08-14-2020, 05:29 PM
(08-14-2020, 02:23 PM)Dill Wrote: The military experience of Nagl and Yingling does suggest they know something about the relationship between military service and the Constitution. Many will take more note of a career officers view of duty than the the view of someone who has never served, though that experience is not offered as "proof" of anything. I mention that they are veterans so people will have at least some background on the authors of the letter.
Got it. So when the presenter of an argument is someone you agree with, their expertise is important and relevant. When the presenter of an argument is someone you don't like or agree with, e.g. me when law enforcement or firearms related topics are discussed, then their expertise is ignored or ridicules. I'll give you this, your inconsistency is certainly consistent.
Quote:I suppose everyone is entitled to an "opinion." The Ex military officers here, though, are seeking to persuade a serving officer, i.e., presenting an "argument." That means they establish grounds Milley should have in common with them, namely an understanding of duties assigned under the Constitution, and then logically deduce what his behavior should be, should certain circumstances arise which conflict the chain of command.
Cool, so my original point stand, if Trump can produce more military personnel who disagree with this assessment does that mean he's "won" this argument?
Quote:This is different from just guessing or floating an impression. The more "logical" the form of their argument, the less "subjective opinion" involved. That form, the consistency of deduction from grounds, are what give their letter weight. Any challenge or refutation to their letter should then address their grounds and the consistency of their deduction. Not consign them to opinion land, where logic is ignored and every argument is a "tie."
I've noticed that "logic" in your arguments tends to be what you agree with. That being the case you'll forgive my skepticism in this regard.
Quote:The "Democratic mayors of Chicago, Portland and Seattle" have not taken an oath to the Constitution
Wait, these office holders do not take an oath of office?
Quote:nor are they a part of military chain of command, nor do their "violations of oath," if such there be, constitute abuse of power at the highest level with consequences for the entirety of US democracy. So long as we DO have such abuse of power at the highest level, and I see that as a national priority, then you are correct, I'll not be posting any thread on the mayors soon. Maybe after the presidential election. But if you think their "violations" are less up for debate and more consequential than Trump's, then you start a thread on the topic, and if you can articulate a reasonable case, I'll join you.
So, like our other friend, you're fine with abuse of power as long as it does not directly affect you. The solipsism is apparently contagious.
Quote:If you still claim to see "confirmation bias" somewhere in my posts , then now is probably the time to show where, specifically, and how, if you want anyone to take the charge seriously. Another possible contribution would be to establish some abuse of mayorial power corresponding to Trump's, and then argue why discussing that should have priority over discussing presidential abuse. You'll have to be more definitive, though, than just "seeing it in the news."
Alternatively, I could correctly point out that your perception of the strength or logic of an argument is directly proportional to how much you agree with it, hence the allegation of confirmation bias.
As stated in my first post, the entire premise of this thread is flawed. You base the argument on expertise, to which I responded that would a larger number of such experts in favor of Trump not therefore negate this argument? Or, possibly, would it not be better to rely on the inherent strength of their argument without putting much reliance on the "expertise?" As stated before your appreciation of expertise seems to fluctuate wildly based on factors already mentioned.
