CDZ At what point do you stop giving someone the benefit of the doubt?

[danielpalos]

Pretty straightforward question...Answer by voting in the poll or by offering your own explication.

Until they have nothing but fallacy.

What if the person "comes out of the gate" uttering fallacious lines of argumentation?

They are, full of fallacy?

 

[danielpalos]

I don't trust women who are willing to get used by all of the other ones, but won't make an appointment for full body massage with happy ending and g spot focus work.

 

[waltky]

Uncle Ferd says he'd give ChrisL...

... the benefit o' the doubt.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Uncle Ferd wantin' to know...

... what's paltering?

OT:
Well, it's not sloth.

• Palter -- to act insincerely or deceitfully. Along with the preceding denotation, "palter" carries the connotation of one's making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises.

 

[OldLady]

I remember my first official job, a salesgirl at a 5 and dime, the manager asked us to start watching the customers for shoplifting. He went into the ways people secret stuff out of the store and how to discreetly follow them around and keep an eye on them.
Well, I was 15 and I was basically the same as I am now--give people the benefit of the doubt 'til they prove me wrong and then watch out. I "stalked" customers for about twenty minutes and said to hell with it. It was too depressing.

What is a five and dime?

Is it anything like the "Penny and Tuppence" I worked in as a wee child? I can still remember a customer trying to steal a buggy whip.

All things considered, I gave them the benefit of the doubt.

It was a Neisners, a knock off of Woolworths. Both got killed by KMart, et al. More's the pity. I loved Five and Dimes.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Pretty straightforward question...Answer by voting in the poll or by offering your own explication.

It depends on the person and my relationship to them. Nobody has a hard and fast rule on this. You will give family members or people you inherently trust a longer rope.

You will give family members or people you inherently trust a longer rope.

It is so that I give my immediate family members a longer rope than I give most folks; however, I give them that only because they've earned it, not because they are family members. To be sure, family members, by dint of the closeness of the relationship and frequency of interpersonal interactions, inherently encounter and receive more than do nearly all others opportunities to earn their kin's trust. By the same token, family members also have far more opportunities than others to betray their kin's trust.

If what you meant is that at the outset of a material relationship, family members enjoy degrees of benefit of the doubt that one would not typically give strangers with whom one commences a relationship of some sort, yes, I agree with you. If they "blow it," however, they merely become family members whom I regard as though I were a Missouran.

 

[Natural Citizen]

I remember my first official job, a salesgirl at a 5 and dime, the manager asked us to start watching the customers for shoplifting. He went into the ways people secret stuff out of the store and how to discreetly follow them around and keep an eye on them.
Well, I was 15 and I was basically the same as I am now--give people the benefit of the doubt 'til they prove me wrong and then watch out. I "stalked" customers for about twenty minutes and said to hell with it. It was too depressing.

I haven't heard anybody else except for me say the words 5 and dime in over 40 years. You're showing your age, OldLady. Then again, I suppose I am, too. Ha.

The five and dime. Those were the days.

 

[usmbguest5318]

It was a Neisners, a knock off of Woolworths. Both got killed by KMart, et al. More's the pity. I loved Five and Dimes.

OT:

I just barely remember "five and dimes." What I remember far more clearly are department store restaurants.

Every once in a while, Momma picked us up from school and would meet other ladies there for lunch and she'd take us kids along, sitting us at a table while she and other ladies lunched. The Greenbrier Tea Room at Garfinckel's department store is where we learned that "children are to be seen and not heard," to sit up straight, and to keep our elbows off the table. My siblings and I loved going there because the food was pretty good they had a dessert cart full of amazingly good and good looking treats. So long as we were quiet and well behaved, Momma would let us eat as many desserts as we wanted. She didn't even insist that we eat the regular food. You know there was no confection that we didn't try. LOL​

 

[usmbguest5318]

Pretty straightforward question...Answer by voting in the poll or by offering your own explication.

Until they have nothing but fallacy.

What if the person "comes out of the gate" uttering fallacious lines of argumentation?

They are, full of fallacy?

Okay.

 

[danielpalos]

I no longer take right wingers seriously about Morals, Politics, or the law.

 

[BuckToothMoron]

Pretty straightforward question...Answer by voting in the poll or by offering your own explication.

It depends on the person and my relationship to them. Nobody has a hard and fast rule on this. You will give family members or people you inherently trust a longer rope.

My sister and my niece lie to me more than anyone else on this Earth.

Family are the very worst.

Yep, and if they weren’t family you’d never talk to them again.

 

[ChrisL]

I don't have these problems with my family. I love my family. I must be lucky.

 

[RandomPoster]

I personally draw no line when I am trying to persuade other than to walk away. No one has any obligation to be persuaded by anything I have to say.

When someone is attempting to persuade, I usually draw the line when they attempt to compensate for their weakness of argument by attempting to shift the burden of proof for their own claims or attempt to pass opinion or speculation off as evidence. I myself have argued with primarily opinions, anecdotal observations, and speculation, except I present it as such and make no attempt to pass it off as anything else.

I am also a firm believer in keeping the emotion out of it. When someone gets emotional or attempts to bully, I see it as overcompensation and tend to disregard and they lose any benefit of the doubt with me.

 

[ChrisL]

I can't say that I'm innocent of getting caught up in the moment during an argument. I think anyone who claims they haven't or don't is just as dishonest as a politician. It is a normal part of being a human being that you will have strong emotions when arguing about things you feel strongly about and have strong opinions about.

 

[Circe]

Uncle Ferd wantin' to know...

... what's paltering?

I think it's something Roy Moore was accused of doing 38 years ago.

 

[Circe]

I definitely have no people in my life whom I distrust to the point that I cannot accord them the benefit of the doubt. As for people of whom I know of, rather than knowing personally, well, there're more untrustworthy folks than I can shake a stick at.

I don't know what you mean by "benefit of the doubt." Does that mean you are willing to believe what they say is true, or that you think they are not wholly deceptive and useless, or what?

Suggestion: figure out who is on your side and who is not and be loyal to your side. That's what America is about in this century: it's not about some fantasy like "truth." It's about what side you are fighting on.

 

[Circe]

...when men brag about the size of their penis or their sex lives, it usually means they don't have anything going on, if you know what I mean. Men who have it going on have no need to brag to strangers about it. Don't trust those guys.

Oh, you saw that thread, too, huh?

Sheeeeeeesh. They wish.

 

[Circe]

I don't trust women who are willing to get used by all of the other ones, but won't make an appointment for full body massage with happy ending and g spot focus work.

Here's a good example of why not to give someone the benefit of the doubt anymore, if that means continuing to read them. Some people come here to write obscenities on the bathroom stalls, and that's all they've got. Sometimes it's sex obscenities and sometimes it's obscene attacks on other people specifically or generally. Giving up on someone here means putting them on the Ignore list, because, you know, why spend life time reading that stuff? There's been a lot of it on the Roy Moore threads this morning. I thought they were trying to clean up Politics? Darn. That's about as clean as our county landfill with the vultures sitting on the "No Scavenging" signs.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I definitely have no people in my life whom I distrust to the point that I cannot accord them the benefit of the doubt. As for people of whom I know of, rather than knowing personally, well, there're more untrustworthy folks than I can shake a stick at.

I don't know what you mean by "benefit of the doubt." Does that mean you are willing to believe what they say is true, or that you think they are not wholly deceptive and useless, or what?

Suggestion: figure out who is on your side and who is not and be loyal to your side. That's what America is about in this century: it's not about some fantasy like "truth." It's about what side you are fighting on.

I don't know what you mean by "benefit of the doubt."

Merriam-Webster's online dictionary is an excellent resource to consult if you don't understand a word or idiomatic phrase I use:

• Merriam-Webster

FWIW, I adhere quite closely to standard English (American) grammar conventions because they are, well, standard; that is, every native speaker of English has been taught them. It may be too that not English speaker remembers them, but at least they can look them up. For example:

Readers will find that when I use idiomatic phrases that are also not considered to be metaphorical/similical cliches (see rule eight under "Quotation marks for setting off special text" here: Uses of Quotation Marks in English Writing - Mark It Up With Quotation Marks), I do not enclose them between quotation marks, whereas when I euphemistically use a phrase/word, I surround it with quotation marks. The presence or absence of that piece of punctuation in such instances informs readers (1) of whether they can expect that the Merriam-Webster (or other first rate dictionary) definition of phrase/word is indeed the one I intended and (2) of whether the phrase is a cliche. (Among the key differences between conversational writing/speaking is the presence of cliches. When I write formally, I never use cliches whereas here I occasionally do.)

Similarly, when I enclose a single word between quotation marks, readers are informed that I mean it euphemistically whereby that euphemistic meaning must be drawn from the context of the passage where the word is found. Readers having strong reading comprehension skills are able to do so accurately, whereas readers with weak ones often do not. I do not write targeting readers with poor reading comprehension skills, nor do I take kindly to readers who show a pattern of willfully availing themselves equivocal techniques, rhetorical framing is one such technique, to shift the meaning of what I write to something other than what is clear from the context of the passage(s) I composed.​

Suggestion: figure out who is on your side and who is not and be loyal to your side.

Who is on one's side and who is not has nothing to do with whether one gives the benefit of the doubt. Trusting in the veracity of one's remarks on account of whether they are on one's side or not is pure partisanship, be it politically nexused or not. As implied or explicitly stated in earlier lines of discourse, by me and by others, most folks only grant that measure of benefit of the doubt to family members because, generally, they presume that their family will not willfully palter to them. Obviously, that presumption isn't always sound, but nearly everyone has a strong desire/commitment to thinking it is thus with regard to their own family members.

 

[danielpalos]

... When they have nothing but fallacy for their Cause.