Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Your words were an attack on my person.
Indeed. What "ad hominem" argument was made?
I highlighted the section in your post that focused on ME rather than on my arguments.Ad hominem argument consists of criticizing or attacking the person who proposed the argument (personal attack) in an attempt to discredit the argument. It is also used when an opponent is unable to find fault with an argument, yet for various reasons, the opponent disagrees with it.
It is more profitable to have legal policies that favor incarceration and long prison sentences.
You should have read further in Wikipedia. Perhaps if you'd stayed in school longer, you'd have had the opportunity to take logic classes.
I highlighted the section in your post that focused on ME rather than on my arguments.
It's your standard MO when you are outmatched.
Merely criticizing your lack of knowledge is not equivalent to a specific attack on a personal characteristic or belief of yours. For instance, claiming that a person can't offer valid commentary on youth policy because of his or her age would be an ad hominem argument. Pointing out that a person has switched back and forth about five times on a given position is not.
[edit] In logic
An ad hominem fallacy consists of asserting that an argument is wrong and/or the source is wrong to argue at all purely because of something discreditable/not-authoritative about the source or those sources cited by it rather than addressing the soundness of the argument itself. The implication is that the source's argument and/or ability to argue correctly lacks authority. Merely insulting a source in the middle of otherwise rational discourse does not necessarily constitute an ad hominem fallacy (though it is not usually regarded as acceptable). It must be clear that the purpose of the characterization is to discredit the source offering the argument, and, specifically, to invite others to discount its arguments. In the past, the term ad hominem was sometimes used more literally, to describe an argument that was based on an individual, or to describe any personal attack. However, this is not how the meaning of the term is typically introduced in modern logic and rhetoric textbooks, and logicians and rhetoricians are in agreement that this use is incorrect.[2]
Example:
"You claim that this man is innocent, but you cannot be trusted since you are a criminal as well."
This argument would generally be accepted as reasonable, as regards personal evidence, on the premise that criminals are likely to lie to protect each other. On the other hand, it is a valid example of ad hominem if the source making the claim is doing so on the basis of evidence independent of its own credibility.
In general, ad hominem criticism of evidence cannot prove the negative of the proposition being claimed:
Example:
"Paula says the umpire made the correct call, but this can't be true, because Paula wasn't even watching the game."
Assuming the premise is correct, Paula's evidence is valueless, but the umpire may nonetheless have made the right call.
Actually, you're mistaken. The phrase "someone such as yourself who knows nothing" is entirely ad hominem.
I know you'd like to claim otherwise, just like you wish you had an argument here, but you abandoned any pretense of that a while ago.
Did you want to go back to talking about privatization of juvenile sentencing alternatives, or have you eaten enough crow on that topic?
Tell me, in your deluded little fantasies, do you honestly imagine that you're capable of besting me? I've slapped your idiocy down every time you've been ignorant enough to drag it out from under its rock.
The fact that you are incapable of understanding argument logic is unsurprising to me, as a result.
I've addressed your irrelevant interjection of WWASPs into the discussion of privatizing juvenile detention, placement and correctional facilities, and shared that I have personal experience on-site with one of the WWASPs, which was not a contractor with ANY state juvenile justice entity. I've asked you to substantiate your claim that state juvenile justice agencies routinely sentence youths to the WWASPs, and you've refused to do so, claiming only that you're superior to me in argumentation.
If that's true, please feel free to go back to the topic and kick my ass with evidence. I'd love to see it.
In lieu of relevant evidence to corroborate your points, I pronounce you solidly pwned.
Just depicting opposition to privatization as an unsupported conspiracy theory of some variety is stupid. Unsurprising, but regardless...
Privatization would naturally lend itself to a greater degree of coercive control due to managerial discretion (such as imprisonment of youth when no illegal acts have been committed,
but simply because private facilities have been authorized to act in loco parentis), which has traditionally been the result of forcibly shipping youth to privately owned behavior modification facilities, for instance.
If you had any familiarity with the BMF industry, you'd know there's a reason why Casa By the Sea was shut down and why Tranquility Bay is on its way out.
Poliice brutality, nothing new, unfortunately.
I don't care how many prisons you've been in. What you do in your work or personal life is none of my business and what I do in mine is none of yours.
On what basis, then, are you definitively declaring that these private facilities aren't any better?
On what basis does anyone state an opinion? On facts, and reason. The facts are that we are second only to China in the number of people we incarcerate.
It is more profitable to have legal policies that favor incarceration and long prison sentences.
It's a little thin on facts, but I don't see how Tinker applies. If it was a truly online, not school related site, then Tinker shouldn't apply. If it was a school sponsored site, then Tinker probably would apply. But remember if Tinker doesn't apply the school would not have the right to restrict speech at all. The fact the the courts are doing it and not the schools is worse, it's just a plain and simple violation of first amendment rights.
It may apply, considering that Morse v. Frederick was judged to be "on school grounds." I'm not relying on their accurate interpretation of reality, you see. I'm relying on them stretching jurisdictive claims to an absurd level.
Okay the4 fact of the matter is that if you are doing serious time for simple possession nice plea bargain. Congratulate your mlawyer for keeping you from doing a lot more time on all those other counts that weere dropped so you could do ten years for possession...
It's not important to me how many people are incarcerated, it's only important if they should be incarcerated. I can agree with the people that say we should not put drug users in jail. Especially not for long terms. But if you are there otherwise, I have no problem with that.
I totally agree. The vast majority of people who are incarcerated should be there. And, frankly, our biggest problem in this country is not that we incarcerate too many people, but that we don't incarcerate serious offenders for LONG ENOUGH.