The Democrat's answer to fraud: Make discovering it illegal!

QP! said:
so politicians words over reading legal tex. Got it. Remember that the next time someone cites politicians words to you and you think the politician is wrong or lying, that your default position is to accept what they say.

As i suspect you will be crying 'appeal to authority fallacy' the minute the politician is cited as correct over the actual words simply because they are a politicians and some are lawyers too.
Click to expand...
Like you're some expert on "legal text." Most US law is as much based on case law as "written text." That debate is one you engage in regularly with Constitutional questions here, like many others do. Your version is rarely, if ever, the only version.
 
QP! said:
so politicians words over reading legal tex. Got it. Remember that the next time someone cites politicians words to you and you think the politician is wrong or lying, that your default position is to accept what they say.

As i suspect you will be crying 'appeal to authority fallacy' the minute the politician is cited as correct over the actual words simply because they are a politicians and some are lawyers too.
Click to expand...
Lol you're correct. He committed the fallacy.
 
AProudLefty said:
Lol you're correct. He committed the fallacy.
Click to expand...
No, QP is not. As with all US law, it is open to interpretation by the courts once it is passed. So, politicians who are liars... err, lawyers, or relying on lawyers to interpret that legislation are commenting on potential outcomes from it. As written, that law would have lots of latitude, as the politicians in the video I linked point out, to charge someone like Nick Shirley for simply showing up at their public place of business as listed on state documents, and asking questions, or even potentially just photographing it.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Like you're some expert on "legal text." Most US law is as much based on case law as "written text." That debate is one you engage in regularly with Constitutional questions here, like many others do. Your version is rarely, if ever, the only version.
Click to expand...
so again, you will refuse to cry 'appeal to authority fallacy' if i or any one else cites a politician as the authority over 'legal text' even over an plain reading that says something else.

You will just refuse because 'you are not an expert on legal text' and the politician is just to be believed and accepted as the authority.

I just want you to agree to the standard you are creating so we can stop your usual improper fallacy use in the future.

Do you agree so i can pin and keep this post for future citing?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
No, QP is not. As with all US law, it is open to interpretation by the courts once it is passed. So, politicians who are liars... err, lawyers, or relying on lawyers to interpret that legislation are commenting on potential outcomes from it. As written, that law would have lots of latitude, as the politicians in the video I linked point out, to charge someone like Nick Shirley for simply showing up at their public place of business as listed on state documents, and asking questions, or even potentially just photographing it.
Click to expand...
Well you rely on what some people say about the bill instead of reading it. That's an appeal to authority fallacy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
QP! said:
so again, you will refuse to cry 'appeal to authority fallacy' if i or any one else cites a politician as the authority over 'legal text' even over an plain reading that says something else.

You will just refuse because 'you are not an expert on legal text' and the politician is just to be believed and accepted as the authority.

I just want you to agree to the standard you are creating so we can stop your usual improper fallacy use in the future.

Do you agree so i can pin and keep this post for future citing?
Click to expand...
You, so far, have only foisted your opinion based on part of the legislation as written. I have posted material by those opposed to it who are looking at potential outcomes based on their experiences with the US legal system. I don't have to be a "legal expert" to rely on the opinions of others who are. After all, this legislation hasn't passed as of yet, so there are no actual outcomes I, or anyone else, can point to.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
You, so far, have only foisted your opinion based on part of the legislation as written. I have posted material by those opposed to it who are looking at potential outcomes based on their experiences with the US legal system. I don't have to be a "legal expert" to rely on the opinions of others who are. After all, this legislation hasn't passed as of yet, so there are no actual outcomes I, or anyone else, can point to.
Click to expand...
i have not foisted any such thing so stop lying.

I have read the legislation and what @Poor Richard Saunders has cited from it and what he has cited is correct in any plain reading.

You are saying the plain reading is not to be accepted as we have POLITICIANS some of whom are LAWYERS who say something different than the plain reading and they due to their AUTHORITY are to be believed.

You are expressly citing their AUTHORITY as the reason they are correct and not Richard and doing so in a way you refuse to address the plain reading citations he is providing you when you instead point to the POLITICIANS and say "AUTHORITY... I ACCEPT THEIR AUTHORITY".

And i am not saying you cannot do that. I just want that noted in the future so you do not cry when anyone cites POLITICIANS as AUTHORITY over what can be plainly read or heard.
 
QP! said:
i have not foisted any such thing so stop lying.

I have read the legislation and what @Poor Richard Saunders has cited from it and what he has cited is correct in any plain reading.

You are saying the plain reading is not to be accepted as we have POLITICIANS some of whom are LAWYERS who say something different than the plain reading and they due to their AUTHORITY are to be believed.

You are expressly citing their AUTHORITY as the reason they are correct and not Richard and doing so in a way you refuse to address the plain reading citations he is providing you when you instead point to the POLITICIANS and say "AUTHORITY... I ACCEPT THEIR AUTHORITY".

And i am not saying you cannot do that. I just want that noted in the future so you do not cry when anyone cites POLITICIANS as AUTHORITY over what can be plainly read or heard.
Click to expand...
I disagree completely.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I disagree completely.
Click to expand...
No one cares if you disagree with obvious truths and facts.

Since @Poor Richard Saunders posted and cited the legislation and challenged you to 'cite from it anything that counters what he has quoted from it' your entire response is NOT to refute with text or anything in the legislation countering what he said and instead below to POINT AT POLITICIANS, you then CITE THEM AS AUTHORITY FIGURES and that is the ENTIRE BASIS of your rebuttle.




T. A. Gardner said:
See the video above. Several California legislators spell it out clearly. YOU ARE FUCKING TOTALLY WRONG ON THIS BILL!
Click to expand...

T. A. Gardner said:
And I quoted California legislators, some of whom are lawyers, as to why it does what I claim and why you are full of shit.
Click to expand...

T. A. Gardner said:
The video has California law makers and representatives describing it. I'd say they have considerably more juice than you do as to how the bill will work if passed.
Click to expand...

And i am saying i will accept your entire 'Appeal to Authority" based argument but want to make sure you remove that fallacy from your future use and NEVER cite as wrong for anyone else to use. I am just trying to help you not be a hypocrite in the future. Accept the help.
 
QP! said:
No one cares if you disagree with obvious truths and facts.

Since @Poor Richard Saunders posted and cited the legislation and challenged you to 'cite from it anything that counters what he has quoted from it' your entire response is NOT to refute with text or anything in the legislation countering what he said and instead below to POINT AT POLITICIANS, you then CITE THEM AS AUTHORITY FIGURES and that is the ENTIRE BASIS of your rebuttle.


And i am saying i will accept your entire 'Appeal to Authority" based argument but want to make sure you remove that fallacy from your future use and NEVER cite as wrong for anyone else to use. I am just trying to help you not be a hypocrite in the future. Accept the help.
Click to expand...
I posted up my point of view on this based on the opinions that I linked. You and PRS posted up your personal opinions based on part of the language of the bill.

At this point we aren't going to come so some agreement about it. I see it one way based on my evidence. You see it in another based on your evidence.

Therefore, I completely disagree with your position and you hold the same opinion towards mine. There is no point in further discussion.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I posted up my point of view on this based on the opinions that I linked. You and PRS posted up your personal opinions based on part of the language of the bill.

At this point we aren't going to come so some agreement about it. I see it one way based on my evidence. You see it in another based on your evidence.

Therefore, I completely disagree with your position and you hold the same opinion towards mine. There is no point in further discussion.
Click to expand...
What you DID NOT DO, is cite anything but your view. You DID NOT cite from the legislation ANYTHING to counter what Richard posted.

You basically said 'I accept the AUTHORITY of POLITICIANS and some of them are EVEN LAWYERS and i agree with them', as the entirety of your argument.
 
QP! said:
What you DID NOT DO, is cite anything but your view. You DID NOT cite from the legislation ANYTHING to counter what Richard posted.

You basically said 'I accept the AUTHORITY of POLITICIANS and some of them are EVEN LAWYERS and i agree with them', as the entirety of your argument.
Click to expand...
So you support the criminals, and you want to repeal the 1st amendment and all State constitutions.
 
Poor Richard Saunders said:
The text of the bill points out your lies.

This is the only criminal part of the legislation which you claim would make Nick Shirley's actions illegal. It seems you are claiming Nick Shirley didn't do journalism but instead intended the people he was "reporting" on should be violently attacked.

6218.20.​

(a) (1) A person shall not post on the internet or social media, with the intent that another person imminently use that information to commit a crime involving violence or a threat of violence against a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client, or other individuals residing at the same home address, the personal information or image of a designated health care services patient, provider, or assistant, or other individuals residing at the same home address.
(2) A violation of this subdivision is punishable by a fine of up to ten thousand dollars ($10,000) per violation, imprisonment of either up to one year in a county jail or pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(3) A violation of this subdivision that leads to the bodily injury of a designated immigration support services provider, employee, volunteer, or client, or other individuals residing at the same home address, is a felony punishable by a fine of up to fifty thousand dollars ($50,000), imprisonment pursuant to subdivision (h) of Section 1170 of the Penal Code, or by both that fine and imprisonment.
(b) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under any other provision of law.
Click to expand...
Violates the California State Constitution.

So you want to protect criminals, and discard all State constitutions and the Constitution of the United States.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top