Louisiana ‘Blue Lives Matter’ law: How big a shift in police brutality debate?

[vy65]

I means the latin literally translates to reduce to absurdity.

Reduction as in distillation. Reductio means bringing to a point of absurdity. It doesn't mean reducing as in paraphrasing or misrepresenting, which is how it seems you're using it.

You don't seem to get it.

Edit: this is exactly how you're using it. RAA has nothing to do with simplifying or "reducing" a complex issue to the exclusion of nuance. A classical RAA argument is: 1) the world cannot be flat because 2) if it were, people would fall off the edge, and 3) people don't fall off the edge of the earth. That's got nothing to do with how you use it.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

None of which is what you originally said. The Latin literally translates to argue to absurdity, as you posted. It's the tactic of taking arguments to their "logical" conclusions to show an absurd result -- to show the argument is incorrect. Again, not what you said. Quoting wiki isn't going to cover up your boo-boo, no matter how much you say counselor crayola.

Well myself and wikipedia disagree with you. False, untenable, or absurd is what it is. The argument I said was reductio ad absurdum was indeed reductio ad absurdum. Just because I didn't give the formal definition doesn't mean that my explanation was wrong.

The definition does require the singular reason to discredit the entire argument as I said. If you would like to demonstrate how my defintion was mutually exclusive with wiki's then great. All you do is assert your claim and wave your hands at your conclusion like the typical mouthbreather.

I call you Counselor Crayola because if you are indeed a lawyer you suck at logical argumentation; I picture you writing your briefs out in crayon. I don't just ad hominem gratuitously nor do I base my arguments off of it.

[vy65]

Well myself and wikipedia disagree with you. False, untenable, or absurd is what it is. The argument I said was reductio ad absurdum was indeed reductio ad absurdum. Just because I didn't give the formal definition doesn't mean that my explanation was wrong.

The definition does require the singular reason to discredit the entire argument as I said. If you would like to demonstrate how my defintion was mutually exclusive with wiki's then great. All you do is assert your claim and wave your hands at your conclusion like the typical mouthbreather.

I call you Counselor Crayola because if you are indeed a lawyer you suck at logical argumentation; I picture you writing your briefs out in crayon. I don't just ad hominem gratuitously nor do I base my arguments off of it.

No, Wikipedia disagrees with you too. See above.

Thanks for the explanation of ad hom. No one, including me, cares.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

No, Wikipedia disagrees with you too. See above.

Thanks for the explanation of ad hom. No one, including me, cares.

Actually the fact that it require the singular basis in fact does mean that. The moment that you add addition arguments it stops being reductio ad absurdum by definition. Logical extensions are tough for simpletons.

What are you reducing elsewise? They just throw in the verb for fun?

[vy65]

Actually the fact that it require the singular basis in fact does mean that. What are you reducing elsewise? They just throw in the verb for fun?

The explanation you gave is not the definition given by wiki. Nor is it the classical definition of RAA. You used it to mean "over simplification." That's not what a reductio ad absurdum means no matter now many times you say "actually, it requires a singular basis in fact." Reduction means "taken to a logical conclusion," not as you understand it, which is to make more basic.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The explanation you gave is not the definition given by wiki. Nor is it the classical definition of RAA. You used it to mean "over simplification." That's not what a reductio ad absurdum means no matter now many times you say "actually, it requires a singular basis in fact." Reduction means "taken to a logical conclusion," not as you understand it, which is to make more basic.

Again just because it wasn't same thing doesn't make them inequitable. It just follows some logical conclusions.

We'll distill it down to some questions that I am sure you will ignore:

Does the fallacy require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not?

Plus words have many meanings often arising from one another. My understanding and your definition are not mutually exclusive, Crayola.

I mean youre not even arguing the SR's argument isn't RAA. Your just quibbling about my understanding desperate to win a single point like a moron. Good job of fixating on a tree.

[vy65]

Again just because it wasn't same thing doesn't make them inequitable. It just follows some logical conclusions.

We'll distill it down to some questions that I am sure you will ignore:

Does the fallacy require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not?

Plus words have many meanings often arising from one another. My understanding and your definition are not mutually exclusive, Crayola.

I mean youre not even arguing the SR's argument isn't RAA. Your just quibbling about my understanding desperate to win a single point like a moron. Good job of fixating on a tree.

If you want to characterize what you said as compatible with the correct definition, go for it. The simple fact is "RAA" doesn't mean oversimplify, which is how you used it. The correct definition is something different.

You're very quick to drop Latin phrases which, apparently, you don't understand. I found that noteworthy. I'm not required to have an opinion on what spurraider said to point out your misuse of basic terms.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you want to characterize what you said as compatible with the correct definition, go for it. The simple fact is "RAA" doesn't mean oversimplify, which is how you used it. The correct definition is something different.

You're very quick to drop Latin phrases which, apparently, you don't understand. I found that noteworthy. I'm not required to have an opinion on what spurraider said to point out your misuse of basic terms.

I never said it meant oversimplify. yo strawman, clown. And again the two notions are not incompatible. Youre too hidebound in your thinking and struggle with logical extensions.

I was very clear about it requiring the singular simple argument to discredit an entire argument.

And I get that you really want to show me that I'm not as smart as I think I am. My schtick draws your type like flies. At the end of the day I applied the term to the correct form of argument.

[DarrinS]

yo strawman, clown.

[vy65]

I never said it meant oversimplify. yo strawman, clown. And again the two notions are not incompatible. Youre too hidebound in your thinking and struggle with logical extensions.

Reductio ad absurdum means you try and reduce it down to a singular simple thing in an attempt to discredit the entire argument when the issue is far more complicated.

I see.

I was very clear about it requiring the singular simple argument to discredit an entire argument.

That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. It means taking an argument to its logical conclusion, getting an absurd result, and concluding that the argument is therefore invalid. If that's what you mean by "singular simple argument," great. Next time, use the appropriate words so as to not look like a clown.

And I get that you really want to show me that I'm not as smart as I think I am. My schtick draws your type like flies. At the end of the day I applied the term to the correct form of argument.

The comparison of your schtick to is apt.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see.



That's not what reductio ad absurdum means. It means taking an argument to its logical conclusion, getting an absurd result, and concluding that the argument is therefore invalid. If that's what you mean by "singular simple argument," great. Next time, use the appropriate words so as to not look like a clown.



The comparison of your schtick to is apt.

Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumb , Crayola?

[vy65]

Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumb , Crayola?

The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The simplest explanation is the best explanation. The simplest explanation here is that you don't know what reductio ad absurdum is since you didn't give the proper definition. Screaming and waving your hands won't cover that up. Maybe you should pay more attention to your wiki reading next time.

Occam's razor is an excuse for the intellectually lazy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates the falsity of it completely. My explanation was simpler than the two part wiki definition much less the one using formal logic so even by your own standard youre wrong. You can say that it isn't complete but what your not able to do is exclude it. You suck at deduction. Most people do but youre supposed to be a lawyer, Counselor Crayola.

and parroting my own argument back and not being able to make your own.

[vy65]

Occam's razor is an excuse for the intellectually lazy. Quantum mechanics demonstrates the falsity of it completely. My explanation was simpler than the two part wiki definition much less the one using formal logic so even by your own standard youre wrong. You can say that it isn't complete but what your not able to do is exclude it. You suck at deduction. Most people do but youre supposed to be a lawyer, Counselor Crayola.

and parroting my own argument back and not being able to make your own.

Totally not surprised that the guy who can't correctly define modes of argument (despite being the wiki guru) would glibly through out like quantum physics. Intellectually lazy indeed.

[vy65]

Quick show of hands: who here trusts the guy who can't properly comprehend what he read on reason-wiki to lecture us on quantum physics?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Totally not surprised that the guy who can't correctly define modes of argument (despite being the wiki guru) would glibly through out like quantum physics. Intellectually lazy indeed.

Occam's razor is what it is.

simpler theories are preferable to more complex ones because they are more testable.

Youre being a hidebound simpleton again. And thanks for that circular stupidity. Are you now arguing that what I identified as RAA was not in fact RAA now? Before you begged off saying you had no comment. We both know it would kill you to say I'm right.

The argument about quantum mechanics doesn't require me to explain QM unless you dispute that QM is more complex than the Newtonian approach or other simpler paradigms anyway.

[vy65]

Occam's razor is what it is.

Youre being a hidebound simpleton again. And thanks for that circular stupidity. Are you now arguing that what I identified as RAA was not in fact RAA now? Before you begged off saying you had no comment. We both know it would kill you to say I'm right.

The argument about quantum mechanics doesn't require me to explain QM unless you dispute that QM is more complex than the Newtonian approach or other simpler paradigms anyway.

I can't be any clearer in saying this: you've demonstrated, in this thread, that you have no idea what you're bloviating about. But please, go on and educate us on quantum theory ...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can't be any clearer in saying this: you've demonstrated, in this thread, that you have no idea what you're bloviating about. But please, go on and educate us on quantum theory ...

Does it require a singular reason to discredit an entire argument or not? Was the argument I called RAA actually RAA?

Since we both know it does and it was, you can go and off now.

Is that what you do in your briefs? Just assert what you want and then not cite any logic or relevant case law like a dumb , Crayola?

[Winehole23]

The number of people who die while being arrested by a Texas law-enforcement officer nearly doubled between 2005 and 2015, according to data compiled by the Dallas Morning News, with police shootings accounting for nearly all of the increase. For context, the total number of arrests over the same period declined by 20 percent, so not only are more people being shot, more are being shot per police encounter. An extraordinarily pregnant Brandi Grissom reported that:

More than half of the deaths from 2005 to 2015, 511 cases, were considered justifiable homicides, instances in which police used deadly force on a suspect because they feared for their own lives or the lives of others. And those numbers have been rising, from 32 justifiable homicides in 2005, to 61 in 2014 and 54 last year.

The bottom DMN graphic at right depicts the leading causes of deaths in police custody, with a significant e in deaths that agencies reported as "justifiable homicides." (The other leading death causes: "In 126 incidents between 2005 and 2015, suspects police encountered took their own lives. Another 121 of the deaths were attributed to drug and alcohol overdoses.")

Asked to explain the rise in shootings during a period when overall arrests steeply declined, our pal Charley Wilkison, lobbyist for the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, offered an absurd analysis:

Charley Wilkison, executive director of the Combined Law Enforcement Associations of Texas, attributed the rise in violent confrontations largely to increasingly aggressive suspects who refuse to cooperate with officers.

Officers are “facing a new kind of lawlessness,” he said, “a sense that police are not necessarily on the side of the public that’s being broadcast far and wide.”

The only problem with Charley's analysis is its utter falsity. Far from a "new kind of lawlessness," crime in America has declined overall since 2005 and police are safer on the job today than they've been in many decades. The folks who collect your garbage are much more likely to die on the job. Indeed, the recent tragedy in Dallas makes it easy to forget that most on-the-job police deathsstem from traffic accidents, exacerbated by an officer culture that disdains seat belt use.

http://gritsforbreakfast.blogspot.co...xans-shot.html

[russellgoat]

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice...utality-debate

As if LEOBoR wasn't enough. Police unions need to be busted.

For a refresher:



http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/1...-enforcement-m

Why do we need hate crime laws anyway? Not even death penalty have a significant impact on stopping people from committing crimes, so I doubt this help.