In the spirit of Easongate.com comes a new blog called Media Slander.
Media scandals are happening at a rate that justifies a site dedicated to exposing them. This site will address media bias against the military in general, as well as remarks made by individual journals, including Linda Foley, who has yet to substantiate her claim that the American military is targeting foreign journalists for assassination. (Also see Foley Gate). The purpose of the new blog:
The goal of Media Slander is to hold journalists and bloggers to high ethical standards regarding coverage of the War on Terror and other military-related issues. We plan to achieve this by highlighting bias, rumor and falsehoods that have been creeping into military coverage under the guise of objective news.We by no means advocate censorship or the deliberate suppression of well-researched and relevant stories about the war and the military.
As much as journalists feel that they are the guardians of the First Amendment, its true protectors are standing watch in Iraq, Afghanistan and places no one will ever hear about. Journalists owe it to the true gatekeepers of our liberties to be fair, balanced, relevant and accurate in covering them.
{ 5 trackbacks }
{ 56 comments }
Thanks for the heads up, La Shawn. This has been needed for some time!
I think the one thing blogging will do is force ‘true’ journalist to adjust their elitist mentality and really returning to the roots of good journalism…the only competition they have had before were others of the journalism elite…now there are new players on the block holding them accountable and challenging them like never before…
We will say how they work it out…
This is good!
This is why the MSM hates conservative bloggers. The big boys aren’t able to claim objectivity while printing leftward-slanting stories with impunity any longer, because the New Media is here to call them on it.
About time, too. The New York Times has been guilty as sin as far back as the 1930s, with the phony pro-commie stories written by Walter Duranty, which they have still not fully repudiated.
Here’s hoping that this will open the doors on the echo-chamber.
I was watching Bill O’reilly last nite, and he had some law professor on. They were talking about lawyers for guantanamo detainees. And the law prof made the point that we should have lawyers at least for determining whether they are enemy combatants, since we know about 10% of the detainees were wrongly detained. O’reilly claimed, rather incredibly, that he had never heard of that. The prof replied that it was common knowledge and reporteded everywhere. O’reilly continued to display his ignorance of the fact, to the point of trying to cast doubt on the fact by his ignorance of it.
This approach solves a lot of problems with factual errors. The media should be more like that : clueless and showing a blustering — and proud — ignorance about facts that they don’t agree with. That way you’re never wrong.
“…since we know about 10% of the detainees were wrongly detained.”
You state that as fact, Actus. Where may I find the proof?
Will the website highlight the blatant conservative media bias on FOX News?
Let me guess… none of you think FOX News is biased, it’s “fair and balanced”? Right?
Riiiiiiiiiiiighttttt…
Or what about the fact that it was Murdoch owner/founder of FOX News through his other media enterprises that plastered the media with pictures of Saddam in his underwear…
Wasn’t he concerned about the possibility that this might incite riots? But then, it was pretty funny watching the conservative media/blogosphere as well as the administration trying to claim with a straight face that whereas Newsweek incited riots in Afghanistan with its reporting, almost naked pictures would NEVER do that… and even if it did, it wasn’t the fault of the Murdoch because everyone knows that “those people” don’t need a reason to riot.
That new website would be far more credible if it was a collaboration… if it brought on liberals as well as conservatives to watchdog the media… as it is now, it looks like it will be a mechanism to chill dissent…
It’s our position that liberal media are biased against the military. We don’t consider bias TOWARD the military a bad thing. Whether you think it’s credible or not, the blog was started for a specific purpose. If other conservative and liberal bloggers want to collaborate on one media blog, they’re free to do so. I have an idea: why don’t you spearhead the effort? Perhaps you can busy yourself with that instead of commenting here and complaining about the creative work of others. – Admin
“You state that as fact, Actus. Where may I find the proof?”
As of April 20, 2005, we’ve released 167 into freedom and hold 520. Thats over a 20% release rate, so I guess and the professor are wrong. Click my name for source.
Is this really not common knowledge? Call the pentagon and they’ll tell you. Its no secret. But maybe it just doesn’t make the rounds of some echo chambers, or when it does its met with the incredulous bluster against a known and verifiable fact that I saw on TV. I just found that stat by googling “10% of detainees released.”
D. G. is sounding refreshingly reasonable. Too bad about Ac. Instead of lawyers for the “questionable” enemy combatants I would instead recommend else; Summary Execution.
No Actus, go here and you will see what the Arabs were doing looking at the pix of Saddam in his breifs;
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/baghdad_giggles/
And yes, Fox News is Fair & Balanced!
Actus, perhaps I misunderstood your first post about the law prof. I took it to mean that the prof thinks we still have the questionable 10% in custody. But if, in fact, we’ve released more than the number the prof was whining about, that makes the prof’s point moot.
” I took it to mean that the prof thinks we still have the questionable 10% in custody.”
We have some that we don’t know about in custody. Thats what the hearings and lawyers are for.
“But if, in fact, we’ve released more than the number the prof was whining about, that makes the prof’s point moot.”
The point is we wrongly detain people. Not that big of a surprise really. The proof of that does not make the point moot. It certainly does not moot the point that the media should do more of what O’reilly does: be clueless. That way, you aren’t ever wrong about facts because you just don’t know or use any. Won’t that be great.
Thank you for entering the fray. We need a lady’s voice like yours involved. I am so grateful this blog is up. I will be doing my part. Again, thanks.
Well….how about those of us who like the screw ups?
What are we supposed to do?
Actus, using an annoying and irrelevant straw man like O’Reilly will not help your argument, no matter how ignorant he might or might not be.
“Actus, using an annoying and irrelevant straw man like O’Reilly will not help your argument, no matter how ignorant he might or might not be. ”
Then you’re not paying attention. My argument is that people should be more like him: without facts, there are no factual errors!
Jab wrote, “Or what about the fact that it was Murdoch owner/founder of FOX News through his other media enterprises that plastered the media with pictures of Saddam in his underwear…”
I think it’s great. Sends a message to murderous tirant dictators that they can’t oppress their people and threaten the world and they must COMPLY with the numerous U.N. resolutions. If it’s your opinion that the murdering thugs who chop people’s heads off might be “offended” and so we shouldn’t have done it then so be it.. that’s your opinion. I don’t think Rupert had personal responsibility. If it was something illegal then the people RESPONSIBLE should be held accountability. From what I gather it wasn’t illegal it just offended your sensibilities to which I ask you Jab, “what of their actions has offended your sensibilities?”
Jab wrote, “whereas Newsweek incited riots in Afghanistan with its reporting”
Jab, it was Newsweek that wrote that they didn’t verify the facts and admitted that people rioted due to the news that they reported which was not written with accuracy. Be mad at the administration all you want but don’t be trying to get away with being inaccurate yourself because we’ll be here to correct the record.
Only someone like actup could be aspiring to be like someone (described by him) as being without facts.
“Only someone like actup could be aspiring to be like someone (described by him) as being without facts. ”
The true clever coup to use on me, baklava, is that my argument against facts require that I use them,. Redbeard came on fullbore doubting the same facts that o’reilly did, which required me to quote facts.
Actus, here we go again with your insinuations. As an exercise, I’m going to make a couple of points off the top of my head, before checking out your link.
Lessee, we began releasing people who we figured were inadvertantly caught in our terrorist dragnet beginning at the tail end of 2003 — maybe earlier. 18 months later we have some perfesser claiming we should have lawyers in place to determine who belongs? What am I missing here?
Once again, someone gets on a soapbox to rail about the military after the fact. How convenient.
As for all the detainee families, until they hear otherwise, they can only assume that their spawn was KIA. Instead of ranting, raving and making up contentious lies, they should be on bended knees kissing our feet for sparing the miserable life in question. But why should they, when the MSM/DNC will richly reward them for coming forward with their tirades?
Furthermore, unlike any other country — I dare you to name one — the usual SOP would be to kill them all and let God sort ‘em out.
Ok, now that I checked out your source, I stand corrected: “The release this week was the fifth largest since 2002”
For some reason, I thot we didn’t begin releasing them until well after Baghdad fell. But my point still stands; our system works, even if it’s too slow to suit the ACLU, IRC and other terrorist sympathizers.
I can understand why O’reilly questioned the 10% figure since the math doesn’t add up — doublecheck your figures.
And of all that we caught, we now have about 520 still in custody. At least we practice catch-n-release, or would you prefer that we use non-combatantproof dragnets?
Finally I took your advice about googling “10% of detainees released”. Guess what came up first?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A52670-2004Oct21.html
Hint, it makes your public defense pitifully moot. That’s the problem with bleeding heart liberals, they cause others to bleed unecessarily. The best solution, as I said before — when it comes to fanatics, kill them all.
“Ok, now that I checked out your source, I stand corrected:”
I did have a hard time figuring out what sort of smartness it shows to talk about something while being ignorant of it. Goes along with O’reilly I guess.
“At least we practice catch-n-release, or would you prefer that we use non-combatantproof dragnets?”
I’d prefer we release people who are not combatants.
” The best solution, as I said before — when it comes to fanatics, kill them all.”
The problem here is not in determining what to do with fanatics, but in determining who is a fanatic.
Whats the problem with the math? we have 232 releases, 167 of those into freedom, and 520 remeining. thats 752 total. 167 is about 20 percent of that.
As usual, you twisted the context, why don’t you finish the rest of my quoted sentence? Why are you studying to be a lawyer, when the MSM could use your pretzel logic?
I stood corrected on my recollection of the tail end of 2003 vs October 2002, or 32 months as opposed to the 18 months I stated, when we began releasing non-combatants.
As for the figures, whether they were freed or turned over to their government is moot — 232 noncombatants were released, approx 30%
Of course it figures you’d have no answer to your google result.
“As for the figures, whether they were freed or turned over to their government is moot — 232 noncombatants were released, approx 30%”
I don’t think that its accurate to take the ones that were turned over to be held by other governments as non-combatants. Thats why I ignored them. But fine, 30% it is. Does that mean you understand why O’reilly questions 10%? Becuase 10% is too low?
“Of course it figures you’d have no answer to your google result. ”
Of course I saw the first result. It really doesn’t surprise me that people held in guantanamo would bear a grudge.
Just keep spinning,
just keep spinning…
The MSM is hearing footsteps!
“just keep spinning…”
Darn it! i forgot to declare a no spin zone!
You’re pure spin.
And you aspire to be that way !
What percentage of released were subsequently back in combat with us?
Lawyers are not the only ones interested in guilt and innocence. Military officers are quite capable of evaluating detainees, and since detainees are a pain in the ass no one is more eager to get rid of them.
Walter, so far I’ve heard as many as 25 were recaptured or KIA. The rest i think are typical of the wannabe Rambones. War sounded cool until the reality disabused them of that notion, so they’re content to simply wear the “veteran hero” badge, and talk the talk. AND thankful to have survived. Even so, I wouldn’t put it past them to covertly assist the cause without risking their lives if they can help it.
According to Actus, a law prof made the point on the O’Reilly show: “We know about 10% of the detainees were wrongly detained.” She further asserted that “it was common knowledge and reported everywhere.”
First, if Actus has correctly presented the premise of her argument [10% wrongly detained based upon common knowledge and being reported everywhere, therefore, lawyers are needed to determine detainee status] she has no business teaching law. To premise an argument on “common knowledge and being reported everywhere†is nonsense. When evidence [premise] for an argument is offered, it must be specific and referenced. Moreover, if that 10% figure is based upon the number of detainees released, that’s an erroneous inference. Just because detainees are released doesn’t mean they were wrongly detained or classified as enemy combatants in the first instance. Just as in criminal law, probable cause may well get you charged and arrested. Even if the charge is dismissed later on or an acquittal results, it does not mean that the original probable cause did not exist.
At a March 29, 2005 press conference, Sec. of Navy, Gordon Englend, who is ex officio ‘civilian official for the Detainee Administrative Review Processes at Guantanamo,’ laid out the numbers with respect to enemy combatants: “Of the 558 CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunal) hearings conducted, the enemy combatant status of 520 detainees was confirmed. The tribunals also concluded that 38 detainees were found to no longer meet the criteria to be designated as enemy combatants. So 520 enemy combatants, 38 non-enemy- combatants [6.8%]… It should be emphasized that a CSRT determination that a detainee no longer meets the criteria for classification as an enemy combatant does not necessarily mean that the prior classification as EC was wrong.”
“Military officers are quite capable of evaluating detainees, and since detainees are a pain in the ass no one is more eager to get rid of them.”
Some people are both lawyers and military officers. No problem involving them in the process.
“First, if Actus has correctly presented the premise of her argument [10% wrongly detained based upon common knowledge and being reported everywhere, therefore, lawyers are needed to determine detainee status] she has no business teaching law. To premise an argument on “common knowledge and being reported everywhere†is nonsense. When evidence [premise] for an argument is offered, it must be specific and referenced.”
I agree that that is the practice in, say, law review articles. But it is not the practice on the no spin zone over at O’reilly. I don’t think she came on the show with this evidence, I don’t think the specific number was a major premise. But we do all know that people have been released because they were wrongly detained.
“Just because detainees are released doesn’t mean they were wrongly detained or classified as enemy combatants in the first instance. Just as in criminal law, probable cause may well get you charged and arrested. Even if the charge is dismissed later on or an acquittal results, it does not mean that the original probable cause did not exist.”
I’m using wrongly detained to mean they are not enemy combatants and should be released, not to mean that it wasn’t reasonable to suspect them.
Actus #16: “The point is we wrongly detain people. Not that big of a surprise really.”
IOW, typical of American imperialism?
Actus #27: “I’d prefer we release people who are not combatants.”
IOW, the DOD is balking at releasing noncombatants?
Actus #16: “I’m using wrongly detained to mean they are not enemy combatants and should be released, not to mean that it wasn’t reasonable to suspect them.”
IOW, you can’t come out and give kudos to the military for doing what they’ve already been doing for well over 2.5 years?
Trying to squirm your way out if it now eh?
Just keep squirming,
just keep squirming
“IOW, typical of American imperialism?”
no. typical of the idea that we initially detain people based on our suspicion, but not all of our suspicions turn out to be correct. Not rocket science. nobody’s suspicions are 100% correct.
“IOW, you can’t come out and give kudos to the military for doing what they’ve already been doing for well over 2.5 years?”
kudos to what? releasing people? thats minimimal.
Actus said: “I agree that that is the practice in, say, law review articles. But it is not the practice on the no spin zone over at O’Reilly. I don’t think she came on the show with this evidence, I don’t think the specific number was a major premise. But we do all know that people have been released because they were wrongly detained.”
The specific number of detainees and the venue in which a statement is made are immaterial. What is material is an articulation of the evidence supporting the claim, not just saying, “everyone knows it.†Here, evidence means a “verbal rendition from memory†of the demonstrative evidence, not the physical presentation of it. As a law professor, she should be accustomed to articulating the facts and evidence of cases. The “everyone knows it†tactic is employed by those who can not produce evidence to support their claim.
Actus said: “But we do all know that people have been released because they were wrongly detained.â€
You’re employing the same tactic as is the good professor. Saying that “we all know†does not establish its factual basis, nor is it persuasive of your argument
Actus said: “I’m using wrongly detained to mean they are not enemy combatants and should be released, not to mean that it wasn’t reasonable to suspect them.â€
No, not just suspect them, but reasonable to detain them until a determination of their status could be made. If it was reasonable to suspect them ( to use your words), then it was reasonable to detain them. The fact that some ultimately may be determined to be non-combatants does not militate against the original classification and reasonableness of the detention. However, if a reclassification of a detainee is made, then any further detention becomes an issue of wrongful detention.
As Sec. of Navy, Gordon England said: “Of the 558 CSRT (Combatant Status Review Tribunal) hearings conducted, the enemy combatant status of 520 detainees was confirmed…38 [6.8%] detainees were found to no longer meet the criteria to be designated as enemy combatants…A CSRT determination that a detainee no longer meets the criteria for classification as an enemy combatant does not necessarily mean that the prior classification as EC was wrong.”
To date, all detainees re-classified as non-combatants have been released or are in the process of being released. Gitmo continues to hold 520 enemy combatants.
“The “everyone knows it†tactic is employed by those who can not produce evidence to support their claim.”
Or someone who is saying something that is widely reported and known but doesn’t have a citation handy. This is also done in court.
“You’re employing the same tactic as is the good professor. Saying that “we all know†does not establish its factual basis, nor is it persuasive of your argument”
The tactic is of taking a known truth and using it a discussion. You know that people have been released don’t you? If you don’t, its because you’re ignorant of that fact. And you can quite easily look it up at your leisure. What can’t be easily looked up is a pinpoint citation to that fact at the time that you’re on a TV show. But you can give pointers. And the law prof did.
yawn.
actus reus is at it again.
For a guy who spends so much time online, always short on cites and facts.
“For a guy who spends so much time online, always short on cites and facts.”
What is it that you would like?
Actus said: “Or someone who is saying something that is widely reported and known but doesn’t have a citation handy. This is also done in court.”
I don’t know what the hell court room you’ve ever been in, but statements aren’t admitted that have no basis in fact or are not derived from the personal knowledge of the witness – this is commonly referred to as testimony that speaks to the truth of the matter, or the hearsay rule. I’ve been in many trials and court proceedings and have yet to see a statement admitted by someone who says: “everyone knows that.”
Actus claimed: “you’re ignorant of that fact.â€
Don’t project your idiosyncrasies onto me. I’m well aware of the fact that some detainees [6.8% in the last 10 months] have been released. I provided the numbers to you for the last ten months of CSRT hearings.
Your answer to this is: “The tactic is of taking a known truth and using it a discussion. You know that people have been released don’t you?â€
What absolute nonsense! Now your just engaging in an inane, non sequitur argument. The conclusion does not follow from your premises. You assume a premise [release=wrongful detention] and argue that because some detainees have been released, they must have been wrongfully detained. The relationship between your premise and conclusion has never been established — that’s the crux of the issue; ie, release does not imply wrongful detention. To the contrary of your premise, the Sec. of the Navy, Gordon England, recently said: “…A CSRT determination that a detainee no longer meets the criteria for classification as an enemy combatant does not necessarily mean that the prior classification as EC was wrong.” Nor does it vitiate the original, reasonable grounds for the detention.
In short, your argument [actually, lack of logical argument] is nothing less than circular logic; a logical fallacy in which the conclusion is contained in the premise. It simply begs the question!
Tom, wham-bam!!
“. I’ve been in many trials and court proceedings and have yet to see a statement admitted by someone who says: “everyone knows that.—
I’ve been in oral arguments where people say facts without citation to them, and then point to them later, or provide a citation after the argument. This isn’t rocket science.
But why do you think that law professors should be bound by the rules of evidence when they are on bill o’reilly’s “no spin zone”? Sure, the law professor could have said “i know that 10% have been released,” as well as said “i know that a lot of people know that,” not for the truth of the matter asserted, just for the truth of what the professor knows.
“Don’t project your idiosyncrasies onto me.”
If said “if.” Do you read?
“To the contrary of your premise, the Sec. of the Navy, Gordon England, recently said: “…A CSRT determination that a detainee no longer meets the criteria for classification as an enemy combatant does not necessarily mean that the prior classification as EC was wrong.—
I’m sorry, but a release means someone is not an enemy combatant, and should not be held. the miltary’s logic in no way changes the fact that this means there are people who are held who should not be held.
“I’m sorry, but a release means someone is not an enemy combatant, and should not be held. ”
Wrong. a release means someone has been determined to be a noncombatant. Example, Afghani shepardboy picked up in a combat zone. A Paki or Saudi picked up in the combatzone was there for a reason. To what end is the question that needs to be determined. But to claim to be a backpacker tramping on a world adventure is laughable.
“the miltary’s logic in no way changes the fact that this means there are people who are held who should not be held.”
Wrong again, this in no way changes the fact that they will be detained until it can be proven that they are no threat. When in doubt, hold em. This happens all the time when cops detain people for probable cause.
Even so, some combatants manage to trick their way out and re-engage. Just as some perps manage to be let loose only to resume their criminal ways.
Do you even realize how STUPID your assertion is when taken to its logical conclusion? You’re in effect asking that we only detain bona-fide suspects. How many more of our soldiers will be killed as they stand around and wait to confirm someone’s bona-fides?
In that case, why bother detaining bona-fide combatants? Under Geneva Convention rules, we could just execute them as spys/sabateurs. As for the remaining 520, barring any more noncombatant confirmations, they will NEVER ever taste freedom.
“You’re in effect asking that we only detain bona-fide suspects. How many more of our soldiers will be killed as they stand around and wait to confirm someone’s bona-fides”
There’s no reason why we can’t confirm someone’s bona fides while they are in detention. I have no idea why you have a problem with a system where we determine where we have to determine whether to hold someone. But one clear implication of this system is that just because someone is in detention does not mean that they are a threat. It could mean that we are still in the process of determining that.
“I’ve been in oral arguments where people say facts without citation to them, and then point to them later, or provide a citation after the argument. This isn’t rocket science.”
If you had the slightest inkling of what you’re talking about, you’d know that oral arguments are NOT EVIDENCE!!!!!! They are the attorney’s rendition of what the evidence shows, which may or may not be accurate. In fact, you’d also know that the court will instruct the jury that oral arguments are not to be considered as evidence. But, at least the attorney is pointing to some piece[s] of evidence [physical or testimonial] and opining on what it demonstrates, rather than simply saying, everybody knows what the evidence shows.
“If said “if.†Do you read?”
I’m well aware that you said “IF.” An individual with a modicum of lucidity would be cognizant that I had provided you with [citation of evidence] an official summary rendition of CSRT hearings specifying the number of detainees determine to be enemy combatants and those who were reclassified as non-combatants. Thus, your ad hominem verbiage is both sarcastic and verbose, and does absolutely nothing to advance your point of view.
Your retort: “But why do you think that law professors should be bound by the rules of evidence when they are on bill o’reilly’s “no spin zoneâ€? Sure, the law professor could have said “i know that 10% have been released,†as well as said “i know that a lot of people know that,†not for the truth of the matter asserted, just for the truth of what the professor knows.â€
This is just a an unresponsive, simple-minded rant in the form of a straw man. Your adeptness at employing fallacies of logical argument does nothing less than destroy any rationality in your position. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of logical argument.
“I’m sorry, but a release means someone is not an enemy combatant, and should not be held. the military’s logic in no way changes the fact that this means there are people who are held who should not be held.â€
This response, as well as a response to one of Andy’s comments [confirming bona fides while in detention], raises a serious question about your acumen in comprehending what is actually occurring at Gitmo. Evaluating detainee status is precisely what has been occurring in the form of CSRT hearings. That is why there are currently 520 DETAINEES CONFIRMED AS “ENEMY COMBATANTS†remaining at Gitmo; ALL OTHERS HAVE BEEN RELEASED either to other countries for disposition or freed upon reclassification.
Tom, thanks for covering my 6
In case you missed it there’s a couple things you need to know about Actus that he can’t help.
1) He’s a law student. If he misconstrues some of the finer points of law, it’s because a) the profs haven’t covered it yet, b) if they did, it hasn’t crystallized yet.
2) He’s ESL, IIRC from Brazil, consequently he transliterates subtle nuances and grabs on with tenacity to key words without regard to context.
In retrospect, this can be hilarious as he argues his way either off the deep end or full circle, all the while denying your point.
William Joyce(Lord Haw Haw)is alive and well and working for NEWSWEEK
Andy, thanks for advising me.
If he’s a law student, that helps explain his functional deficiencies. But then, logic and common sense has never been a part of the law school tradition.
On the plus side however, he seems to be mastering the fine art of obfuscation. At times it’s difficult to understand not only the substance of his argument, but what side of the issue he is taking.
I am sure he has a brilliant career as a PD ahead of him. The one the ADAs all line up to argue against.
“If you had the slightest inkling of what you’re talking about, you’d know that oral arguments are NOT EVIDENCE”
I know. They’re still arguments to convince though. Which is basically what we have on the shoutfest TV. Why are you stuck on this idea that law prof’s have to follow the rules of evidence when they’re on TV?
“. Evaluating detainee status is precisely what has been occurring in the form of CSRT hearings.”
I know. And the entire point of this discussion is that lawyers ought to be available for that status determination. This isn’t an uncontroversial point.
“I’m well aware that you said “IF.—
Then why did you respond as if you weren’t aware of it?
“Your adeptness at employing fallacies of logical argument does nothing less than destroy any rationality in your position. It demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of logical argument.”
If i’m adept at employing fallacies, wouldn’t I have to have an understanding of logical argument? I think you mean to say that I am careless in employing fallacies. I’d have to disagree with either of these though.
What is it that you find so irrational in the idea that a law professor can go on TV and talk like a normal person about common knowledge on guantanamo?
“I know. They’re still arguments to convince though…Why are you stuck on this idea that law prof’s have to follow the rules of evidence when they’re on TV?
Let me get this straight: you know that arguments are not evidence, but they’re still arguments to convince. Nice try! This response partly answers your question on whether you understand logical argument. You’ve just employed two fallacies in one short reply. The first is equivocation in which you’ve attempted to change the nature of evidence from that of being “something that substantially affirms a fact†to that of an “argument to convince“ being tantamount to evidence. The second is a straw man, in which you maintain that the professor [victim] is being held to a higher standard of proof [rules of evidence] than anyone else. This is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors effort to posit the notion of an unreasonable demand being placed upon the professor and to validate the use of the “common knowledge†tactic. Moreover, your delusion of law professors having to follow the rules of evidence on TV is pure nonsense!
“Evaluating detainee status is precisely what has been occurring in the form of CSRT hearings.†Actus replied: “I know. And the entire point of this discussion is that lawyers ought to be available for that status determination. This isn’t an uncontroversial point.â€
No, the entire point of the discussion is that one should produce evidence to support a claim. A point of which you and the professor have avoided. Both of you are attempting to “argue for a result without producing a necessary and sufficient reason upon which to base the result.†By the way, the process for determining enemy combatant status via the CSRT panels parallels that provided under the Geneva Convention, Article 5.
“I’m well aware that you said “IF.†Actus responded: “Then why did you respond as if you weren’t aware of it?â€
You’re really do have a comprehension deficit.
Actus said: “If i’m adept at employing fallacies, wouldn’t I have to have an understanding of logical argument? I think you mean to say that I am careless in employing fallacies… â€
Not at all! An individual who understands logical argument would not employ any of the fallacies if said individual is attempting to be persuasive. One who employs them so readily, demonstrates a lack of inductive and deductive reasoning skills and quite likely, comprehension; unless of course, that person intentionally employs them to make himself look foolish, like a buffoon, or is begging the question.
“What is it that you find so irrational in the idea that a law professor can go on TV and talk like a normal person about common knowledge on guantanamo?â€
The fact that an appeal to common knowledge “assumes the truth of the matter†without the concomitant burden of producing evidence or providing a citation to the evidence or documentation. It is a fallacy that you and the professor are employing to mask the fact that your assertion [detainees being wrongfully detained] is baseless.
“Let me get this straight: you know that arguments are not evidence, but they’re still arguments to convince.”
Sure. If people didn’t know something that is widely available, they now do, even without a specific citation. I have discussions all the time with people, and we don’t have citations to facts that are pretty common knowledge, hard to lie about, and very verifiable. What did you want this person to do when she had to rely on a fact she assumed her compatriot was informed about? You do your best: you tell him what you know and you tell him how to verify that you’re correct.
“No, the entire point of the discussion is that one should produce evidence to support a claim”
She provided a source of the evidence. Is that good enough for an on-the spot need to use a fact on TV?
“Not at all! An individual who understands logical argument would not employ any of the fallacies if said individual is attempting to be persuasive.”
I think in order to be good (adept) at using fallacies you have to be good in knowing how they can used: ie, you have to know how to argue logically in order to adeptly avoid doing so. You could, of course, end up carelessly using fallacies and not understanding logic. Like you could go off about how your oponent is using ad-hominen attacks when he uses an if-then construction where the “if” condition is not satisfied.
“The fact that an appeal to common knowledge “assumes the truth of the matter†without the concomitant burden of producing evidence or providing a citation to the evidence or documentation.”
But it is common knowledge among people who know guantanamo, its a shame o’reilly wasn’t briefed on this, or didn’t know it at all. It makes him appear rather clueless. You don’t have to take the appeal to common knowledge for its truth, but just for the fact that you will very easily be able to verify the fact later. If the person is lying about this, nothing really stops them from lying about a citation either.
Its easily verifiable. She gave a way for it to be verified — told him to call the pentagon — and said that it was widely reported. We know that we’ve held people who werent’ a threat. This isn’t surprising, given everyone’s interest in holding people we suspect without first fully verifying those suspicions.
When an individual is so deficient in the rudimentary cognitive skills for the processing of information, he certainly lacks the higher level skills to engage in debate or persuasive argument. Your circular arguments preclude crossing the threshold of fruitful dialogue, leaving the exercise stumbling toward inanity. When discussion becomes a caricature of informed debate meaningfulness is relegated to a diminishing likelihood, at which point, the value attached to engagement ceases. Since your arguments are nothing short of a parody on intelligent debate, I’ll leave for others more patient than I, the task of entertaining themselves with your pitiful articulations.
“When an individual is so deficient in the rudimentary cognitive skills for the processing of information, he certainly lacks the higher level skills to engage in debate or persuasive argument”
gotten me this far in life. you too, I guess.
“Your circular arguments preclude crossing the threshold of fruitful dialogue, leaving the exercise stumbling toward inanity”
It really is inane to try to fault someone who is on TV and using common knowledge for not expecting their host to not know common knowledge and not have a specific citation to a commonly known fact. That’s been my point all along.
“Since your arguments are nothing short of a parody on intelligent debate, I’ll leave for others more patient than I, the task of entertaining themselves with your pitiful articulations.”
I don’t know about parodies, but it seems like common sense to me to have people on TV using common knowledge and providing general citations. For some reason, this got you all in a tiff, including misunderstanding a lot of what I said. take care, i’m off to enjoy the weather.
Its odd that you see circularity.
I found it odd he’s wasted this much bandwith on it.
Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, and that state of mind goalpoast is an ever moving target to some folks…
“Actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, and that state of mind goalpoast is an ever moving target to some folks…”
I know. its almost like the act of blogging, of being a blogoscenti, causes a loss of common sense. Imagine a law professor assuming bill o’reilly knows what he’s talking about!
Comments on this entry are closed.