Girl suspended for saying ‘bless you’ at school

[PostmodernProph]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

????....yes.....did you think she said the girl was an excellent cook?.......

You're going to tell us you actually don't see the distinction between (1) calling someone a liar, and (2) suggesting that the other party believes that person is incapable of lying? Really?

And you work in court? What do you do, run the PA system?

How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended" and "girl was suspended"?

lol....are you pretending that what he said wasn't a sarcastic method of saying she was lying?.....
yes, I am a lawyer...when I am in court I am working....
she said she was suspended.....she was suspended......the fact that you want to play semantics and distinguish that it was a particular type of suspension does not change that......

 

[Pogo]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

????....yes.....did you think she said the girl was an excellent cook?.......

You're going to tell us you actually don't see the distinction between (1) calling someone a liar, and (2) suggesting that the other party believes that person is incapable of lying? Really?

And you work in court? What do you do, run the PA system?

How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended" and "girl was suspended"?

lol....are you pretending that what he said wasn't a sarcastic method of saying she was lying?.....
yes, I am a lawyer...when I am in court I am working....
she said she was suspended.....she was suspended......the fact that you want to play semantics and distinguish that it was a particular type of suspension does not change that......

Then I should have run the whole headline untruncated instead of assuming you knew it by now. So sue me.
Type of suspension was never the point. I never highlighted that, though I did post the information that the girl walked out on her own, rather than being on the receiving end of a school action and what that internal "suspension" (of a single class) means, in contrast to what it's implied to mean in a hair-on-fire headline.

But no, poster A suggesting poster B believes a high school girl is incapable of lying --- which addresses that poster's argument -- is in no way the same thing as saying "the girl is a liar" -- which addresses the student. We make those distinctions for a reason. We are in touch with our rhetorical opponent; we are not in touch with the student. Ergo we are in no position to judge the girl is lying, but we are very much in a position to judge that our opponent is engaging in fallacy when she discounts the possibility.

Follow me?

In full then:
How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you'" and "girl was suspended for saying 'bless you'"? Which one is a non sequitur?

Your witness, counselor.

 

[Esmeralda]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

????....yes.....did you think she said the girl was an excellent cook?.......

You're going to tell us you actually don't see the distinction between (1) calling someone a liar, and (2) suggesting that the other party believes that person is incapable of lying? Really?

And you work in court? What do you do, run the PA system?

How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended" and "girl was suspended"?

lol....are you pretending that what he said wasn't a sarcastic method of saying she was lying?.....
yes, I am a lawyer...when I am in court I am working....
she said she was suspended.....she was suspended......the fact that you want to play semantics and distinguish that it was a particular type of suspension does not change that......

It is a matter of semantics. The school will call it an in school suspension. It simply means she is not being sent home, but she is being kept out of class. In this case, she was kept of one class for the remainder of the period. That would probably be under an hour. (Most often and in school suspension is an all day thing where the kid is at school all day but not attending classes. In the detention room or principals office.).

This is an extremely limitied 'suspension,' not at all what one normally thinks of as a suspension. It simply means her being in that class for a limited amount of time was suspended, and it was done because she was misbehaving, disrupting the class.

There is almost no comparison between what we usually understand a suspension to be and what happened to her. It is more just a matter of semantics. It is very much a 'particular type' of suspension, and if you are indeed a lawyer, and an honest one, you will acknowledge that it was a very particular type of suspension and very different than what we would normally understand a suspension from school to be. But I suspect you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that.

If you were in front of a jury and trying to tell them that this extremely brief in school suspension was anything like what a school suspension is understood to be, they wouldn't be buying it. They've got or have had kids and they know how things are: they are not fools.

 

[PostmodernProph]

But no, poster A suggesting poster B believes a high school girl is incapable of lying --- which addresses that poster's argument -- is in no way the same thing as saying "the girl is a liar" -- which addresses the student. We make those distinctions for a reason. We are in touch with our rhetorical opponent; we are not in touch with the student.

In full then:
How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you'" and "girl was suspended for saying 'bless you'"?

Your witness, counselor.

first of all, I think pretty much everyone here except you realizes that when he said "Because school girls never lie.....right?" he was insinuating that she was lying.....I realize you believe differently.....but then you're never wrong.....right?....
second.....we are talking about whether something is evidence......contrast "the girl says she was suspended for saying "bless you" with "the principle says she was not suspended for saying "bless you".(apple and apple).....the issue that must be decided by weighing the evidence is 'was she suspended for saying "bless you"....(orange).....

 

[PostmodernProph]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

????....yes.....did you think she said the girl was an excellent cook?.......

You're going to tell us you actually don't see the distinction between (1) calling someone a liar, and (2) suggesting that the other party believes that person is incapable of lying? Really?

And you work in court? What do you do, run the PA system?

How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended" and "girl was suspended"?

lol....are you pretending that what he said wasn't a sarcastic method of saying she was lying?.....
yes, I am a lawyer...when I am in court I am working....
she said she was suspended.....she was suspended......the fact that you want to play semantics and distinguish that it was a particular type of suspension does not change that......

It is a matter of semantics. The school will call it an in school suspension. It simply means she is not being sent home, but she is being kept out of class. In this case, she was kept of one class for the remainder of the period. That would probably be under an hour. This is an extremely limitied 'suspension,' not at all what one thinks of as a suspension. It simply means her being in that class for a limited amount of time was suspended, and it was done because she was misbehaving, disrupting the class. There is almost no comparison between what we usually understand a suspension to be and what happened to her. It is more just a matter of semantics. It is very much a 'particular type of suspension, and if you are indeed a lawyer, and an honest one, you will acknowledge that is is a very particular type of suspension and very different than what we would normally understand a suspension from school to be. But I suspect you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that.

odd, why would you suspect me of being too intellectually dishonest to admit its a matter of semantics when you just quoted me as saying it was a game of semantics?......{such a nasty attitude you have}.......

 

[Esmeralda]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

????....yes.....did you think she said the girl was an excellent cook?.......

You're going to tell us you actually don't see the distinction between (1) calling someone a liar, and (2) suggesting that the other party believes that person is incapable of lying? Really?

And you work in court? What do you do, run the PA system?

How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended" and "girl was suspended"?

lol....are you pretending that what he said wasn't a sarcastic method of saying she was lying?.....
yes, I am a lawyer...when I am in court I am working....
she said she was suspended.....she was suspended......the fact that you want to play semantics and distinguish that it was a particular type of suspension does not change that......

It is a matter of semantics. The school will call it an in school suspension. It simply means she is not being sent home, but she is being kept out of class. In this case, she was kept of one class for the remainder of the period. That would probably be under an hour. This is an extremely limitied 'suspension,' not at all what one thinks of as a suspension. It simply means her being in that class for a limited amount of time was suspended, and it was done because she was misbehaving, disrupting the class. There is almost no comparison between what we usually understand a suspension to be and what happened to her. It is more just a matter of semantics. It is very much a 'particular type of suspension, and if you are indeed a lawyer, and an honest one, you will acknowledge that is is a very particular type of suspension and very different than what we would normally understand a suspension from school to be. But I suspect you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that.

odd, why would you suspect me of being too intellectually dishonest to admit its a matter of semantics when you just quoted me as saying it was a game of semantics?......{such a nasty attitude you have}.......

You accused someone else of using semantics to try to avoid the truth. Where on Earth did you go to law school?

 

[PostmodernProph]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

????....yes.....did you think she said the girl was an excellent cook?.......

You're going to tell us you actually don't see the distinction between (1) calling someone a liar, and (2) suggesting that the other party believes that person is incapable of lying? Really?

And you work in court? What do you do, run the PA system?

How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended" and "girl was suspended"?

lol....are you pretending that what he said wasn't a sarcastic method of saying she was lying?.....
yes, I am a lawyer...when I am in court I am working....
she said she was suspended.....she was suspended......the fact that you want to play semantics and distinguish that it was a particular type of suspension does not change that......

It is a matter of semantics. The school will call it an in school suspension. It simply means she is not being sent home, but she is being kept out of class. In this case, she was kept of one class for the remainder of the period. That would probably be under an hour. This is an extremely limitied 'suspension,' not at all what one thinks of as a suspension. It simply means her being in that class for a limited amount of time was suspended, and it was done because she was misbehaving, disrupting the class. There is almost no comparison between what we usually understand a suspension to be and what happened to her. It is more just a matter of semantics. It is very much a 'particular type of suspension, and if you are indeed a lawyer, and an honest one, you will acknowledge that is is a very particular type of suspension and very different than what we would normally understand a suspension from school to be. But I suspect you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that.

odd, why would you suspect me of being too intellectually dishonest to admit its a matter of semantics when you just quoted me as saying it was a game of semantics?......{such a nasty attitude you have}.......

You accused someone else of using semantics to try to avoid the truth. Where on Earth did you go to law school?

it was a game of semantics because she was accused of lying for saying she was suspended, when in fact she was suspended.....now the fact you were thinking of a different type of suspension doesn't make her a liar unless she was thinking of the same type of suspension that you were.....
Valparaiso....where did you go to charm school?......

 

[Esmeralda]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

????....yes.....did you think she said the girl was an excellent cook?.......

You're going to tell us you actually don't see the distinction between (1) calling someone a liar, and (2) suggesting that the other party believes that person is incapable of lying? Really?

And you work in court? What do you do, run the PA system?

How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended" and "girl was suspended"?

lol....are you pretending that what he said wasn't a sarcastic method of saying she was lying?.....
yes, I am a lawyer...when I am in court I am working....
she said she was suspended.....she was suspended......the fact that you want to play semantics and distinguish that it was a particular type of suspension does not change that......

It is a matter of semantics. The school will call it an in school suspension. It simply means she is not being sent home, but she is being kept out of class. In this case, she was kept of one class for the remainder of the period. That would probably be under an hour. This is an extremely limitied 'suspension,' not at all what one thinks of as a suspension. It simply means her being in that class for a limited amount of time was suspended, and it was done because she was misbehaving, disrupting the class. There is almost no comparison between what we usually understand a suspension to be and what happened to her. It is more just a matter of semantics. It is very much a 'particular type of suspension, and if you are indeed a lawyer, and an honest one, you will acknowledge that is is a very particular type of suspension and very different than what we would normally understand a suspension from school to be. But I suspect you are too intellectually dishonest to admit that.

odd, why would you suspect me of being too intellectually dishonest to admit its a matter of semantics when you just quoted me as saying it was a game of semantics?......{such a nasty attitude you have}.......

You accused someone else of using semantics to try to avoid the truth. Where on Earth did you go to law school?

it was a game of semantics because she was accused of lying for saying she was suspended, when in fact she was suspended.....now the fact you were thinking of a different type of suspension doesn't make her a liar unless she was thinking of the same type of suspension that you were.....
Valparaiso....where did you go to charm school?......

And this is where they taught you circular reasoning?

 

[PostmodernProph]

????.....is the problem that you don't actually understand what circular reasoning means?.......just the fact that trying to get your mind around it makes your head spin does not make something "circular reasoning"....
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

 

[mudwhistle]

BTW, these quotes are pissing me off.

You are correct sir. I suggested earlier that posters should be lopping off the older irrelevant stuff but it doesn't seem to be happening and as I found when I did it, it's also a lotta work. Now I'm thinking maybe we should have a nest limitation after all. Maybe half a dozen layers. That one above (the joke) has eighteen. The one immediately above this one doesn't even have a post in it.

I think two layers would do it.

I'm thinking more like six. Do we remember what it used to be? I know it was more than two and I know there were times whatever that limit was wasn't enough. But it doesn't really get top-heavy until a bit more.

I'll take this point to the Bug thread. But for now we posters really should be diligent about lopping off unneeded context.

I'm thinking brevity. I don't mind going back and double-checking what was said. A quote of a quote seems enough. A quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote seems a bit much.

 

[Esmeralda]

????.....is the problem that you don't actually understand what circular reasoning means?.......just the fact that trying to get your mind around it makes your head spin does not make something "circular reasoning"....
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are the one who doesn't understand the concept. Go back to logic 101. Or maybe it's that you are so intrinsically intellectually dishonest, you don't realize what you are saying about how semantics has been used in this thread. What Pogo noted about your being incoherent is very true. Lawyer my foot.

Anyway, you are a boor. I'm done with you.

 

[Pogo]

But no, poster A suggesting poster B believes a high school girl is incapable of lying --- which addresses that poster's argument -- is in no way the same thing as saying "the girl is a liar" -- which addresses the student. We make those distinctions for a reason. We are in touch with our rhetorical opponent; we are not in touch with the student.

In full then:
How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you'" and "girl was suspended for saying 'bless you'"?

Your witness, counselor.

first of all, I think pretty much everyone here except you realizes that when he said "Because school girls never lie.....right?" he was insinuating that she was lying.....I realize you believe differently.....but then you're never wrong.....right?....

First of all the poster Jeremiah is a she. I know that's not readily obvious but just for clarity. And yes of course I'm wrong sometimes -- I was wrong to think that unlimited quote nesting wouldn't get out of control. The fact that I'm right about this doesn't mean that I'm always right. That would be another non sequitur.

But no, that's not what that sentence insinuates -- rather, it insinuates, and I'll just repeat this until it sinks in, that the poster (Jeremiah) has not accounted for that possibility. And that is a reference to Jeremiah's argument. Not to Kendra's lying.

second.....we are talking about whether something is evidence......contrast "the girl says she was suspended for saying "bless you" with "the principle says she was not suspended for saying "bless you".(apple and apple).....the issue that must be decided by weighing the evidence is 'was she suspended for saying "bless you"....(orange).....

That still doesn't make sense. And no, we're not talking about whether something is evidence, but you let us know when the court system goes to Facebook.

the sentence,
(A) "Girl suspended for saying 'bless you'"

--- gives a reason for this suspension.
What happened? Suspension. What for? Saying "bless you".
A direct causality. A statement of fact. And a causality which is not demonstrably true, and in fact is contradicted from multiple sources.

The sentence,
(B) "Girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you''"

-- is a report of an unproven allegation. The only statement of fact is that the girl made the statement. Which is true, she did. The verb is says. There is no dispute that she said that. Whether that's actually what happened is a whole different can o' worms.

That's why the first one is a non sequitur. It does not follow. And to return to my original point, in journalism, taking the original (B) and morphiing it into (A) (a faux pas the OP also committed) is unethical.

Surely you understand "unethical"?

 

[PostmodernProph]

????.....is the problem that you don't actually understand what circular reasoning means?.......just the fact that trying to get your mind around it makes your head spin does not make something "circular reasoning"....
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are the one who doesn't understand the concept. Go back to logic 101. Or maybe it's that you are so intrinsically intellectually dishonest, you don't realize what you are saying about how semantics has been used in this thread. Anyway, you are a boor. I'm done with you.

oh I'm quite familiar with the concept......but go ahead and enlighten us....

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]

what is the beginning point that I am ending with, in my argument?.....

 

[Pogo]

BTW, these quotes are pissing me off.

You are correct sir. I suggested earlier that posters should be lopping off the older irrelevant stuff but it doesn't seem to be happening and as I found when I did it, it's also a lotta work. Now I'm thinking maybe we should have a nest limitation after all. Maybe half a dozen layers. That one above (the joke) has eighteen. The one immediately above this one doesn't even have a post in it.

I think two layers would do it.

I'm thinking more like six. Do we remember what it used to be? I know it was more than two and I know there were times whatever that limit was wasn't enough. But it doesn't really get top-heavy until a bit more.

I'll take this point to the Bug thread. But for now we posters really should be diligent about lopping off unneeded context.

I'm thinking brevity. I don't mind going back and double-checking what was said. A quote of a quote seems enough. A quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote of a quote seems a bit much.

Brevity's always good, and I'm the first to admit to longwindedness. But in practice I'm not sure two is practical -- if we remember the old board, all those days ago, I think we had three, maybe four at the most but I think three, levels of nesting, and that was usually enough but not always. Then there were also the embedded quotes that would disappear.

I did put this suggestion in the Bug thread. That's where it should probably continue.

 

[PostmodernProph]

But no, poster A suggesting poster B believes a high school girl is incapable of lying --- which addresses that poster's argument -- is in no way the same thing as saying "the girl is a liar" -- which addresses the student. We make those distinctions for a reason. We are in touch with our rhetorical opponent; we are not in touch with the student.

In full then:
How 'bout the distinction between saying "girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you'" and "girl was suspended for saying 'bless you'"?

Your witness, counselor.

first of all, I think pretty much everyone here except you realizes that when he said "Because school girls never lie.....right?" he was insinuating that she was lying.....I realize you believe differently.....but then you're never wrong.....right?....

First of all the poster Jeremiah is a she. I know that's not readily obvious but just for clarity.

actually I knew that.....doesn't really matter since BODECEA was the one who said it....

But no, that's not what that sentence insinuates

well, yeah.....it does..... its sort of hard to think that "and school girls never lie......right?" is anything except sarcasm.....

And no, we're not talking about whether something is evidence

???.....yes we are.....

The sentence,
"Girl says she was suspended for saying 'bless you''"

-- is a report of an unproven allegation. The only statement of fact is that the girl made the statement. Which is true, she did. The verb is says. There is no dispute that she said that. Whether that's actually what happened is a whole different can o' worms.

That's why the first one is a non sequitur. It does not follow. And to return to my original point, in journalism that's unethical.

Surely you understand "unethical"?

what does journalism have to do with it......the girl SAID she was suspended for saying "bless you".....she's not a journalist, she's the subject......

 

[Esmeralda]

????.....is the problem that you don't actually understand what circular reasoning means?.......just the fact that trying to get your mind around it makes your head spin does not make something "circular reasoning"....
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are the one who doesn't understand the concept. Go back to logic 101. Or maybe it's that you are so intrinsically intellectually dishonest, you don't realize what you are saying about how semantics has been used in this thread. Anyway, you are a boor. I'm done with you.

oh I'm quite familiar with the concept......but go ahead and enlighten us....

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]

what is the beginning point that I am ending with, in my argument?.....

Think about it; maybe you'll figure it out. Or call one of your law professors. It's 2 in the morning where I am, and I'm going to bed. In any case, you are a jerk, to put it nicely, and I have no intention of discussing anything with you nor or in the future. You are totally full of shit.

 

[bodecea]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

I have to wonder at the reading comprehension skills of a poster that thinks saying "Because school girls never lie...right?" is the EXACT same thing as saying "she's a liar."

 

[PostmodernProph]

????.....is the problem that you don't actually understand what circular reasoning means?.......just the fact that trying to get your mind around it makes your head spin does not make something "circular reasoning"....
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are the one who doesn't understand the concept. Go back to logic 101. Or maybe it's that you are so intrinsically intellectually dishonest, you don't realize what you are saying about how semantics has been used in this thread. Anyway, you are a boor. I'm done with you.

oh I'm quite familiar with the concept......but go ahead and enlighten us....

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]

what is the beginning point that I am ending with, in my argument?.....

Think about it; maybe you'll figure it out. Or call one of your law professors. It's 2 in the morning where I am, and I'm going to bed. In any case, you are a jerk, to put it nicely, and I have no intention of discussing anything with you nor or in the future. You are totally full of shit.

lol....you could have just said "I haven't a clue" and saved yourself some typing.....by the way I graduated in the 70s.....I'm pretty sure all my profs are dead......

 

[PostmodernProph]

What I'm learning from this is that, at least to some posters, school girls never lie....especially on Facebook like sites.

Of course! When all else fails, accuse the person of telling a lie! Won't work here, Bodecea. His reputation has already been established. Somewhat like those who have the habit of making false accusations against Christians. You know, after awhile they lose their credibility.

Because school girls never lie.....right?

Pogo was just here looking for you....he said no one has called her a liar.....

That's not what she says right there, is it?

I have to wonder at the reading comprehension skills of a poster that thinks saying "Because school girls never lie...right?" is the EXACT same thing as saying "she's a liar."

"EXACT"......no, admittedly the letter score would be higher in a game of Scrabble...... but close enough for a forum this sized.....

 

[Esmeralda]

????.....is the problem that you don't actually understand what circular reasoning means?.......just the fact that trying to get your mind around it makes your head spin does not make something "circular reasoning"....
Circular reasoning - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

You are the one who doesn't understand the concept. Go back to logic 101. Or maybe it's that you are so intrinsically intellectually dishonest, you don't realize what you are saying about how semantics has been used in this thread. Anyway, you are a boor. I'm done with you.

oh I'm quite familiar with the concept......but go ahead and enlighten us....

Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as paradoxical thinking[1] or circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with.[2]

what is the beginning point that I am ending with, in my argument?.....

Think about it; maybe you'll figure it out. Or call one of your law professors. It's 2 in the morning where I am, and I'm going to bed. In any case, you are a jerk, to put it nicely, and I have no intention of discussing anything with you nor or in the future. You are totally full of shit.

lol....you could have just said "I haven't a clue" and saved yourself some typing.....by the way I graduated in the 70s.....I'm pretty sure all my profs are dead......

No, you are the one without a clue. I'm not here to be your teacher. You need to look back and see what you said regarding semantics. And I am in France, and it is 2 in the morning, and I am going to bed. You are so drenched in deceit you cannot even believe someone who is truthful.