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!

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.

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.

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.”

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?”

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… ”

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?”

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.

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?

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.

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.

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 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.”

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.”

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.

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.

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.

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.