Kyle Rittenhouse Trial

[Dill]

(11-15-2021, 12:37 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: No, your points were refuted with facts and were blatantly false, as I explained.  If you choose to deliberately state falsehoods about obvious facts and I point that out, that is not a personal attack, it's stating a fact.  Easy solution, don't promote deliberate falsehoods and I won't call you out on them.

Pointing out that your are promoting false information is not a personal attack.  If you call out Trump for promoting the "stolen election" trope is that a personal attack on Trump?  No, it's a statement of fact.  Your falsehoods are no less obvious, and your protestations to the contrary are no less inaccurate.  Live with the consequences of your own words and stop whining about being correctly called out on them.

Agreed--pointing out "falsehoods" is not personal attack. (Though just calling statements such does not establish they are.)

But accusing people of "deliberate" falsehood IS personal attack. 

Such attacks on character are not about "information"; they don't refute facts. They inferences operating as value judgments; they don't accomplish any factual or logical refutation. All the more so when aimed at reasonable objections to a questionable interpretation of the facts of a legal case. 

Here is how you demonstrate a falsehood.

1. Quote the statement in question, don't paraphrase or offer an impression: I have taken great pains to avoid making things personal, you have not.  Note that this makes two claims, each to be refuted by different means. Double and complementary falsehoods.

2. Refute the first one with an actual quote, or two, citing the post: #151 The underlined is the epitome of a bad faith statement. . . I take it back, this is the actual epitome of a bad faith statement. * These accusations of dishonesy, and many other statements which could be similarly adduced, enact rather than "avoid" personal attack. 

3. In the second case, ABSENCE of evidence refutes the point. Note the absence and leave it to the claimant to supply it. If he cannot/does not, your refutation stands.

4. If you wish, you may open the question of why someone would accuse you, without evidence, of doing what he is doing. But the evidence and demonstration are enough to settle the question of TRUE or FALSE.  Other readers will understand what's up if your opponent continues to accuse you of "deliberate falsehood," but finds demonstration boring.  

A number of your statements about the Rittenhouse case are inflated, inaccurate, and open to challenge. Not just the hyperbolic "mob" chasing R when he killed Rosenbaum.  They don't suggest you are all about "what's factual and fair," anymore than your comments about me suggest you have taken great pains to avoid making things personal. 

*It helps in this case that the "bad faith statements" are reasonable interpretations of the evidence given, i.e., questioning whether R would assume gunshot heard from 40 yards away was IMMEDIATELY behind him, connected to the unarmed Rosenbaum.  One has to be pretty excited to, on such bases, call my position on this thread "horribly biased, and in a frightening and apparently intentional way."