolated events. We are talking about a several months long campaign in which all the mentioned details were components of the same effort to overturn the election results, orchestrated by the same people for the same goal. What you're doing is taking a single piece of evidence for the case and insisting on treating it as the sum total of the case, pointedly ignoring even the storming of the Capitol that Trump's rally was a prelude because you want to pretend that January 6th was confined to nothing more than Trump making a speech.

Never mind that you're once again brazenly trying to bullshit your way out of a conversation by treating your ill-informed presumptions as if they were self-evident truths. In this case. "If someone committed murder based on a lie (say they were told their SO cheated) and they kill their SO, the person that said the SO cheated would not be accessory to murder"

As I've already said, context is vitally important. And depending on context, they might very well be charged. The short version is that if the liar's actions were planned, had reason to suspect the impending murder and either instigated or helped bring it about through those actions, they very much would be on the hook for murder charges, potentially first degree. Under those circumstances, that is pretty much solicitation to murder. If the liar had intended some other illegal consequence (such as someone else being the target of the murder), but the murder in question was an unintended consequence, they'd still be on the hook for up to second degree murder. There are contexts in which the liar would not be legally culpable, but the operative word there is context. It is not the given that you imply.

The classic (quite literally) example of this would be Iago in Shakespeare's Othello. As put by Law Professor Michael Vitiello: "No competent lawyer in America would argue that Iago or Lady Macbeth was entitled to a First Amendment defense. In fact, our legal system would find them both guilty of murder despite the fact that their only conduct involved speech. While Marc Antony may appear to have a more plausible First Amendment defense, I argue that, consistent with the Supreme Court's First Amendment case law, he could nonetheless be found guilty of inciting violence or encouraging murder". The Model Penal Code even specifies that a person may be guilty of a criminal offense based on speech in various contexts, such as "if he causes an innocent or irresponsible person to engage in such conduct", or "with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of the offense, he solicits such other person to commit it", or even by offering words of encouragement. In encouraging a particular crime, an instigator adopts the criminal behavior as their own as far as the law is concerned.

In the case of Iago, provocation is a partial defense to murder for Othello, potentially reducing Othello's culpability while increasing that of Iago. As a matter of policy the provoked actor is less culpable than the one who acts rationally, making it quite possible that Othello would only be found guilty of voluntary manslaughter and that Iago could be convicted of up to first degree murder. Case law has long since established that one can be an accomplice to a crime simply through encouraging words, and moreover, Iago is entitled to less protection than under normal circumstances because the law also gives less protection to lies than the truth. The question is not whether or not Iago could be held culpable, but what proportion of culpability is appropriate.

So contrary to your claim, if someone committed murder based on a lie (say they were told their SO cheated) and they kill their SO, the person that said the SO cheated they absolutely can be judged as accessory to murder.

Phoenix? By your own admission, you do not know the facts of the case. By your own arguments, you have demonstrated not only that you are unfamiliar with the arguments of the case that is being put forth, but also that you do not have anywhere close to a competent understanding of the law. I want you to consider the very real possibility that, as a direct consequence of those factors, you do not have an informed opinion on this subject.
I'm like Tommy Lee Jones from The Fugitive "I don't care". I don't care who is being charged or what party they are from. I'm not trying to have you make some tribalistic response. What I said didn't have that intent, it was all a logical argument. And your Macbeth paper is very cherry-pick-y and there's a lot of "may be sufficient" clauses in there. It cites Wilcox v Jeffrey to say if you knowingly buy a ticket to see someone you know can't be in the country and can't perform, you can be an accomplice. But it omits the fact that Wilcox literally aided and abetted in the normal sense of what one would expect in aiding and abetting someone. Also, no one else was charged as accomplices in that case when I'm sure a good portion of attendees probably knew the jazz musician was illegally there and performing. You can do the same with gay marriage and Obergefell and IIRC, most of the arguments were over the pursuit of happiness and then claiming anything that makes 2 groups have differing levels of happiness is illegal. Firstly, happiness is subjective and not measurable and 2nd, you'd be ignoring the equal opportunity issues (financial advantages/disadvantages that are measurable) of not allowing gay marriage. Just because something was argued in a case and that side won, doesn't mean that argument was the reason that side won the case.

I believe I know the facts enough about just Jan 6th and Trump and there's nothing there that will get him convicted of being an insurrectionist. If he did something illegal with how he went about trying to get votes (like in Georgia, that I don't know the whole story about and the legalities associated with that), I can see that as reason to convict him of being an insurrectionist. You say I don't have an informed opinion but what do you think the actual chances are that Trump is legally deemed an insurrectionist and is not able to actually run for president? Republicans would be pushing another candidate if they thought that there was even like a 10% chance of him being legally considered an insurrectionist. And politicians are most likely to have law degrees so if they don't see this being an issue, they probably have good legal reason for that.

If you don't read the posts, i can see why you might come to that conclusion.



I'd encourage you to actually read the section of the poem in question. Because while the person is unknown, the one thing we do know about them is that they're male.



At exactly the same time? You mean like how I can't use "rock" to refer to both stone and music at exactly the same time in the same sentence?
It's still by sex if you use physical characteristics... You keep trying to say "not by sex then". Just agree to disagree at this point.

Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.
That's a plural form in my opinion.

If someone is a male and has the gender identity of a woman, one person using pronouns based on sex will use "he" and one person using pronouns based on gender will use "she". You can't use both at the same time.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
It's still by sex if you use physical characteristics... You keep trying to say "not by sex then". Just agree to disagree at this point.
You literally *just said* you don't always go by sex, including in situations where you know the bio sex is different. You are categorically not going by sex.

Each man hurried . . . till they drew near . . . where William and his darling were lying together.
That's a plural form in my opinion.
And in the opinion of literature scholars, it isn't. And we know the gender.

If someone is a male and has the gender identity of a woman, one person using pronouns based on sex will use "he" and one person using pronouns based on gender will use "she". You can't use both at the same time.
But you can employ both at different times, like all words with multiple meanings.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,033
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
You literally *just said* you don't always go by sex, including in situations where you know the bio sex is different. You are categorically not going by sex.



And in the opinion of literature scholars, it isn't. And we know the gender.



But you can employ both at different times, like all words with multiple meanings.
I go by physical characteristics that directly relate to sex... Again, I've said this how many times? Just agree to disagree...

If it's more than one man that hurried and then more than one man drew near, it's a plural. Maybe in some technical grammar sense that's considered a singular, but if more than one person, then it's a plural.

But if you're mixing and matching between definitions for the same group of people, you will confuse your audience then. And at every single use of a pronoun, you are deciding sex or gender because at any one point, you can't use both definitions as it's just not possible.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
I go by physical characteristics that directly relate to sex... Again, I've said this how many times? Just agree to disagree...
And you acknowledge that those physical characteristics don't always align with biological sex. And in those cases where they don't, you prioritise appearance over biological sex. So the connection isn't inseparable, and sex is the less important part of it for you.

If it's more than one man that hurried and then more than one man drew near, it's a plural. Maybe in some technical grammar sense that's considered a singular, but if more than one person, then it's a plural.
I'm going to believe linguistic scholars more than I believe you, random Internet commentator.

But if you're mixing and matching between definitions for the same group of people, you will confuse your audience then. And at every single use of a pronoun, you are deciding sex or gender because at any one point, you can't use both definitions as it's just not possible.
Uhrm, except you're the only one here mixing and matching. I just go by gender-- zero chance of confusion, since nobody objects to the use of a pronoun that aligns with their gender identity. Whereas you are the one who sometimes goes by sex and sometimes doesn't.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,033
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
And you acknowledge that those physical characteristics don't always align with biological sex. And in those cases where they don't, you prioritise appearance over biological sex. So the connection isn't inseparable, and sex is the less important part of it for you.



I'm going to believe linguistic scholars more than I believe you, random Internet commentator.



Uhrm, except you're the only one here mixing and matching. I just go by gender-- zero chance of confusion, since nobody objects to the use of a pronoun that aligns with their gender identity. Whereas you are the one who sometimes goes by sex and sometimes doesn't.
They do align, hence why people change their appearance.

Uh-huh... I don't care about some grammar technicalities. If it was more than one person (because that's how it reads), the "they" was referring to multiple people. That is an objective fact. If for some weird grammar rule, that's considered a singular, it's not changing the fact it's multiple people.

You'd be confusing the people that use sex, which is a very valid and most used definition of pronouns.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
They do align, hence why people change their appearance.
So you believe a change of appearance necessarily corresponds to a change of pronoun? That's remarkably regressive, and not at all sex-based, but OK.


Uh-huh... I don't care about some grammar technicalities.
You can care as little as you like. A linguistic scholar's reading remains more authoritative than yours, and that's a singular usage.

You'd be confusing the people that use sex, which is a very valid and most used definition of pronouns.
If they genuinely can't get their head around it, then they're being intentionally obtuse rather than genuinely confused.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
And your Macbeth paper is very cherry-pick-y and there's a lot of "may be sufficient" clauses in there. It cites Wilcox v Jeffrey to say if you knowingly buy a ticket to see someone you know can't be in the country and can't perform, you can be an accomplice. But it omits the fact that Wilcox literally aided and abetted in the normal sense of what one would expect in aiding and abetting someone. Also, no one else was charged as accomplices in that case when I'm sure a good portion of attendees probably knew the jazz musician was illegally there and performing.
And once again you're trying so hard to find fault with something that contradicts your ignorant presumptions that you end up fundamentally misrepresenting the thing you're cherrypicking under the delusion that by so doing you create a pretext to sidestep the point being made without ever addressing it. First of all, the invocation of Wilcox v Jeffrey does not rely on that as the sole reason for the conviction, only that it was invoked and affirmed by the courts as supporting evidence, which it was, and which is something the case is criticized for.

Second, the paper invokes that aspect of the case as taking accomplice liability too far, but nevertheless helping to illustrate a fundamental point about how the concept of "aiding and abetting" is applied very broadly rather than narrowly. Moreover, this is used as a rhetorical lead-in to the idea that accomplice liability needs further qualifiers for effective application, which the writer then elucidates before cautioning about the pendulum swinging back too far in the other direction, citing Iago and Lady Macbeth as clear-cut examples of guilty parties that would rightly be found criminally liable. You'd know this if you actually read even a few sentences further. That is all a prelude explaining how Accomplice Liability works and explaining the elements that make the latter invocations feel more applicable than the prior one, which is then applied to the case of Antony's speech in Julius Caesar, which he argues is another case of clear guilt in which he explicitly manipulated others to commit serious crimes.

Third I don't think you realize how telling it is that you're invoking the use of "may be sufficient" as if that were damning. Not only is that common phrasing for legal documents (reflecting the fact that law is designed to be largely informed by context, to the point that lawyers frequently quip that the answer to any broad legal question is "it depends") in the context of the paper, the phrase is invoked not to spitball something but to explain precedent. The paper invokes the term twice, not "a lot of" times as you claim. Three times if you include the usage in the citation of the Court's ruling in Hicks v. United States. The first was a paraphrasing of another source that was explaining the ruling for the same case, and that the Court's rationale made it quite clear that it found in favor of Hicks because the prosecution had only established Hicks' presence, not his statements, but that if Hicks had been demonstrated to even shout "attaboy" when Rowe threatened his victim, they would have found him guilty. And the other is emphasizing the point that in certain contexts (such as he had been describing) words can very well be the tipping point that convinces someone to do something illegal and in those circumstances the speaker shares culpability. Hardly the mark against it that you imply.

He didn't cherry pick the case or couch it in uncertainty, you were just so eager to prove it wrong that - per usual - you failed to understand what was actually written and then extrapolated a faulty conclusion that belies your unfamiliarity with the topic. And the point remains that you are simply wrong. A person can indeed be charged as an accomplice for speech that encouraged a crime.

In short: Stop trying to bullshit your way through arguments. There's no shame in not understanding a topic. There's ample shame in being pretentious about the topic, as you have been.

I believe I know the facts enough about just Jan 6th and Trump
I know you believe that. That's what we keep telling you is the problem. You think you know, but that's not the same as actually knowing. And you've long since made it clear that you think you understand much more than you actually do. And more importantly, the presumption that you must already know enough and that you cannot be mistaken in that is preventing you from learning and actually developing an informed opinion. Rather, you've shown time and time again that you close yourself off to new information, only give anything brought to your attention a perfunctory glance as you do nothing other than look for even the most flimsy of pretexts to dismiss it (frequently misinterpreting it so badly that you outright fabricate the flaw you cite whole cloth), and use its alignment with your prejudices as the sole determining factor of whether or not it's "good". You then proceed to arrogantly insist that the sources you are being told you're misrepresenting must actually agree with you because you skimmed an article and concluded that it said that the source agrees with your mischaracterization. And you refuse to be dissuaded from that presumption no matter how much the very source you're pretending to defer to is cited back to you at length in explaining how you're brazenly misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.

You aren't making compelling arguments, you're only rehearsing your own prejudices, and then getting upset when we call you out that much of what you say is not only demonstrably wrong and not fooling anyone, but often so inconsistent as to be almost incoherent.

You're not being clever, you're just being an arrogant reactionary whose only consistent position is that anyone who is criticizing you must be wrong to do so. Worse still, when confronted with the things you get wrong, you don't try to learn from it. Instead just look for an explanation that will let you keep believing that you weren't wrong (and frequently misunderstand even those), which you then champion as necessarily representative of "the science" or the prevailing consensus for no other reason than because you want to believe as much, with absolutely no consideration for internal consistency. This is pure ego for you. And that's what makes you so unbearably tragic. All this time you've spent trying to bullshit that you understood a given topic could have been spent learning about it. If you had, you'd now presumably have a working understanding of it and be able to discuss it intelligently rather than getting constantly called out for trying to convince us that you actually know about the topic while consistently demonstrating that you don't understand even its most basic principles.

Republicans would be pushing another candidate if they thought that there was even like a 10% chance of him being legally considered an insurrectionist. And politicians are most likely to have law degrees so if they don't see this being an issue, they probably have good legal reason for that.
1) That's a straight up appeal to authority fallacy that wears its hypocritical double standard on its sleeve. Lest you forget, the case is also being prosecuted by lawyers, and lower courts have agreed with the prosecution. I notice that you aren't declaring that - as they have law degrees and are actively practicing law - "they probably have a good reason for that". Though while you're at it, would you perhaps like to argue that the Cardinals' election of Alexander VI or Benedict IX to the papacy was proof of the piety and virtue of both? After all, Cardinals are theological scholars who typically led a holy life as bishops and knew Catholic doctrine inside and out. So surely "if they don't see [their flaws] as being an issue, they probably have good theological reason for that".

2) Republicans falling in line behind Trump isn't the point that you think it is, as at present the cult of Trump has such a stranglehold on the party that Congressional Republicans are taking their marching orders from him and are even sabotaging legislation they want because Trump wants to campaign on the underlying issue. Never mind that he now feels comfortable publicly calling for the RNC to replace its leadership with his campaign advisor and daughter-in-law, who just the other week were assuring Republican voters that the RNC would foot Trump's legal bills (something the RNC has been resistant to now that Trump is running for office again) which the two have recently declared to be the RNC's patriotic duty.

3) Never mind that when Jan 6 was recent, Republicans were quite unabashed in calling it an insurrection, and that Trump was practically and morally responsible for the events of that day. But then another election year came up and their driving concern became not driving people away from voting Republican, so they started downplaying it and trying to paint responses to it as political persecution to win over useful idiots who could be trusted to forget about their initial response and not care enough to look into the story. This became even more pronounced once it became clear that not only had Trump solidified his place as a "kingmaker" for the party, but was once again a frontrunner for the party's 2024 nomination (ie, popular with the same voters they needed to win over to secure reelection) and that his narratives had gained increasing hold over their voters, whom polls indicated just want to bury the matter. Moreover, one of their stated reasons for not impeaching Trump then and there was that Trump's actions were clearly criminal and should be tried in a court of law rather than by Congress.

Mind you, the courts have actually been calling out the brazen double-dealing here, as while Trump and his political allies pushed that during the impeachment, they're both claiming the opposite now that he's facing that court of law: that he cannot be tried unless he was first impeached.

4) While a lot of politicians do have legal backgrounds, need I remind you that their job right now is that of a politician, not a lawyer. Their job is literally to play politics and appeal to their base, and you're talking about a crowd that puts an enormous premium on loyalty to the party (of which Trump is currently the presumptive leader and - at present - failing to fall in line when he barks gets you deemed a RINO and persona non-grata in the party), is acutely aware of the fact that Trump's base will likely decide their ability to remain in office, and in some cases were actually complicit in his schemes, including orchestrating fake hearings to try and convince the public that the courts had actually ruled in Trump's favor, which ultimately helped to set the stage for Jan 6. These are not impartial observers, they are people who have strong vested interests (often several) in playing to Trump's camp.

5) That is exactly the kind of logic that Trump et al have been relying on for years now, taking advantage of good faith assumptions and incredulity to add artificial weight to what amounted to confidence ploys. That people would think that nobody would have the audacity to fake a hearing, so the Wyndham event must have been a real trial that vindicated Trump's claims. That nobody could be dumb enough to keep pushing meritless claims to court (much less repackage the same claims to submit them again to a different court), so all the cases Trump et al were filing must show the pervasiveness for voter fraud. That the sheer audacity of claiming that there was a pervasive international effort to systematically flip votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden was too cartoonishly absurd to push unless there was actually good evidence for it. That Trump et al trying to illegally overturn the election results was too brazen to be real. That nobody would have the audacity to call up a governor and ask him to find 11,780 votes so he would end up with more votes than his opponent and win the state. That Powell and Giuliani were lawyers, so they obviously wouldn't be caught dead doing anything that would risk them getting sanctioned, much less disbarred, so the fact that they're hitching their wagon to Trump's election fraud claims must mean they have merit. That the lot of them wouldn't be parading around "binders full of evidence" that they didn't have, so it was absurd that the courts weren't ruling in their favor... Time and again Trump and his allies rely on Refuge in Audacity to convince people like yourself - who can't be bothered to check their claims - that their case must be compelling for the simple reason that their claims were so beyond the pale that we basically default to assuming nobody would have the audacity to make it up. And time and again people like you fall for it, declaring that "if they don't see this being an issue, they probably have good legal reason for that".
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,033
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
So you believe a change of appearance necessarily corresponds to a change of pronoun? That's remarkably regressive, and not at all sex-based, but OK.




You can care as little as you like. A linguistic scholar's reading remains more authoritative than yours, and that's a singular usage.



If they genuinely can't get their head around it, then they're being intentionally obtuse rather than genuinely confused.
So you're saying the majority of people that gender identify as the opposite sex don't try to look like the other sex in at least some manner?

Was the "they" referring to multiple people? Yes or no.

If one person uses he for person_1 and another person uses she for person_1, it is confusing to anyone.

And once again you're trying so hard to find fault with something that contradicts your ignorant presumptions that you end up fundamentally misrepresenting the thing you're cherrypicking under the delusion that by so doing you create a pretext to sidestep the point being made without ever addressing it. First of all, the invocation of Wilcox v Jeffrey does not rely on that as the sole reason for the conviction, only that it was invoked and affirmed by the courts as supporting evidence, which it was, and which is something the case is criticized for.

Second, the paper invokes that aspect of the case as taking accomplice liability too far, but nevertheless helping to illustrate a fundamental point about how the concept of "aiding and abetting" is applied very broadly rather than narrowly. Moreover, this is used as a rhetorical lead-in to the idea that accomplice liability needs further qualifiers for effective application, which the writer then elucidates before cautioning about the pendulum swinging back too far in the other direction, citing Iago and Lady Macbeth as clear-cut examples of guilty parties that would rightly be found criminally liable. You'd know this if you actually read even a few sentences further. That is all a prelude explaining how Accomplice Liability works and explaining the elements that make the latter invocations feel more applicable than the prior one, which is then applied to the case of Antony's speech in Julius Caesar, which he argues is another case of clear guilt in which he explicitly manipulated others to commit serious crimes.

Third I don't think you realize how telling it is that you're invoking the use of "may be sufficient" as if that were damning. Not only is that common phrasing for legal documents (reflecting the fact that law is designed to be largely informed by context, to the point that lawyers frequently quip that the answer to any broad legal question is "it depends") in the context of the paper, the phrase is invoked not to spitball something but to explain precedent. The paper invokes the term twice, not "a lot of" times as you claim. Three times if you include the usage in the citation of the Court's ruling in Hicks v. United States. The first was a paraphrasing of another source that was explaining the ruling for the same case, and that the Court's rationale made it quite clear that it found in favor of Hicks because the prosecution had only established Hicks' presence, not his statements, but that if Hicks had been demonstrated to even shout "attaboy" when Rowe threatened his victim, they would have found him guilty. And the other is emphasizing the point that in certain contexts (such as he had been describing) words can very well be the tipping point that convinces someone to do something illegal and in those circumstances the speaker shares culpability. Hardly the mark against it that you imply.

He didn't cherry pick the case or couch it in uncertainty, you were just so eager to prove it wrong that - per usual - you failed to understand what was actually written and then extrapolated a faulty conclusion that belies your unfamiliarity with the topic. And the point remains that you are simply wrong. A person can indeed be charged as an accomplice for speech that encouraged a crime.

In short: Stop trying to bullshit your way through arguments. There's no shame in not understanding a topic. There's ample shame in being pretentious about the topic, as you have been.



I know you believe that. That's what we keep telling you is the problem. You think you know, but that's not the same as actually knowing. And you've long since made it clear that you think you understand much more than you actually do. And more importantly, the presumption that you must already know enough and that you cannot be mistaken in that is preventing you from learning and actually developing an informed opinion. Rather, you've shown time and time again that you close yourself off to new information, only give anything brought to your attention a perfunctory glance as you do nothing other than look for even the most flimsy of pretexts to dismiss it (frequently misinterpreting it so badly that you outright fabricate the flaw you cite whole cloth), and use its alignment with your prejudices as the sole determining factor of whether or not it's "good". You then proceed to arrogantly insist that the sources you are being told you're misrepresenting must actually agree with you because you skimmed an article and concluded that it said that the source agrees with your mischaracterization. And you refuse to be dissuaded from that presumption no matter how much the very source you're pretending to defer to is cited back to you at length in explaining how you're brazenly misunderstanding and misrepresenting it.

You aren't making compelling arguments, you're only rehearsing your own prejudices, and then getting upset when we call you out that much of what you say is not only demonstrably wrong and not fooling anyone, but often so inconsistent as to be almost incoherent.

You're not being clever, you're just being an arrogant reactionary whose only consistent position is that anyone who is criticizing you must be wrong to do so. Worse still, when confronted with the things you get wrong, you don't try to learn from it. Instead just look for an explanation that will let you keep believing that you weren't wrong (and frequently misunderstand even those), which you then champion as necessarily representative of "the science" or the prevailing consensus for no other reason than because you want to believe as much, with absolutely no consideration for internal consistency. This is pure ego for you. And that's what makes you so unbearably tragic. All this time you've spent trying to bullshit that you understood a given topic could have been spent learning about it. If you had, you'd now presumably have a working understanding of it and be able to discuss it intelligently rather than getting constantly called out for trying to convince us that you actually know about the topic while consistently demonstrating that you don't understand even its most basic principles.



1) That's a straight up appeal to authority fallacy that wears its hypocritical double standard on its sleeve. Lest you forget, the case is also being prosecuted by lawyers, and lower courts have agreed with the prosecution. I notice that you aren't declaring that - as they have law degrees and are actively practicing law - "they probably have a good reason for that". Though while you're at it, would you perhaps like to argue that the Cardinals' election of Alexander VI or Benedict IX to the papacy was proof of the piety and virtue of both? After all, Cardinals are theological scholars who typically led a holy life as bishops and knew Catholic doctrine inside and out. So surely "if they don't see [their flaws] as being an issue, they probably have good theological reason for that".

2) Republicans falling in line behind Trump isn't the point that you think it is, as at present the cult of Trump has such a stranglehold on the party that Congressional Republicans are taking their marching orders from him and are even sabotaging legislation they want because Trump wants to campaign on the underlying issue. Never mind that he now feels comfortable publicly calling for the RNC to replace its leadership with his campaign advisor and daughter-in-law, who just the other week were assuring Republican voters that the RNC would foot Trump's legal bills (something the RNC has been resistant to now that Trump is running for office again) which the two have recently declared to be the RNC's patriotic duty.

3) Never mind that when Jan 6 was recent, Republicans were quite unabashed in calling it an insurrection, and that Trump was practically and morally responsible for the events of that day. But then another election year came up and their driving concern became not driving people away from voting Republican, so they started downplaying it and trying to paint responses to it as political persecution to win over useful idiots who could be trusted to forget about their initial response and not care enough to look into the story. This became even more pronounced once it became clear that not only had Trump solidified his place as a "kingmaker" for the party, but was once again a frontrunner for the party's 2024 nomination (ie, popular with the same voters they needed to win over to secure reelection) and that his narratives had gained increasing hold over their voters, whom polls indicated just want to bury the matter. Moreover, one of their stated reasons for not impeaching Trump then and there was that Trump's actions were clearly criminal and should be tried in a court of law rather than by Congress.

Mind you, the courts have actually been calling out the brazen double-dealing here, as while Trump and his political allies pushed that during the impeachment, they're both claiming the opposite now that he's facing that court of law: that he cannot be tried unless he was first impeached.

4) While a lot of politicians do have legal backgrounds, need I remind you that their job right now is that of a politician, not a lawyer. Their job is literally to play politics and appeal to their base, and you're talking about a crowd that puts an enormous premium on loyalty to the party (of which Trump is currently the presumptive leader and - at present - failing to fall in line when he barks gets you deemed a RINO and persona non-grata in the party), is acutely aware of the fact that Trump's base will likely decide their ability to remain in office, and in some cases were actually complicit in his schemes, including orchestrating fake hearings to try and convince the public that the courts had actually ruled in Trump's favor, which ultimately helped to set the stage for Jan 6. These are not impartial observers, they are people who have strong vested interests (often several) in playing to Trump's camp.

5) That is exactly the kind of logic that Trump et al have been relying on for years now, taking advantage of good faith assumptions and incredulity to add artificial weight to what amounted to confidence ploys. That people would think that nobody would have the audacity to fake a hearing, so the Wyndham event must have been a real trial that vindicated Trump's claims. That nobody could be dumb enough to keep pushing meritless claims to court (much less repackage the same claims to submit them again to a different court), so all the cases Trump et al were filing must show the pervasiveness for voter fraud. That the sheer audacity of claiming that there was a pervasive international effort to systematically flip votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden was too cartoonishly absurd to push unless there was actually good evidence for it. That Trump et al trying to illegally overturn the election results was too brazen to be real. That nobody would have the audacity to call up a governor and ask him to find 11,780 votes so he would end up with more votes than his opponent and win the state. That Powell and Giuliani were lawyers, so they obviously wouldn't be caught dead doing anything that would risk them getting sanctioned, much less disbarred, so the fact that they're hitching their wagon to Trump's election fraud claims must mean they have merit. That the lot of them wouldn't be parading around "binders full of evidence" that they didn't have, so it was absurd that the courts weren't ruling in their favor... Time and again Trump and his allies rely on Refuge in Audacity to convince people like yourself - who can't be bothered to check their claims - that their case must be compelling for the simple reason that their claims were so beyond the pale that we basically default to assuming nobody would have the audacity to make it up. And time and again people like you fall for it, declaring that "if they don't see this being an issue, they probably have good legal reason for that".
There's a bunch of "may be"s in the Macbeth paper because it's all theoretical. Give me an actual case where just saying something (like "hey, Steve you should beat up John") like that resulted in the person just saying something getting in legal trouble. I don't know of such a case that result in someone saying something like that getting in legal trouble.

I don't have any prejudices, you guys (and the lawyers constantly going after Trump and failing) are the ones that want Trump guilty of everything. I literally don't care if Trump did or didn't do such things. If he did, then he did; if he didn't, then he didn't. I just find what he said in his speech to not be strong enough evidence of him being an insurrectionist is all. And for me, it wouldn't matter if it was some person in place of Trump, I'd still have the same opinion. The lawyers going after Trump don't seem to be making compelling arguments in all the vast majority of cases. Same with Trump's lawyers going after the election results in court and getting basically laughed out of court.

1) And all the cases against Trump that have amounted to nothing means that the lawyers going after Trump are legal experts? If Trump is legally considered an insurrectionist and can't run, who is most affected (outside of Trump obviously)? The republican party. And if they are not taking it seriously and trying to a get another candidate in running for when Trump is disqualified, then that means that Trump isn't likely to get convicted. The only other explanation is that the know the case will take too long and if Trump wins, the VP will just become president then. I would think the latter option isn't a thing because you'd think the case will be heard before the election.

2) You're acting like Trump is any different than any other candidate, he's not. A democrat would want to delay something important to after the election as well if they were running on that. The republicans only care about Trump because he's popular among voters and regardless of he wins or losses, they will stop caring about him. You guys keep making all these hyperbolic and exaggerated claims. And the left isn't cultish either backing Joe Biden for really no reason, the media won't even show Trump's speeches on TV, the left saying Jon Stewart is now a threat to democracy šŸ˜¹ , etc.
 

Asita

Answer Hazy, Ask Again Later
Legacy
Jun 15, 2011
3,198
1,038
118
Country
USA
Gender
Male
There's a bunch of "may be"s in the Macbeth paper because it's all theoretical. Give me an actual case where just saying something (like "hey, Steve you should beat up John") like that resulted in the person just saying something getting in legal trouble. I don't know of such a case that result in someone saying something like that getting in legal trouble.
See, this is what I mean about how you keep on telling yourself that you know the topic a lot better than you actually do. You just demanded that I prove the existence of the legal concepts of incitement and solicitation to you. Where do you want me to start? Wilcox v. Jeffrey, which I linked and explained in the very post you just responded to? Brandenburg v. Ohio, which codified that whether or not incitement is protected is determined by whether or not the lawless action was "imminent"? 18 U.S. Code Ā§ 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence, perhaps? Maybe 18 U.S. Code Ā§ 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, which specifically notes incitement as a qualifying factor?

There's a simple reason that you don't know this: per usual, you didn't look.

I don't have any prejudices, you guys (and the lawyers constantly going after Trump and failing) are the ones that want Trump guilty of everything. I literally don't care if Trump did or didn't do such things. If he did, then he did; if he didn't, then he didn't. I just find what he said in his speech to not be strong enough evidence of him being an insurrectionist is all. And for me, it wouldn't matter if it was some person in place of Trump, I'd still have the same opinion. The lawyers going after Trump don't seem to be making compelling arguments in all the vast majority of cases. Same with Trump's lawyers going after the election results in court and getting basically laughed out of court.
Ok, first of all, it's a testament to your childish delusions and failures in both introspection and critical thinking ability that you can actually tell yourself that you don't have any prejudices. Really, it's the kind of comment that makes your stated age strain credulity, as you really should have been taught better by the end of grade school. Prejudices are by nature practically invisible to the anyone who holds them. They are things that interfere with our ability to accurately interpret information because we'd already made up our minds on the subject. That's literally what the term means: to "Pre-judge" the matter. You assume something to be true and reject information that contradicts it. The moment a person recognizes a prejudice within themselves is the moment where they understand that problem and that as consequence the opinions based on it were serverely flawed that they need to correct for that. This is why the first and single most impactful step in moving away from any prejudice is realizing that it is a prejudice rather than an accurate reflection of reality.

Second, when I speak about your prejudices, I mean that as a synonym to preconception: a preconceived judgment or opinion formed without sufficient knowledge. You make that mistake constantly, declaring that things do not exist because you are unaware of them (See above. Never mind that these are frequently so easy to find or explain that it's clear that you didn't even bother with so much as a Google search, much less any serious research), and your arguments usually boil down to "it makes sense to me and you can't convince me otherwise, therefore it must be right. End of story".

My argument is not that you're specifically Pro-Trump. My argument is that you reached your conclusion long ago on topics that you still demonstrate that you have a less than layman's understanding of, and stubbornly insist that anything disagreeing with your preconceptions must be ludicrous, even as people repeatedly explain to you that you're getting even basic shit egregiously wrong.

1) And all the cases against Trump that have amounted to nothing means that the lawyers going after Trump are legal experts?
1) Which cases? The ongoing Federal Election Interference case? The ongoing Georgia Election Interferance case? The ongoing Federal Documents case (that Cannon is giving every indication of slow-walking)? The ongoing hush money case? All of which Trump keeps trying to delay until after the election? That's not "amounted to nothing", that's "not concluded".

2) Quod erat demonstrandum about your double standard and utter reliance on your preconceptions. You're championing politicians' understanding of the law because you're using their support to champion your version of events, but you are contemptuous of the involved lawyers understanding of the law because they oppose your conclusion. Or as I put it in the very post you're responding to: "you do nothing other than look for even the most flimsy of pretexts to dismiss it (frequently misinterpreting it so badly that you outright fabricate the flaw you cite whole cloth), and use its alignment with your prejudices as the sole determining factor of whether or not it's 'good'."

So once again: Stop trying to bullshit your way through arguments.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Kwak

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
So you're saying the majority of people that gender identify as the opposite sex don't try to look like the other sex in at least some manner?
Nope. Reread it and respond to what was actually said.

Was the "they" referring to multiple people? Yes or no.
No. Hence the word 'each'.

If one person uses he for person_1 and another person uses she for person_1, it is confusing to anyone.
A situation which is entirely avoided if we go by gender, but is not avoided if we go by appearance.
 

Phoenixmgs

The Muse of Fate
Legacy
Apr 3, 2020
9,033
801
118
w/ M'Kraan Crystal
Gender
Male
See, this is what I mean about how you keep on telling yourself that you know the topic a lot better than you actually do. You just demanded that I prove the existence of the legal concepts of incitement and solicitation to you. Where do you want me to start? Wilcox v. Jeffrey, which I linked and explained in the very post you just responded to? Brandenburg v. Ohio, which codified that whether or not incitement is protected is determined by whether or not the lawless action was "imminent"? 18 U.S. Code Ā§ 373 - Solicitation to commit a crime of violence, perhaps? Maybe 18 U.S. Code Ā§ 2383 - Rebellion or insurrection, which specifically notes incitement as a qualifying factor?

There's a simple reason that you don't know this: per usual, you didn't look.



Ok, first of all, it's a testament to your childish delusions and failures in both introspection and critical thinking ability that you can actually tell yourself that you don't have any prejudices. Really, it's the kind of comment that makes your stated age strain credulity, as you really should have been taught better by the end of grade school. Prejudices are by nature practically invisible to the anyone who holds them. They are things that interfere with our ability to accurately interpret information because we'd already made up our minds on the subject. That's literally what the term means: to "Pre-judge" the matter. You assume something to be true and reject information that contradicts it. The moment a person recognizes a prejudice within themselves is the moment where they understand that problem and that as consequence the opinions based on it were serverely flawed that they need to correct for that. This is why the first and single most impactful step in moving away from any prejudice is realizing that it is a prejudice rather than an accurate reflection of reality.

Second, when I speak about your prejudices, I mean that as a synonym to preconception: a preconceived judgment or opinion formed without sufficient knowledge. You make that mistake constantly, declaring that things do not exist because you are unaware of them (See above. Never mind that these are frequently so easy to find or explain that it's clear that you didn't even bother with so much as a Google search, much less any serious research), and your arguments usually boil down to "it makes sense to me and you can't convince me otherwise, therefore it must be right. End of story".

My argument is not that you're specifically Pro-Trump. My argument is that you reached your conclusion long ago on topics that you still demonstrate that you have a less than layman's understanding of, and stubbornly insist that anything disagreeing with your preconceptions must be ludicrous, even as people repeatedly explain to you that you're getting even basic shit egregiously wrong.



1) Which cases? The ongoing Federal Election Interference case? The ongoing Georgia Election Interferance case? The ongoing Federal Documents case (that Cannon is giving every indication of slow-walking)? The ongoing hush money case? All of which Trump keeps trying to delay until after the election? That's not "amounted to nothing", that's "not concluded".

2) Quod erat demonstrandum about your double standard and utter reliance on your preconceptions. You're championing politicians' understanding of the law because you're using their support to champion your version of events, but you are contemptuous of the involved lawyers understanding of the law because they oppose your conclusion. Or as I put it in the very post you're responding to: "you do nothing other than look for even the most flimsy of pretexts to dismiss it (frequently misinterpreting it so badly that you outright fabricate the flaw you cite whole cloth), and use its alignment with your prejudices as the sole determining factor of whether or not it's 'good'."

So once again: Stop trying to bullshit your way through arguments.
I already read the Wilcox v Jeffrey case... Brandenburg v Ohio has nothing do with Trump's insurrection case. And how would 18 U.S. Code Ā§ 2383 be the thing that gets Trump convicted of insurrectionism when Trump said in his speech to be peaceful and have your voices heard? Based on your self-proclaimed expert status on this manner, what would you put the chances of Trump actually being lawfully considered an insurrectionist is?

I'm sure I have some minor prejudices and all but not like most of these people on this forum that won't go against their tribe no matter what. How many people on this forum couldn't admit Rittenhouse's case was simply and easily self-defense (when there was video of everything)? How many people here said reasons for why he should be guilty that literally didn't matter in such a case? And I'm the one with prejudices? With Trump, I honestly don't care if he's runs or can't run or wins or loses the race nor am I going to vote for him. What I do care about is the precedent of considering him an insurrectionist would do. If his case was just in a vacuum and would have no lasting affects and only affected Trump, then I wouldn't even care to even talk about it.

1) After the Trump-Russia collusion lies, until they actually get Trump on something criminally, I ain't gonna believe them unless I see really solid evidence.

2) Any group that thinks they are losing their most important member, will be actively searching for a replacement. It doesn't matter if it's political and this exact Trump situation or if it's a sports team probably losing their best player, both groups will be actively searching for a replacement. The republicans are not, which is quite significant.

Nope. Reread it and respond to what was actually said.



No. Hence the word 'each'.



A situation which is entirely avoided if we go by gender, but is not avoided if we go by appearance.
I did read it initially that's why I asked. If I read as straight as you said it, then it's rather meaningless.

Sigh... So there were multiple people or else "each" wouldn't have been used, it would just have been "the" then.

And in situations where you can't ask the gender or didn't have time yet (nor would everyone in the room/area know a person's gender either)? People have used pronouns just fine since inception of pronouns.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,113
5,833
118
Country
United Kingdom
I did read it initially that's why I asked. If I read as straight as you said it, then it's rather meaningless.
It's not 'meaningless' that a change of appearance doesn't necessarily correspond to a change of gender identity or pronoun. That's directly relevant and shows how full of holes your approach is.

Sigh... So there were multiple people or else "each" wouldn't have been used, it would just have been "the" then.
There were multiple people, yes. And yet the term 'them' doesn't refer to them. It refers to each. Each indicates individual treatment.

You don't know better than linguistic scholars.

And in situations where you can't ask the gender or didn't have time yet (nor would everyone in the room/area know a person's gender either)?
Then usually you can go by contextual cues, or just structure your sentence to be neutral. But even if you make a mistake or misidentify someone, it's not a big deal: just correct yourself if the person points it out. It only becomes a problem when the speaker insists they know the other person's pronoun or identity better than they do themselves.

People have used pronouns just fine since inception of pronouns.
Actually, issues with misidentified gender are ancient. What you mean is you didn't have to think about it a few years ago.