Trump's new Sec. of Labor has some baggage...

[*Nately120*]

Boys will be boys.

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 12:52 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote:   I've merely pointed out that your criticism of Acosta is based on blinkered ignorance, willful or otherwise, of the actual process that would take place when cutting a deal in such a high profile case.  I'm sorry, I can't think of a concrete business parallel to make understanding the concept easier for you.

Oh, Dill, if you're browsing the forum, here's another example of the tactic you stated earlier you've never seen.   Maybe they're hard to see from that ivory tower?  

Ha ha "here"? There? Somewhere?  All I see are undemonstrated claims about unclarity and more condescending (and likely thread closing) personal attack. From the guy who hates condescension and adopts the royal "we" when he feels it.  Can you specify the tactic and example, and stop the vague gesturing? No? too much work?  We should rely on your impressions?

Looking for the proof of your impression that Dino's argument is based on "blinkered ignorance."  Wait, here it is.

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I simply know how these kind of things work. 

LOL And for people "inane" enough to miss all that "logic," there is so much more to support it.

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: As I said, I've worked high profile cases before.  I've worked a case that got national news attention.  I haven't worked on anything nearly as big as a scandal that involves a former POTUS.  In high profile cases you're going to get a lot of interest from higher ups, for obvious reasons.  Hence, I felt compelled to edify those reading your thread, the premise of it being clear or not, as to why Acosta wasn't even remotely the sole arbiter of the deal you so bemoan.  Nor was any deal he struck not approved at the highest levels of the US attorney's office.  I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify why your apparent initial outrage was so misplaced.

So no way, and I mean NO WAY, that Acosta could have engineered (lol "forumlated") Epstein's deal himself and presented for "approval" to those upstairs, persuaded those who resist to accept, etc.  That CANNOT have happened.
Silly rabbit Dino would think you had to be in the room to know that for certain, given your preference for evidence over speculation. LOL when has he worked on a HIGH PROFILE CASE though, eh? One that got NATIONAL ATTENTION.

And that's why you

(11-29-2018, 12:03 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: . . . felt compelled to edify those reading your thread, the premise of it being clear or not, as to why Acosta wasn't even remotely the sole arbiter of the deal you so bemoan.  Nor was any deal he struck not approved at the highest levels of the US attorney's office.  I appreciate the opportunity to further clarify why your apparent initial outrage was so misplaced.

But Epstein can't be a pawn either. Somehow.  Wait, what was Dino "so bemoaning" again? A deal that cut slack for a child trafficker or something?

Where are we now that it has been proved beyond a doubt (for those with "intelligence") and without having been in the room, that Epstein "wasn't even remotely the sole arbiter"?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 04:39 PM)Dill Wrote: Ha ha "here"? There? Somewhere?  All I see are undemonstrated claims about unclarity and more condescending (and likely thread closing) personal attack. From the guy who hates condescension and adopts the royal "we" when he feels it.  Can you specify the tactic and example, and stop the vague gesturing? No? too much work?  We should rely on your impressions?

Looking for the proof of your impression that Dino's argument is based on "blinkered ignorance."  Wait, here it is.


LOL And for people "inane" enough to miss all that "logic," there is so much more to support it.

You already got one thread locked, it seems you're intent on doing the same here. 

Quote:So no way, and I mean NO WAY, that Acosta could have engineered (lol "forumlated") Epstein's deal himself and presented for "approval" to those upstairs, persuaded those who resist to accept, etc.  That CANNOT have happened.
Silly rabbit Dino would think you had to be in the room to know that for certain, given your preference for evidence over speculation. LOL when has he worked on a HIGH PROFILE CASE though, eh? One that got NATIONAL ATTENTION.

I do enjoy how professional expertise is respected on here based solely on if you agree with the poster's political opinions.  I have a large amount of experience dealing with the courts, investigations and prosecuting attorneys.  I've also worked for the government for 18 years.  I also have experience dealing with high profile cases, admittedly not as high profile as this.  I have a fair degree of expertise in this area.  It is very notable that you have done nothing to refute my assertions, only attempt to belittle and ridicule them.

Is it possible?  Sure, it's also possible to flip a coin and have it come up heads 300 times in a row.  it sure as hell isn't probable though.

Quote:And that's why you


But Epstein can't be a pawn either. Somehow.  Wait, what was Dino "so bemoaning" again? A deal that cut slack for a child trafficker or something?

A pawn implies powerlessness.  The man was not powerless, but nor was he in a position to make such a significant decision.  Do you consider the commander of an infantry division the pawn of the army commander?  Is the army commander a pawn of the army group commander?  Are any of them the pawn of the CnC?

Quote:Where are we now that it has been proved beyond a doubt (for those with "intelligence") and without having been in the room, that Epstein "wasn't even remotely the sole arbiter"?

Hey, if you want to believe that Acosta was the sole arbiter of this deal then feel free to do so.  As I've said in other threads, I've long since given up trying to make you and your buddies understand simple logic.  We've both presented our arguments.  Well, I have at least.  The others viewing this thread have an ample amount of information with which to make up their own minds.

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 03:08 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, plenty of people I disagree with have it.  I frequently disagree with Bell, Bmore, Benton, Zona and many others.  I only seem to have this issue with a very select few. 

This is worth a comment.  I have a lot of respect for all the guys mentioned there, whom I have also disagreed with. (B-zona is my oldest forum buddy, I believe, going back to 2005-06 on the old board.)

They make substantive contributions to the list.  But--and here is the important point--NOT ONE of those guys would ever jump into a thread laughing at everyone else's stupidity and commenting on the low "intelligence" of posters, the "vapid unawareness" of their "benighted" ignorance, as you do in not one, but post after post.  There are a number of closed threads in this forum now which began exactly with this kind of unnecessary intervention.

Excusing your behavior as a problem with only a select few (what is the number exactly? certainly more than three), is part of the problem. Every one of those "select few" could claim to have a problem with only one poster.

That you admire the above posters speaks well of you. It can't be because they say nasty mean things about people all the time. They don't. They make sober and informed contributions.  What would your rep be if you left off the nasty and just made informed contributions?

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 07:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You already got one thread locked, it seems you're intent on doing the same here. 

I do enjoy how professional expertise is respected on here based solely on if you agree with the poster's political opinions.  I have a large amount of experience dealing with the courts, investigations and prosecuting attorneys.  I've also worked for the government for 18 years.  I also have experience dealing with high profile cases, admittedly not as high profile as this.  I have a fair degree of expertise in this area.  It is very notable that you have done nothing to refute my assertions, only attempt to belittle and ridicule them.

Is it possible?  Sure, it's also possible to flip a coin and have it come up heads 300 times in a row.  it sure as hell isn't probable though.

A pawn implies powerlessness.  The man was not powerless, but nor was he in a position to make such a significant decision.  Do you consider the commander of an infantry division the pawn of the army commander?  Is the army commander a pawn of the army group commander?  Are any of them the pawn of the CnC?

Hey, if you want to believe that Acosta was the sole arbiter of this deal then feel free to do so.  As I've said in other threads, I've long since given up trying to make you and your buddies understand simple logic.  We've both presented our arguments.  Well, I have at least.  The others viewing this thread have an ample amount of information with which to make up their own minds.

Mods won't lock a thread down because people are disagreeing. It's the totally unnecessary personal comments about posters "intelligence" that rile them.  As it should everyone.

Lot's of people have "professional expertise" in the forum. They demonstrate it though, rather than simply claiming/begging it.  That's where the respect comes.

And regarding your "assertions"; a statement like "I have 18 years experience working in government" or "I just know how it works" cannot simply premise the conclusion that "Acosta could not have engineered a deal for Epstein." Neither INDUCTION nor DEDUCTION is apparent between those two statements.  Same if you substitute "HIGH PROFILE CASE" or "higher ups had to sign off" for "18 years." They are still just juxtaposed claims--not connected by "simple logic." I don't think it would be difficult to find someone with 19 years of experience working in government who has worked on a higher profile case than you who agrees that even if a certain assent from higher ups is required, Acosta could have played a determining role shaping or creating the deal.  It's not a matter of "what I want to believe" about what actually happened. It is a recognition of what claims the evidence at hand does or does not sanction.

Speaking of "professionals", I know a couple. Sometimes they argue from authority when dealing with laypersons ("I'm the doctor!"), but what happens when they disagree with one another?  Professions are set up so that somewhere, at some point, there are protocols of logic and evidence that decide issues.  E.g., when two biologists disagree over a possible route of E Coli contamination, one can't just say "I'm a biologist and have been for 18 years."  To persuade the other biologists, and perhaps those in control of medical policy, he must make a case, refer to data, or collect and deploy it himself.  And the professionals I know are pretty comfortable with identifying limits to knowledge--as in we can't know what occurred between point A and point B for sure (or in that closed room). We can only make inferences and determine degrees of probability. 

And yes, others do, now, have ample information to make up their own minds.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-29-2018, 07:19 PM)Dill Wrote: This is worth a comment.  I have a lot of respect for all the guys mentioned there, whom I have also disagreed with. (B-zona is my oldest forum buddy, I believe, going back to 2005-06 on the old board.)

They make substantive contributions to the list.  But--and here is the important point--NOT ONE of those guys would ever jump into a thread laughing at everyone else's stupidity and commenting on the low "intelligence" of posters, the "vapid unawareness" of their "benighted" ignorance, as you do in not one, but post after post.  There are a number of closed threads in this forum now which began exactly with this kind of unnecessary intervention.

I think you'll find your responsible for at least as many closed threads as I.  I've already asked that you stop making this thread about you and me, yet you continue. 

Quote:Excusing your behavior as a problem with only a select few (what is the number exactly? certainly more than three), is part of the problem. Every one of those "select few" could claim to have a problem with only one poster.

I'm not excusing anything.  Also, your second claim in this quote is laughable untrue. 

Quote:That you admire the above posters speaks well of you. It can't be because they say nasty mean things about people all the time. They don't. They make sober and informed contributions.  What would your rep be if you left off the nasty and just made informed contributions?

Have respect for, not admire.  Unlike those of you who whine about rep, which is why neg rep went away, I could care less about it. 

(11-29-2018, 08:08 PM)Dill Wrote:
Mods won't lock a thread down because people are disagreeing. It's the totally unnecessary personal comments about posters "intelligence" that rile them.  As it should everyone.

Lot's of people have "professional expertise" in the forum. They demonstrate it though, rather than simply claiming/begging it.  That's where the respect comes.

Ahh, I see.  So when, after years on this and the old board I have brought such insight from my profession to this board I was simply "claiming/begging"?  I suppose you didn't see those posts much like you don't see the posts labeling anyone who disagrees with the poster as a "Trump supporter".  Selective blindness must be very convenient for you when having these types of discussion.

Quote:And regarding your "assertions"; a statement like "I have 18 years experience working in government" or "I just know how it works" cannot simply premise the conclusion that "Acosta could not have engineered a deal for Epstein." Neither INDUCTION nor DEDUCTION is apparent between those two statements.  Same if you substitute "HIGH PROFILE CASE" or "higher ups had to sign off" for "18 years." They are still just juxtaposed claims--not connected by "simple logic." I don't think it would be difficult to find someone with 19 years of experience working in government who has worked on a higher profile case than you who agrees that even if a certain assent from higher ups is required, Acosta could have played a determining role shaping or creating the deal.  It's not a matter of "what I want to believe" about what actually happened. It is a recognition of what claims the evidence at hand does or does not sanction.

Quite sincerely, if you can't see the basic, inherent, logic in my statements on this matter then you're not worth any time trying to convince you further. 

Quote:Speaking of "professionals", I know a couple. Sometimes they argue from authority when dealing with laypersons ("I'm the doctor!"), but what happens when they disagree with one another?  Professions are set up so that somewhere, at some point, there are protocols of logic and evidence that decide issues.  E.g., when two biologists disagree over a possible route of E Coli contamination, one can't just say "I'm a biologist and have been for 18 years."  To persuade the other biologists, and perhaps those in control of medical policy, he must make a case, refer to data, or collect and deploy it himself.  And the professionals I know are pretty comfortable with identifying limits to knowledge--as in we can't know what occurred between point A and point B for sure (or in that closed room). We can only make inferences and determine degrees of probability. 

I'll let you know when that occurs on this board.  So far I've caught Fred making mistakes about his profession, the same cannot be said about me.

Quote:And yes, others do, now, have ample information to make up their own minds.

Indeed, maybe you'll now return to allowing the thread to be about the actual topic instead of a hamfisted attempt to smear me.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-29-2018, 01:51 PM)GMDino Wrote: I just want to point out that either Acosta was okay with or didn't have the morals to step away from it.

Either way he shouldn't be in charge of anything, let alone the department of labor.

Pick anyone you would like to see appointed to this position, go on, make a list of names that's more qualified than Acosta.

I'm dang near 99% positive we will always be able to find something about them that we don't like, starting with the way they put their pants on in the mornings to the way they refuse to take off their shoes when entering a home where everyone else takes their shoes off as being completely disrespectful to the host.

There is no one, you or me, that can pass the test if someone doesn't want us to, and if they can't find enough, they can always run a smear campaign. Let him do his job to the best of his ability, if he doesn't do a good job, he won't last long.

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 08:57 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pick anyone you would like to see appointed to this position, go on, make a list of names that's more qualified than Acosta.

I'm dang near 99% positive we will always be able to find something about them that we don't like, starting with the way they put their pants on in the mornings to the way they refuse to take off their shoes when entering a home where everyone else takes their shoes off as being completely disrespectful to the host.

There is no one, you or me, that can pass the test if someone doesn't want us to, and if they can't find enough, they can always run a smear campaign. Let him do his job to the best of his ability, if he doesn't do a good job, he won't last long.

Mike, do you think that respect for and adherence to ethics in office is just another thing like taking shoes on or off the right way, when it comes to determining who is fit for office?  I have never heard of a prosecutor who lost his job for refusing to take off his shoes, but they can be prosecuted for corruption--for ethics violations. 

Also, if you are an honest politician accountable for appointments, then it is unlikely that you will appoint a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the right way, but has a history of ethical issues, over a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the wrong way but is known for his integrity. You appoint the former and his bad behavior will eventually blow back on you. 

Sometimes, of course, the politicians are corrupt and so they will appoint someone equally corrupt to protect them.  But the response to that situation is not a shoulder shrug and an assertion that "we will always find something about people we don't like."  The point is to define standards and uphold them.

Appointing people to public office is not (or should not be) as random as you imply here.  

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-30-2018, 03:18 PM)Dill Wrote: Mike, do you think that respect for and adherence to ethics in office is just another thing like taking shoes on or off the right way, when it comes to determining who is fit for office?  I have never heard of a prosecutor who lost his job for refusing to take off his shoes, but they can be prosecuted for corruption--for ethics violations. 

Also, if you are an honest politician accountable for appointments, then it is unlikely that you will appoint a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the right way, but has a history of ethical issues, over a prosecutor who puts on his shoes the wrong way but is known for his integrity. You appoint the former and his bad behavior will eventually blow back on you. 

Sometimes, of course, the politicians are corrupt and so they will appoint someone equally corrupt to protect them.  But the response to that situation is not a shoulder shrug and an assertion that "we will always find something about people we don't like."  The point is to define standards and uphold them.

Appointing people to public office is not (or should not be) as random as you imply here.  

Sure it's much deeper than what I mentioned, but you didn't give any names of who would be a good fit.
People at his level will always have cases in the past that will cause everyone to question their ethics.

Even Hillary has defended a child molester in her past.
So by standards we are using for Acosta, she's definitely not fit to be a POTUS for the same reasons.

[Dill]

(11-29-2018, 08:27 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I think you'll find your responsible for at least as many closed threads as I.  I've already asked that you stop making this thread about you and me, yet you continue. 

I'm not excusing anything.  Also, your second claim in this quote is laughable untrue. 

Have respect for, not admire.  Unlike those of you who whine about rep, which is why neg rep went away, I could care less about it. 

Ahh, I see.  So when, after years on this and the old board I have brought such insight from my profession to this board I was simply "claiming/begging"?  I suppose you didn't see those posts much like you don't see the posts labeling anyone who disagrees with the poster as a "Trump supporter".  Selective blindness must be very convenient for you when having these types of discussion.

Quite sincerely, if you can't see the basic, inherent, logic in my statements on this matter then you're not worth any time trying to convince you further. 

I'll let you know when that occurs on this board.  So far I've caught Fred making mistakes about his profession, the same cannot be said about me.

Indeed, maybe you'll now return to allowing the thread to be about the actual topic instead of a hamfisted attempt to smear me.

I think I'll find no thread in this forum has ever been shut down because I violated the statute against personal attack.  Both sides don't do it.

You charged into this thread denigrating everyone's intelligence.  When you came to "edify" us all (and I can safely say "us" here--Me, Mike, Dino et al.), YOU made it about you and me and who ever else you are denigrating, and not the thread topic.   You claimed and continue to claim, that others' mental deficiencies explain their refusal to accept your unsupported claims or "impressions" as I would call them. But when personal attack suddenly becomes a liability, you want to flip the script.  By addressing the unsoundness of your arguments--as you invited me to do--I am now somehow "belittling" them and "smearing" you. 
 
It doesn't stop there. You make of point of claiming authority and then complaining that doesn't get respect on this thread. When I suggest respect might increase if you stopped the unnecessary personal insults, you momentarily decide you "couldn't care less about rep." Sure. Then, as the guy who doesn't care about rep, you remind me (us?) how great you were on the old board, etc. (Along the way impulsively throwing out an unsupported claim about some "convenient" selective blindness.)  

You claim your impressions have some "basic, inherent logic" which you cannot explain but people just ought to "see" and accept, and it's their fault if they don't; yet you deny this demand for uncritical acceptance is any kind of special pleading or begging--"begging" as in "begging the question," a type of logical fallacy, often deployed, as in your posts, with another fallacy, the "argument from authority."  You have time to insult, but not to explain. (Perhaps you weren't begging claims rather than proving them on the old board, thus providing all that insight which I missed. But that is hardly a defense against begging claims here. And when that is "obvious" to me, but not you, I do I take the time to explain.)

There is no "logic" which does not operate upon premises and conclusions, and which does not involve deductive or inductive inference; and no real argument whose parts cannot be separated out and examined for structure, validity, soundness, hidden assumptions. Premises can be self-evident, but by definition arguments cannot be.  That's why it is illogical to present an argument as self evident and then unethical to defend that claimed self-evidence via character attack. Demonstrating such failures in an argument is not "smearing" their author; claiming it is erases the distinction between rational critique of an object, an argument, and personal attack on a subject--ad hominem.

You argue for the self evidence of fallacious arguments, and when their components are broken down and questioned, you do not address the arguments but attack the personal qualities of the questioner. Then when the ad hominem is pointed out, you want to flip the script, appealing to the standards you have just violated. You made it about "me and you," now, suddenly, it shouldn't be. Bad Dill needs to stop doing that.

The pattern described above is a continual re-positioning, a flipping the script, a violating of standards (logical and ethical) and then accusing others of doing what you were just flagged for.   I could do a search of one word, say "hyperbole" or "hypocrite," and demonstrate how this re-positioning/flipping works in your posts across a number of threads.  It is a form of projection (your superpower, remember?) but deployed ad hoc; one moment it feels good to go low; another moment if feels good to go high and accuse someone else of going low.  

So if you are serious about contributing something to this thread which is not about "me and you," then I suggest you get back to those elements of your argument which I have singled out as deficient.  Either explain why your argument from authority in this case does not commit the fallacy of appeal to authority, or support your conclusions in a more tentative mode which respects other posters, and with something that can count as evidence--i.e. not something in the form of "I just know," and without mentioning any other poster's mental deficiencies.   

This is more work than a serious of quips, but taking this high road, now and in the future, would raise the level of your arguments. If you are curious as to what arguments from authority, following classical logic, can or cannot "logically" support, I can provide that information. Then you can yourself test how they might apply to your case.

[Dill]

(11-30-2018, 04:45 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Sure it's much deeper than what I mentioned, but you didn't give any names of who would be a good fit.
People at his level will always have cases in the past that will cause everyone to question their ethics.

Even Hillary has defended a child molester in her past.
So by standards we are using for Acosta, she's definitely not fit to be a POTUS for the same reasons.

Well, no, Mike, the Hillary analogy doesn't work here.  Remember that in our court system, all accused have a right to a lawyer. in the case you reference, Hillary was a court-appointed lawyer. I.e., she was appointed and did her duty. Nothing unethical at all.

Don't confuse her with Fox Hillary, who chose the case, accused the victim of fantasizing about older men, knew the rapist was guilty, got him off, and laughed about that outcome. Then she went on to engage in child sex trafficking herself out of a pizza parlor on Capitol Hill. That Hillary would be unfit to be POTUS. 

I actually think few people at the level of real Hillary have child sex trafficking issues in their past.

Also, I don't know who would be a good fit for a prosecutor in ANY district in which I do not live.

[Belsnickel]

Apparently, so does his acting AG.

Quote:Months after joining the advisory board of a Miami-based patent company in 2014, Matthew G. Whitaker began fielding angry complaints from customers that they were being defrauded, including from a client who showed up at his Iowa office to appeal to him personally for help, records show.

Yet Whitaker, now the acting attorney general, remained an active champion of World Patent Marketing for three years — even expressing willingness to star in national television ads promoting the firm, the records show.

Internal Federal Trade Commission documents released Friday in response to a public records request reveal the extent of Whitaker’s support for World Patent Marketing, even amid a barrage of warnings about the company’s behavior.

The FTC eventually filed a complaint against World Patent Marketing, accusing it of cheating customers and falsely promising that it would help them patent and profit from their inventions, according to court filings. Some clients lost their life savings, the agency alleged.

In May of this year, a federal court in Florida ordered World Patent Marketing to pay a settlement of more than $25 million and close up shop, records show. The company did not admit or deny wrongdoing.

Whitaker, a former U.S. attorney, did little to assist the investigation. When the FTC subpoenaed for his records, he missed the deadline to reply. In a voice mail responding to two follow-up calls from investigators, Whitaker said he was happy to cooperate and stressed an important role he had just assumed in Washington.

[Dill]

(11-30-2018, 08:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Apparently, so does his acting AG.

Is that "baggage" or a SOLID RESUME in Trump world?

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(11-30-2018, 07:13 PM)Dill Wrote: I think I'll find no thread in this forum has ever been shut down because I violated the statute against personal attack.  Both sides don't do it.

You charged into this thread denigrating everyone's intelligence.  When you came to "edify" us all (and I can safely say "us" here--Me, Mike, Dino et al.), YOU made it about you and me and who ever else you are denigrating, and not the thread topic.   You claimed and continue to claim, that others' mental deficiencies explain their refusal to accept your unsupported claims or "impressions" as I would call them. But when personal attack suddenly becomes a liability, you want to flip the script.  By addressing the unsoundness of your arguments--as you invited me to do--I am now somehow "belittling" them and "smearing" you. 
 
It doesn't stop there. You make of point of claiming authority and then complaining that doesn't get respect on this thread. When I suggest respect might increase if you stopped the unnecessary personal insults, you momentarily decide you "couldn't care less about rep." Sure. Then, as the guy who doesn't care about rep, you remind me (us?) how great you were on the old board, etc. (Along the way impulsively throwing out an unsupported claim about some "convenient" selective blindness.)  

You claim your impressions have some "basic, inherent logic" which you cannot explain but people just ought to "see" and accept, and it's their fault if they don't; yet you deny this demand for uncritical acceptance is any kind of special pleading or begging--"begging" as in "begging the question," a type of logical fallacy, often deployed, as in your posts, with another fallacy, the "argument from authority."  You have time to insult, but not to explain. (Perhaps you weren't begging claims rather than proving them on the old board, thus providing all that insight which I missed. But that is hardly a defense against begging claims here. And when that is "obvious" to me, but not you, I do I take the time to explain.)

There is no "logic" which does not operate upon premises and conclusions, and which does not involve deductive or inductive inference; and no real argument whose parts cannot be separated out and examined for structure, validity, soundness, hidden assumptions. Premises can be self-evident, but by definition arguments cannot be.  That's why it is illogical to present an argument as self evident and then unethical to defend that claimed self-evidence via character attack. Demonstrating such failures in an argument is not "smearing" their author; claiming it is erases the distinction between rational critique of an object, an argument, and personal attack on a subject--ad hominem.

You argue for the self evidence of fallacious arguments, and when their components are broken down and questioned, you do not address the arguments but attack the personal qualities of the questioner. Then when the ad hominem is pointed out, you want to flip the script, appealing to the standards you have just violated. You made it about "me and you," now, suddenly, it shouldn't be. Bad Dill needs to stop doing that.

The pattern described above is a continual re-positioning, a flipping the script, a violating of standards (logical and ethical) and then accusing others of doing what you were just flagged for.   I could do a search of one word, say "hyperbole" or "hypocrite," and demonstrate how this re-positioning/flipping works in your posts across a number of threads.  It is a form of projection (your superpower, remember?) but deployed ad hoc; one moment it feels good to go low; another moment if feels good to go high and accuse someone else of going low.  

So if you are serious about contributing something to this thread which is not about "me and you," then I suggest you get back to those elements of your argument which I have singled out as deficient.  Either explain why your argument from authority in this case does not commit the fallacy of appeal to authority, or support your conclusions in a more tentative mode which respects other posters, and with something that can count as evidence--i.e. not something in the form of "I just know," and without mentioning any other poster's mental deficiencies.   

This is more work than a serious of quips, but taking this high road, now and in the future, would raise the level of your arguments. If you are curious as to what arguments from authority, following classical logic, can or cannot "logically" support, I can provide that information. Then you can yourself test how they might apply to your case.

TL;DR

[Dill]

(12-01-2018, 12:04 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: TL;DR

LOL you read enough. Game over.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(12-01-2018, 01:09 AM)Dill Wrote: LOL you read enough. Game over.

TL;DR

Smarmy

[Mike M (the other one)]

(11-30-2018, 07:52 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, no, Mike, the Hillary analogy doesn't work here.  Remember that in our court system, all accused have a right to a lawyer. in the case you reference, Hillary was a court-appointed lawyer. I.e., she was appointed and did her duty. Nothing unethical at all.

Pretty sure Court-appointed Lawyers have the right to Withdraw.

[GMDino]

(12-03-2018, 04:28 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Pretty sure Court-appointed Lawyers have the right to Withdraw.

Well, if you reread this thread there seems to be some defense of Acosta that he had no choice since he has superiors.

[Mike M (the other one)]

(12-03-2018, 04:36 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, if you reread this thread there seems to be some defense of Acosta that he had no choice since he has superiors.  

Yes, I'm glad you're getting it finally, his superiors had a big role in this case.

But it was also said he should have removed himself from the case and not done as directed by his superiors.

My point is that Hillary could have requested to be withdrawn from as well, but didn't so it's still an ethical dilemma.

My point is everyone has some thing in their past that they might regret or could have handled differently.

One Case/action shouldn't define a person's entire career should it?

[GMDino]

(12-03-2018, 05:09 PM)Mike M (the other one) Wrote: Yes, I'm glad you're getting it finally, his superiors had a big role in this case.

But it was also said he should have removed himself from the case and not done as directed by his superiors.

My point is that Hillary could have requested to be withdrawn from as well, but didn't so it's still an ethical dilemma.

My point is everyone has some thing in their past that they might regret or could have handled differently.

One Case/action shouldn't define a person's entire career should it?

I "got that" all along...and it didn't change my doubts about him nor the baggage he brings.

But I also "got" that somehow it's now about Hillary who is not in office/

Weird.

Also weird that "everyone" in the every admin doesn't have this kind of baggage.