Mandatory Sentencing
-
You do realize that people get sentenced in the absence of mandatory sentencing, right? And that's why your cheap personal attack only makes you look dim?
Cal will like it though. Congrats.
PS - This? "But I understand your position. you are more angry that heroin dealers get 1 president terms then you are about child killers be released." Is a nice example of this.
You are a fucking machine.
You do realize that people get sentenced in the absence of mandatory sentencing, right? And that's why your cheap personal attack only makes you look dim?
Cal will like it though. Congrats.
PS - This? "But I understand your position. you are more angry that heroin dealers get 1 president terms then you are about child killers be released." Is a nice example of this.
You are a fucking machine.
Perhaps Bill is in a state of suspended animation neither technically dead or alive. Far out.
-
You do realize that people get sentenced in the absence of mandatory sentencing, right? And that's why your cheap personal attack only makes you look dim?
Cal will like it though. Congrats.
PS - This? "But I understand your position. you are more angry that heroin dealers get 1 president terms then you are about child killers be released." Is a nice example of this.
You are a fucking machine.
Perhaps Bill is in a state of suspended animation neither technically dead or alive. Far out.
Perhaps Bill is in a state of suspended animation neither technically dead or alive. Far out.
Like Terri Schiavo.
-
You do realize that people get sentenced in the absence of mandatory sentencing, right? And that's why your cheap personal attack only makes you look dim?
Cal will like it though. Congrats.
PS - This? "But I understand your position. you are more angry that heroin dealers get 1 president terms then you are about child killers be released." Is a nice example of this.
You are a fucking machine.
Perhaps Bill is in a state of suspended animation neither technically dead or alive. Far out.
Perhaps Bill is in a state of suspended animation neither technically dead or alive. Far out.
Bill?
WSS
-
Perhaps Bill is in a state of suspended animation neither technically dead or alive. Far out.
Bill?
WSS
Bill?
WSS
Heck's logical fallacy link
-
Oh, dear God. That's not an example of an ad hominem attack. But I guess the guy who includes a logical fallacy in just about every post wouldn't know one when he sees one.
Go back and find any the dozens of "Of course you would say that because you're an Obama bootlicker" posts.
There. That's the ad hominem fallacy.
Someone who takes every thread about the legal system and brings it back to a bitch about trial lawyers and liberal judges; who takes every every discussion about voting rights and takes it back to illiterate blacks on welfare, food stamp, and drugs; who takes every thread about global warming and brings it back to Al Gore; who took a thread about income inequality and suggested liberals want everyone to make the same amount of money, and I could go on ...yes, this is garden variety Republican crankery.
Oh, dear God. That's not an example of an ad hominem attack. But I guess the guy who includes a logical fallacy in just about every post wouldn't know one when he sees one.
Go back and find any the dozens of "Of course you would say that because you're an Obama bootlicker" posts.
There. That's the ad hominem fallacy.
Someone who takes every thread about the legal system and brings it back to a bitch about trial lawyers and liberal judges; who takes every every discussion about voting rights and takes it back to illiterate blacks on welfare, food stamp, and drugs; who takes every thread about global warming and brings it back to Al Gore; who took a thread about income inequality and suggested liberals want everyone to make the same amount of money, and I could go on ...yes, this is garden variety Republican crankery.
So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack.
So your constant attacks on me being Oh, dim or unsuccessful or a Republican crank or any of the other dozens of nice things you have to say most certainly fall into that category.
And unfortunately the example went over your head, remember the arrogant d******* remark?
Now do you understand?
But I understand it's part of your shtick to be arrogant condescending not only to me but most others.
As far as mandatory sentences Cal is completely right.
It did grow out of the misdeeds of many of your liberal judges.
It occurs to me that a common thread among many conservative shows is pointing out cases of liberal judges letting child molesters out early only to rape and kill again.
So as a society we were forced to institute minimum sentencing. Most people think drugs are a more serious problem than I do. Oh well.
I won't go so far as to say you support that but it is pretty obvious the first time its moved to you to make a post is when a heroin dealer gets a stiffer settings than you think he deserved.
I have yet to hear you speak of those actually innocent people victimized by violent criminals who were let out early at the discretion of the court.
WSS
-
Geez. And you wonder why you never made it big. heckbunker
*********************************************************
I thought you were "mr know-it-all", heckbunker. You're the arrogant twit who always disregards people
you pretend that you can't have "serious conversations with". And yet, you resort to the crap that
the worst on this board, historically, resort to. That is, resorting to twisted, immature bouts of pouting,
unjustified "offense", and cya all over the place.
What, you would like to bite Steve's ear or something?
Or, just throw a rock when we aren't looking? So much for "mr know it all". More like "mr bs it all"
You can't win, you apparently are unable to justify your arrogance, so you go pouty-pouty mode?
Yeesh. You are serious, too.
-
Heck, didn't you get a degree in poli sci or something like that?
-
Yes. One in government and one in economics. But those don't really teach you all that much.
-
And no, Steve, you're not using it correctly. All personal attacks are not ad hominem attacks. Disputing someone's point by substituting a personal attack for a logical refutation is an ad hominem attack. My saying you're a garden variety Republican crank is separate point I'm making based on the evidence I listed in the post - your history of steering every discussion to the same lame Republican boogeymen. So, while it may be a personal attack, it's not an example of the ad hominem fallacy.
And what you're doing here is the fallacy of the false choice, where you suggest that since I'm not for mandatory sentencing, especially out of control mandatory sentencing, as was the point of this thread, I must not be for sentencing people who murder and rape at all, or for doing it very lightly. Nor must I care for innocent victims of murder and rape.
I mean, come on.
-
-
Not bullshit at all:
"A personal attack is committed when a person substitutes abusive remarks for evidence when attacking another person's claim or claims. This line of "reasoning" is fallacious because the attack is directed at the person making the claim and not the claim itself. The truth value of a claim is independent of the person making the claim. After all, no matter how repugnant an individual might be, he or she can still make true claims.
Not all ad Hominems are fallacious. In some cases, an individual's characteristics can have a bearing on the question of the veracity of her claims. For example, if someone is shown to be a pathological liar, then what he says can be considered to be unreliable. However, such attacks are weak, since even pathological liars might speak the truth on occasion."
-
As I explained earlier, my opinion is that you're a garden variety Republican crank.
Now, I don't know which personal attack of yours you'd like me to respond to, but feel free to let me know so I can give it the due is so obviously deserves. Maybe it's the one about how I don't care when innocent people get raped or murdered because I don't think mandatory sentences set by politicians are such a good idea. Yes, what a point that was. That shouldn't subject you to derision at all.
Mandatory sentencing often results in grave injustices and long, costly sentences that aren't merited by the facts of the case, where a judge and jury could much better weigh the evidence in the case and sentence more accordingly, like in the case pointed out in the article.
This also goes back to what is traditionally a conservative idea - that policy makers must always be aware of the unintended consequences of their legislation. You may be creating bigger problems than you set out to solve. As with, in my opinion, mandatory sentencing.
-
More bullshit.
I never said all ad hominem attacks were fallacious. You said that to change the subject. I said you made those attacks toward me and you did. Now for gods sake stop tap dancing.
You were wrong, don't worry, woody will still love you.
I gave my opinion that mandatory sentences could probably stop a lot of violent repeat crimes.
And they exist because it too often liberal judges have preferred your ideology over public safety.
And one more time since you're such a fan of prevention maybe knowing there's an exorbitant consequence to committing a particular crime would make someone think twice before they committed one blithely.
Yes, as I said and you seem to have ignored, I think the drug laws are terrible.
Those who decide to break them are taking a big risk.
But rather to take up that particular issue you decided, as usual, to go down your little condescending dirt road of insults.
WSS
-
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
-
Yes. One in government and one in economics. But those don't really teach you all that much.
Yes. One in government and one in economics. But those don't really teach you all that much.
are you currently in a career where one of those degrees is needed or used?
-
Yeah, they both help, but I wouldn't say I use what I learned in Political Economy of the Pacific Rim all that much, you know? Which isn't to say I didn't think college was useful. It was. But it was more about teaching you how to analyze and process information. Also had a lot of fun.
High school is for giving you the basic tools. College is to give you the ability to interpret the information. And grad school gives you the ability to bore the living shit out of people with it.
Or let's put it this way: one of my government professors was a DC lawyer/lobbyist for many years and had left to go back to teaching. He basically told everyone flat out, "Why bother studying government? If you want to understand government, take economics."
Which is (mostly) true. So that's what I did. I studied public finance and political economy.
-
gotcha
thank you
-
We're back to Heckbunker insisting on idiotic arguments about what the definition of a word is,
to avoid admitting anything bad about ObaMao.
"yawn" He's very boring, you know.
-
Selling opiate Scripts? Doc's can get dinged (fined, or lose their license in extreme cases) for patients that sell prescriptions. And that's when the Doc isn't "in on it"
I'm with Cysko. Let him marinate.
-
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
"So because I unfortunately overestimated your knowledge I went back and looked up ad hominem to make sure I was using it correctly.
Yes indeed attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack."
Nice try. That's you a few hours ago, claiming that you went and checked to make sure you were using it correctly, and then explained the definition of the ad hominem fallacy: "attacking my character instead of responding to what I have to say is certainly an ad hominem attack." And then you said you were using it correctly. Now you're saying you didn't mean the ad hominem fallacy, just personal attacks in general. Even though we're talking about the use of fallacies. And then you accuse me of tap dancing. It's just funny.
Of course what I wrote about you being a crank was a form of personal attack. I am attacking your character. And you're attacking mine. Was there some dispute about that?
Except that I wasn't responding to something you said. I was making an observation about how no matter what the discussion we have you always bring it back to the same Republican tropes. Always. Which is why you're a garden variety Republican crank. You've abandoned what used to make you at least a little bit interesting in order to spend 85% of your time whacking your bugaboos with a stick. It makes for very boring conversation. No matter what the the topic, it always gets back to lazy poor people, trial lawyers, etc.
I'm telling you, man, you use these fallacies all the time. All the time. You even use them when you're in the middle of claiming that you don't use them, like above. And this is boring. We can get back to the subject if you like, or you can keep trying to deny that you do this all the time. I don't care.
I have no problem pointing out how big a crank you've become, nor do I apologize for it. Someone should point it out. In my mind, it's a completely accurate description. And if you don't believe me, stack all of your posts in a document and read through them. Really. You always, always want to bring it back to the same bullshit.
Now, about mandatory sentences...
You claim that particular crimes need stiff sentences to deter them. What crimes are you talking about, and which ones don't come with stiff sentences?
What's wrong with sentencing guidelines as opposed to mandatory sentencing? I'm for the former, but think the latter hamstrings the judicial system from being flexible enough when it needs to be flexible, like in this case. No one is talking about letting violent rapists and murders off easy because they had a rough childhood and cried in the courtroom.
To the first part of your bitter rant, just imagine me rolling my eyes and making the jerk off motion with my hand.
To the second part any crime you believe should actually be a crime should carry a penalty.
And why arent guidelines better than mandatory sentencing?
Because, frankly, I don't trust all the judges, do you?
And while there are certainly grey areas I can't really say that on balance you're better off with judicial discretion.
And yes we really are talking about mandatory sentences to keep judges from letting child molesters out because they had what you call a rough childhood.
I think we all understand that many types of perversion have a high rate of recidivicy.
And since we are dealing in anecdotal evidence I'm sure you can find plenty of cases of repeat violent offenders.
Now I know your attention span doesn't allow you much leeway but let me give you this example:
I have a close friend whose daughter in college was busted for downloading songs from one of those share sites.
Yes we all know its illegal but, come on, it's not that big a deal right?
Well, if I recall correctly, the punishment was in the wall part of $3000.
Outrageous? Maybe.
Their attorney said that yes, they could fight it, but it would take a long time and probably cost just as much.
So I'd say that story should make anyone considering doing that a little bit less likely to do it.
Because, fair or not, the only way, or the best way, to avoid outrageous sentences is to refuse to participate in the crime in question.
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login