Outrage grows after South Carolina officer throws student in classroom

[Pogo]

You sure as hell did. You expressed a wish that the student get expelled. I asked what for (crickets). I asked what you knew about her, pointed out that we don't even know her name nor have we even seen her face (more crickets). I pointed out we don't know what her story is and asked if you do -- you said "no and it's irrelevant".

That's what I call turning tail and running away.

Ha ha! We now know what the story isn't. It isn't a poor, disturbed girl who just lost her parents. No, that was a lie you Leftards pushed for hundreds of pages on 3 different threads. Mother and grandmother are alive and well. http://www.newsweek.com/south-carolina-student-flipped-police-officer-foster-care-388119

Stop lying, Leftists!

I posted no such thing. I've said nothing about her mother OR grandmother, nor do I know that info. I'm not even aware of "three different threads" nor have I been in that many.

So Fuck You, Liar.

You're part of the lying machine that is the American Left. It started with the lie told by the New York Daily News and then spread by you minions in return. You don't like being associated with lying leftists, stop being one.

Go fuck yourself, lying hack.

You got something on me -- quote it.

In the absence of that you're a fucking LIAR.

Do I make myself clear?

Tell us more about how she "lost her mother" you lying Leftist hack.

FUCK you asshole. I don't claim to know jack shit about her mother. I don't even know her name.

Quote me or admit you were wrong and then shut the fuck up, fucking liar.

We all want the same thing, to take the cops out of the zoos and let the chimps have at each other with no interference. Why are we fighting?

You good and Racist, just like Jesus was... He'd be proud of you.

Answer the damn question.

YOU answer the damn question. Dishonest HACK.

 

[paulitician]

Ha ha! We now know what the story isn't. It isn't a poor, disturbed girl who just lost her parents. No, that was a lie you Leftards pushed for hundreds of pages on 3 different threads. Mother and grandmother are alive and well. http://www.newsweek.com/south-carolina-student-flipped-police-officer-foster-care-388119

Stop lying, Leftists!

I posted no such thing. I've said nothing about her mother OR grandmother, nor do I know that info. I'm not even aware of "three different threads" nor have I been in that many.

So Fuck You, Liar.

You're part of the lying machine that is the American Left. It started with the lie told by the New York Daily News and then spread by you minions in return. You don't like being associated with lying leftists, stop being one.

Go fuck yourself, lying hack.

You got something on me -- quote it.

In the absence of that you're a fucking LIAR.

Do I make myself clear?

Tell us more about how she "lost her mother" you lying Leftist hack.

FUCK you asshole. I don't claim to know jack shit about her mother. I don't even know her name.

Quote me or admit you were wrong and then shut the fuck up, fucking liar.

Ha, don't worry about it. It's not like the loyal Bootlickers care about this girl or her mother. Just read most of their replies carefully. They actually wish the mongoloid cop would have killed her. They would have invented some sort of warped justification for it. They're Nazi morons. Can't reason with em.

 

[Pogo]

Yes, you would get your boner over another innocent Citizen being brutally murdered by your beloved Gestapo. Seriously, y'all are a bunch of loony Nazi Bootlickers. Shame on ya.

I can't wait to see the body cam footage of you getting shot by police. You'll be a star. I'll even start a thread.

It's too bad you quit your cop job, dumbass.

Is there anyone here who believes this idiot was a cop?

Like anyone cares what you believe. Tell us more about how this poor little porch monkey was a brat because she just lost her mother.

The NY Daily News posted that in an article, and I believe they have now updated their story. A story which is completely irrelevant to what happened.

KING: S.C. teen assaulted by deputy is in foster care

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

 

[Pogo]

No one has been brutalized, but you Leftists sure have been pulling a scam on everyone saying the chimp's mother was dead. She isn't. Another lie by the lying Left.

I wasn't aware anyone had said the girl's mother was dead.

He just pulls it out of his ass. It's a pattern with a long history. Compulsive liar.

 

[paulitician]

I can't wait to see the body cam footage of you getting shot by police. You'll be a star. I'll even start a thread.

It's too bad you quit your cop job, dumbass.

Is there anyone here who believes this idiot was a cop?

Like anyone cares what you believe. Tell us more about how this poor little porch monkey was a brat because she just lost her mother.

The NY Daily News posted that in an article, and I believe they have now updated their story. A story which is completely irrelevant to what happened.

KING: S.C. teen assaulted by deputy is in foster care

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

If that's his training, we definitely need to end that training. There were so many other logical ways to handle this. But as usual, the cop chose violence. He viciously attacked the girl. And i don't think losing his job is enough. I think she has a strong case. He should have been charged.

 

[Correll]

I can't wait to see the body cam footage of you getting shot by police. You'll be a star. I'll even start a thread.

It's too bad you quit your cop job, dumbass.

Is there anyone here who believes this idiot was a cop?

Like anyone cares what you believe. Tell us more about how this poor little porch monkey was a brat because she just lost her mother.

The NY Daily News posted that in an article, and I believe they have now updated their story. A story which is completely irrelevant to what happened.

KING: S.C. teen assaulted by deputy is in foster care

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

 

[paulitician]

It's too bad you quit your cop job, dumbass.

Is there anyone here who believes this idiot was a cop?

Like anyone cares what you believe. Tell us more about how this poor little porch monkey was a brat because she just lost her mother.

The NY Daily News posted that in an article, and I believe they have now updated their story. A story which is completely irrelevant to what happened.

KING: S.C. teen assaulted by deputy is in foster care

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

Pretty bizarre justification angle there. The dumbass brutally attacked an unarmed teenaged girl. He should have never been given a gun & badge in the first place. And therein lies the problem.

 

[Pogo]

It's too bad you quit your cop job, dumbass.

Is there anyone here who believes this idiot was a cop?

Like anyone cares what you believe. Tell us more about how this poor little porch monkey was a brat because she just lost her mother.

The NY Daily News posted that in an article, and I believe they have now updated their story. A story which is completely irrelevant to what happened.

KING: S.C. teen assaulted by deputy is in foster care

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

Bullshit. That ain't what "Appeal to Authority" means.
Who fires you? Your boss. Who sets your job standards? Your boss. What happens when you violate those standards? Your boss fires you. Which he did.

"Appeal to Authority" would be if I claimed to have spoken to (or to be) some authority on police limits and declared that guy said it was over the line. But I didn't. His boss looked at the video and found it indefensible. Not rocket surgery.

And look who thanks your post --- a compulsive liar.

On the other hand purporting to see the motivations inside the head of someone not present here, in contradiction to his stated position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is definitely a fallacy.

 

[Correll]

Like anyone cares what you believe. Tell us more about how this poor little porch monkey was a brat because she just lost her mother.

The NY Daily News posted that in an article, and I believe they have now updated their story. A story which is completely irrelevant to what happened.

KING: S.C. teen assaulted by deputy is in foster care

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

Bullshit. That ain't what "Appeal to Authority" means.
Who fires you? Your boss. Who sets your job standards? Your boss. What happens when you violate those standards? Your boss fires you. Which he did.

"Appeal to Authority" would be if I claimed to have spoken to (or to be) some authority on police limits and declared that guy said it was over the line. But I didn't. His boss looked at the video and found it indefensible. Not rocket surgery.

And look who thanks your post --- a compulsive liar.

On the other hand purporting to see the motivations inside the head of someone not present here, in contradiction to his stated position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is definitely a fallacy.

No, Appeal to Authority occurred when you presented the actions of the Authority as proof, as though that Authority was perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

 

[initforme]

Its the teachers fault. Somehow she is to blame. Her exhorbitant salary...LOL. She is the reason why states are going bankrupt. God Its funny to type something like that. The wee tea party actually believes this rubbish.

 

[Pogo]

The NY Daily News posted that in an article, and I believe they have now updated their story. A story which is completely irrelevant to what happened.

KING: S.C. teen assaulted by deputy is in foster care

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

Bullshit. That ain't what "Appeal to Authority" means.
Who fires you? Your boss. Who sets your job standards? Your boss. What happens when you violate those standards? Your boss fires you. Which he did.

"Appeal to Authority" would be if I claimed to have spoken to (or to be) some authority on police limits and declared that guy said it was over the line. But I didn't. His boss looked at the video and found it indefensible. Not rocket surgery.

And look who thanks your post --- a compulsive liar.

On the other hand purporting to see the motivations inside the head of someone not present here, in contradiction to his stated position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is definitely a fallacy.

No, Appeal to Authority occurred when you presented the actions of the Authority as proof, as though that Authority was perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Sigh... don't try to snow me on this shit.

>> Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true. << (Nizkor)

I'm afraid if you want new definitions for existing words, you're gonna have to invent your own language.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Nope. Don't need to. Number one I don't claim to be clairvoyant, number two it's part of his job as a supervisor to assess these things, and number three there is no question as to "whether it's his fault or not". It's on video.

---- Unless of course you want to go with that tactic of the bald-faced liar above who maintains that the girl's desk threw itself. You prolly don't.

 

[Correll]

Its the teachers fault. Somehow she is to blame. Her exhorbitant salary...LOL. She is the reason why states are going bankrupt. God Its funny to type something like that. The wee tea party actually believes this rubbish.

I have not seen any republicans or conservatives blaming the teacher.

Your entire post is strawmen and nonsense.

 

[Correll]

It is irrelevant. Which makes me wonder why libs jumped on it so hard and emphasized it so much.

ALL that's relevant....

She was being placed under arrest.
She resisited.
He used force as he's trained.

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

Bullshit. That ain't what "Appeal to Authority" means.
Who fires you? Your boss. Who sets your job standards? Your boss. What happens when you violate those standards? Your boss fires you. Which he did.

"Appeal to Authority" would be if I claimed to have spoken to (or to be) some authority on police limits and declared that guy said it was over the line. But I didn't. His boss looked at the video and found it indefensible. Not rocket surgery.

And look who thanks your post --- a compulsive liar.

On the other hand purporting to see the motivations inside the head of someone not present here, in contradiction to his stated position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is definitely a fallacy.

No, Appeal to Authority occurred when you presented the actions of the Authority as proof, as though that Authority was perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Sigh... don't try to snow me on this shit.

>> Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true. << (Nizkor)

I'm afraid if you want new definitions for existing words, you're gonna have to invent your own language.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Nope. Don't need to. Number one I don't claim to be clairvoyant, number two it's part of his job as a supervisor to assess these things, and number three there is no question as to "whether it's his fault or not". It's on video.

---- Unless of course you want to go with that tactic of the bald-faced liar above who maintains that the girl's desk threw itself. You prolly don't.

And that is what you did.

1. YOu stated that his Boss set the standards and it is the Boss's role to judge if the standards are violated. Thus you claimed his Boss to be the Authority, (A)

2. You pointed out that his Boss (A) had "made a claim about Subject S, ie "fired him wid a quickness".

3. And you presented that as evidence that "C is true" ie that the cop did NOT respond as trained.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

And one does not need to be "clairvoyant" to consider the motivation of another person. That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

Use your empathy.

Imagine it is your job to defend this cop, as having done his job, to your political boss and to the media/activist/lawyer lynch mob.

Give it a moment...



Now do you want to do your job?

Or do you want to throw the cop under the boss and cover your own ass?

 

[Pogo]

Obviously if the last were true he wouldn't have got his as FIRED wid a quickness.

All it took was one look at the video. The same video you look at and deny what's happening right there in it with fables of self-propelled desk-aircraft.

And that's because you're a FUCKING LIAR.

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

Bullshit. That ain't what "Appeal to Authority" means.
Who fires you? Your boss. Who sets your job standards? Your boss. What happens when you violate those standards? Your boss fires you. Which he did.

"Appeal to Authority" would be if I claimed to have spoken to (or to be) some authority on police limits and declared that guy said it was over the line. But I didn't. His boss looked at the video and found it indefensible. Not rocket surgery.

And look who thanks your post --- a compulsive liar.

On the other hand purporting to see the motivations inside the head of someone not present here, in contradiction to his stated position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is definitely a fallacy.

No, Appeal to Authority occurred when you presented the actions of the Authority as proof, as though that Authority was perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Sigh... don't try to snow me on this shit.

>> Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true. << (Nizkor)

I'm afraid if you want new definitions for existing words, you're gonna have to invent your own language.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Nope. Don't need to. Number one I don't claim to be clairvoyant, number two it's part of his job as a supervisor to assess these things, and number three there is no question as to "whether it's his fault or not". It's on video.

---- Unless of course you want to go with that tactic of the bald-faced liar above who maintains that the girl's desk threw itself. You prolly don't.

And that is what you did.

1. YOu stated that his Boss set the standards and it is the Boss's role to judge if the standards are violated. Thus you claimed his Boss to be the Authority, (A)

2. You pointed out that his Boss (A) had "made a claim about Subject S, ie "fired him wid a quickness".

3. And you presented that as evidence that "C is true" ie that the cop did NOT respond as trained.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

And one does not need to be "clairvoyant" to consider the motivation of another person. That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

Use your empathy.

Imagine it is your job to defend this cop, as having done his job, to your political boss and to the media/activist/lawyer lynch mob.

Give it a moment...

Now do you want to do your job?

Or do you want to throw the cop under the boss and cover your own ass?

Inventing further new definitions now?

"Subject" in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "person" -- it means topic.

Authority in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "boss". It means an outside entity brought into the argument.

Let's say we're discussing driving.
You say, "Never shift without clutching. It ruins the transmission"
I then say, "No it doesn't -- Richard Petty did it".

Richard Petty is not part of our conversation. I brought him in as an "authority" -- on the subject (topic).

THAT is what Appeal to Authority fallacy means. It has nothing to do with an authority figure, as in a boss.

In the instant case the boss DID INDEED fire the goon for his excess. The fact that he fired him is not subject to debate. The fact that it's his job to evaluate the goon is also not subject to debate. Those are "facts".

After that you went into speculation fallacies about "yabbut I know what he's really thinking".

Poster please. You got nothin'.

 

[Correll]

Citing his getting fired as "Evidence" of wrongdoing is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

It is quite plausible that the Authority in question would throw a low level employee under the bus to save itself grief.

Bullshit. That ain't what "Appeal to Authority" means.
Who fires you? Your boss. Who sets your job standards? Your boss. What happens when you violate those standards? Your boss fires you. Which he did.

"Appeal to Authority" would be if I claimed to have spoken to (or to be) some authority on police limits and declared that guy said it was over the line. But I didn't. His boss looked at the video and found it indefensible. Not rocket surgery.

And look who thanks your post --- a compulsive liar.

On the other hand purporting to see the motivations inside the head of someone not present here, in contradiction to his stated position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is definitely a fallacy.

No, Appeal to Authority occurred when you presented the actions of the Authority as proof, as though that Authority was perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Sigh... don't try to snow me on this shit.

>> Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true. << (Nizkor)

I'm afraid if you want new definitions for existing words, you're gonna have to invent your own language.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Nope. Don't need to. Number one I don't claim to be clairvoyant, number two it's part of his job as a supervisor to assess these things, and number three there is no question as to "whether it's his fault or not". It's on video.

---- Unless of course you want to go with that tactic of the bald-faced liar above who maintains that the girl's desk threw itself. You prolly don't.

And that is what you did.

1. YOu stated that his Boss set the standards and it is the Boss's role to judge if the standards are violated. Thus you claimed his Boss to be the Authority, (A)

2. You pointed out that his Boss (A) had "made a claim about Subject S, ie "fired him wid a quickness".

3. And you presented that as evidence that "C is true" ie that the cop did NOT respond as trained.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

And one does not need to be "clairvoyant" to consider the motivation of another person. That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

Use your empathy.

Imagine it is your job to defend this cop, as having done his job, to your political boss and to the media/activist/lawyer lynch mob.

Give it a moment...

Now do you want to do your job?

Or do you want to throw the cop under the boss and cover your own ass?

Inventing further new definitions now?

"Subject" in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "person" -- it means topic.

Authority in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "boss". It means an outside entity brought into the argument.

Let's say we're discussing driving.
You say, "Never shift without clutching. It ruins the transmission"
I then say, "No it doesn't -- Richard Petty did it".

Richard Petty is not part of our conversation. I brought him in as an "authority" -- on the subject (topic).

THAT is what Appeal to Authority fallacy means. It has nothing to do with an authority figure, as in a boss.

In the instant case the boss DID INDEED fire the goon for his excess. The fact that he fired him is not subject to debate. The fact that it's his job to evaluate the goon is also not subject to debate. Those are "facts".

After that you went into speculation fallacies about "yabbut I know what he's really thinking".

Poster please. You got nothin'.

1. An Authority does not have to be an outside entity.

2. No one is denying that the cop was fired. (so lets not revisit that strawman)

3. No one is denying that the Boss's job is to evaluate the "goon". (so lets not revisit that strawman)

4. YOu did present the firing as evidence that the cop was in the wrong.

5. THat's Appeal to Authority.

6. Did you consider the motivation I spoke of above? Or do you want to pretend again that I asked you to do something paranormal?

 

[Pogo]

Bullshit. That ain't what "Appeal to Authority" means.
Who fires you? Your boss. Who sets your job standards? Your boss. What happens when you violate those standards? Your boss fires you. Which he did.

"Appeal to Authority" would be if I claimed to have spoken to (or to be) some authority on police limits and declared that guy said it was over the line. But I didn't. His boss looked at the video and found it indefensible. Not rocket surgery.

And look who thanks your post --- a compulsive liar.

On the other hand purporting to see the motivations inside the head of someone not present here, in contradiction to his stated position, on the basis of no evidence whatsoever, is definitely a fallacy.

No, Appeal to Authority occurred when you presented the actions of the Authority as proof, as though that Authority was perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Sigh... don't try to snow me on this shit.

>> Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true. << (Nizkor)

I'm afraid if you want new definitions for existing words, you're gonna have to invent your own language.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Nope. Don't need to. Number one I don't claim to be clairvoyant, number two it's part of his job as a supervisor to assess these things, and number three there is no question as to "whether it's his fault or not". It's on video.

---- Unless of course you want to go with that tactic of the bald-faced liar above who maintains that the girl's desk threw itself. You prolly don't.

And that is what you did.

1. YOu stated that his Boss set the standards and it is the Boss's role to judge if the standards are violated. Thus you claimed his Boss to be the Authority, (A)

2. You pointed out that his Boss (A) had "made a claim about Subject S, ie "fired him wid a quickness".

3. And you presented that as evidence that "C is true" ie that the cop did NOT respond as trained.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

And one does not need to be "clairvoyant" to consider the motivation of another person. That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

Use your empathy.

Imagine it is your job to defend this cop, as having done his job, to your political boss and to the media/activist/lawyer lynch mob.

Give it a moment...

Now do you want to do your job?

Or do you want to throw the cop under the boss and cover your own ass?

Inventing further new definitions now?

"Subject" in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "person" -- it means topic.

Authority in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "boss". It means an outside entity brought into the argument.

Let's say we're discussing driving.
You say, "Never shift without clutching. It ruins the transmission"
I then say, "No it doesn't -- Richard Petty did it".

Richard Petty is not part of our conversation. I brought him in as an "authority" -- on the subject (topic).

THAT is what Appeal to Authority fallacy means. It has nothing to do with an authority figure, as in a boss.

In the instant case the boss DID INDEED fire the goon for his excess. The fact that he fired him is not subject to debate. The fact that it's his job to evaluate the goon is also not subject to debate. Those are "facts".

After that you went into speculation fallacies about "yabbut I know what he's really thinking".

Poster please. You got nothin'.

1. An Authority does not have to be an outside entity.

2. No one is denying that the cop was fired. (so lets not revisit that strawman)

3. No one is denying that the Boss's job is to evaluate the "goon". (so lets not revisit that strawman)

4. YOu did present the firing as evidence that the cop was in the wrong.

5. THat's Appeal to Authority.

6. Did you consider the motivation I spoke of above? Or do you want to pretend again that I asked you to do something paranormal?

NO; IT IS NOT: AND NO I DID NOT:

The evidence the cop was in the wrong is right there in the video. We all saw that before this Sheriff made his decision. He saw the same thing, which is how he came to that conclusion.

Nobody anywhere committed an Appeal to Authority here.

And again for the second time, no I did not consider any 'paranormal motivations'. I simply assume he's doing his job, which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have no reason to doubt. Nor do you.

 

[Correll]

No, Appeal to Authority occurred when you presented the actions of the Authority as proof, as though that Authority was perfectly competent and incorruptible.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Sigh... don't try to snow me on this shit.

>> Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true. << (Nizkor)

I'm afraid if you want new definitions for existing words, you're gonna have to invent your own language.

Have you considered the motivation of the Authority in question to blame the cop, regardless of whether it is truly his fault or not?

Nope. Don't need to. Number one I don't claim to be clairvoyant, number two it's part of his job as a supervisor to assess these things, and number three there is no question as to "whether it's his fault or not". It's on video.

---- Unless of course you want to go with that tactic of the bald-faced liar above who maintains that the girl's desk threw itself. You prolly don't.

And that is what you did.

1. YOu stated that his Boss set the standards and it is the Boss's role to judge if the standards are violated. Thus you claimed his Boss to be the Authority, (A)

2. You pointed out that his Boss (A) had "made a claim about Subject S, ie "fired him wid a quickness".

3. And you presented that as evidence that "C is true" ie that the cop did NOT respond as trained.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

And one does not need to be "clairvoyant" to consider the motivation of another person. That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

Use your empathy.

Imagine it is your job to defend this cop, as having done his job, to your political boss and to the media/activist/lawyer lynch mob.

Give it a moment...

Now do you want to do your job?

Or do you want to throw the cop under the boss and cover your own ass?

Inventing further new definitions now?

"Subject" in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "person" -- it means topic.

Authority in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "boss". It means an outside entity brought into the argument.

Let's say we're discussing driving.
You say, "Never shift without clutching. It ruins the transmission"
I then say, "No it doesn't -- Richard Petty did it".

Richard Petty is not part of our conversation. I brought him in as an "authority" -- on the subject (topic).

THAT is what Appeal to Authority fallacy means. It has nothing to do with an authority figure, as in a boss.

In the instant case the boss DID INDEED fire the goon for his excess. The fact that he fired him is not subject to debate. The fact that it's his job to evaluate the goon is also not subject to debate. Those are "facts".

After that you went into speculation fallacies about "yabbut I know what he's really thinking".

Poster please. You got nothin'.

1. An Authority does not have to be an outside entity.

2. No one is denying that the cop was fired. (so lets not revisit that strawman)

3. No one is denying that the Boss's job is to evaluate the "goon". (so lets not revisit that strawman)

4. YOu did present the firing as evidence that the cop was in the wrong.

5. THat's Appeal to Authority.

6. Did you consider the motivation I spoke of above? Or do you want to pretend again that I asked you to do something paranormal?

NO; IT IS NOT: AND NO I DID NOT:

The evidence the cop was in the wrong is right there in the video. We all saw that before this Sheriff made his decision. He saw the same thing, which is how he came to that conclusion.

Nobody anywhere committed an Appeal to Authority here.

And again for the second time, no I did not consider any 'paranormal motivations'. I simply assume he's doing his job, which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have no reason to doubt. Nor do you.

It is unpleasant to watch real violence and force.

It is also unpleasant to watch surgery or a plumber plunge a overflowed toilet.

But our discomfort does not mean what is occurring is wrong.

I did not ask you to consider "paranormal motivations". I asked you to imagine if it was your job to make the call, of whether to fire the cop or defend him.

Would you really be objective in making that call, when you considered facing the mob?

And yes, you made an Appeal to Authority when you cited the firing as evidence.

 

[Pogo]

Sigh... don't try to snow me on this shit.

>> Description of Appeal to Authority


An Appeal to Authority is a fallacy with the following form:

1. Person A is (claimed to be) an authority on subject S.
2. Person A makes claim C about subject S.
3. Therefore, C is true. << (Nizkor)

I'm afraid if you want new definitions for existing words, you're gonna have to invent your own language.

Nope. Don't need to. Number one I don't claim to be clairvoyant, number two it's part of his job as a supervisor to assess these things, and number three there is no question as to "whether it's his fault or not". It's on video.

---- Unless of course you want to go with that tactic of the bald-faced liar above who maintains that the girl's desk threw itself. You prolly don't.

And that is what you did.

1. YOu stated that his Boss set the standards and it is the Boss's role to judge if the standards are violated. Thus you claimed his Boss to be the Authority, (A)

2. You pointed out that his Boss (A) had "made a claim about Subject S, ie "fired him wid a quickness".

3. And you presented that as evidence that "C is true" ie that the cop did NOT respond as trained.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

And one does not need to be "clairvoyant" to consider the motivation of another person. That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

Use your empathy.

Imagine it is your job to defend this cop, as having done his job, to your political boss and to the media/activist/lawyer lynch mob.

Give it a moment...

Now do you want to do your job?

Or do you want to throw the cop under the boss and cover your own ass?

Inventing further new definitions now?

"Subject" in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "person" -- it means topic.

Authority in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "boss". It means an outside entity brought into the argument.

Let's say we're discussing driving.
You say, "Never shift without clutching. It ruins the transmission"
I then say, "No it doesn't -- Richard Petty did it".

Richard Petty is not part of our conversation. I brought him in as an "authority" -- on the subject (topic).

THAT is what Appeal to Authority fallacy means. It has nothing to do with an authority figure, as in a boss.

In the instant case the boss DID INDEED fire the goon for his excess. The fact that he fired him is not subject to debate. The fact that it's his job to evaluate the goon is also not subject to debate. Those are "facts".

After that you went into speculation fallacies about "yabbut I know what he's really thinking".

Poster please. You got nothin'.

1. An Authority does not have to be an outside entity.

2. No one is denying that the cop was fired. (so lets not revisit that strawman)

3. No one is denying that the Boss's job is to evaluate the "goon". (so lets not revisit that strawman)

4. YOu did present the firing as evidence that the cop was in the wrong.

5. THat's Appeal to Authority.

6. Did you consider the motivation I spoke of above? Or do you want to pretend again that I asked you to do something paranormal?

NO; IT IS NOT: AND NO I DID NOT:

The evidence the cop was in the wrong is right there in the video. We all saw that before this Sheriff made his decision. He saw the same thing, which is how he came to that conclusion.

Nobody anywhere committed an Appeal to Authority here.

And again for the second time, no I did not consider any 'paranormal motivations'. I simply assume he's doing his job, which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have no reason to doubt. Nor do you.

It is unpleasant to watch real violence and force.

It is also unpleasant to watch surgery or a plumber plunge a overflowed toilet.

But our discomfort does not mean what is occurring is wrong.

I did not ask you to consider "paranormal motivations". I asked you to imagine if it was your job to make the call, of whether to fire the cop or defend him.

Would you really be objective in making that call, when you considered facing the mob?

And yes, you made an Appeal to Authority when you cited the firing as evidence.

Wrong. I gave you the definition of the fallacy already and you choose to go

If I had said, "I went to my sheriff to get his opinion and he says the cop is wrong", then THAT would be Appeal to Authority. What part of this don't you get?

"Evidence" of what? We've already established the goon got his ass fired. That's a fact; it needs no "evidence". The evidence of his going apeshit is right there in the video.

Do you, like, understand English?

 

[Correll]

And that is what you did.

1. YOu stated that his Boss set the standards and it is the Boss's role to judge if the standards are violated. Thus you claimed his Boss to be the Authority, (A)

2. You pointed out that his Boss (A) had "made a claim about Subject S, ie "fired him wid a quickness".

3. And you presented that as evidence that "C is true" ie that the cop did NOT respond as trained.

Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Authority.

And one does not need to be "clairvoyant" to consider the motivation of another person. That is the Logical Fallacy of Appeal to Ridicule.

Use your empathy.

Imagine it is your job to defend this cop, as having done his job, to your political boss and to the media/activist/lawyer lynch mob.

Give it a moment...

Now do you want to do your job?

Or do you want to throw the cop under the boss and cover your own ass?

Inventing further new definitions now?

"Subject" in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "person" -- it means topic.

Authority in the definition of the fallacy does not mean "boss". It means an outside entity brought into the argument.

Let's say we're discussing driving.
You say, "Never shift without clutching. It ruins the transmission"
I then say, "No it doesn't -- Richard Petty did it".

Richard Petty is not part of our conversation. I brought him in as an "authority" -- on the subject (topic).

THAT is what Appeal to Authority fallacy means. It has nothing to do with an authority figure, as in a boss.

In the instant case the boss DID INDEED fire the goon for his excess. The fact that he fired him is not subject to debate. The fact that it's his job to evaluate the goon is also not subject to debate. Those are "facts".

After that you went into speculation fallacies about "yabbut I know what he's really thinking".

Poster please. You got nothin'.

1. An Authority does not have to be an outside entity.

2. No one is denying that the cop was fired. (so lets not revisit that strawman)

3. No one is denying that the Boss's job is to evaluate the "goon". (so lets not revisit that strawman)

4. YOu did present the firing as evidence that the cop was in the wrong.

5. THat's Appeal to Authority.

6. Did you consider the motivation I spoke of above? Or do you want to pretend again that I asked you to do something paranormal?

NO; IT IS NOT: AND NO I DID NOT:

The evidence the cop was in the wrong is right there in the video. We all saw that before this Sheriff made his decision. He saw the same thing, which is how he came to that conclusion.

Nobody anywhere committed an Appeal to Authority here.

And again for the second time, no I did not consider any 'paranormal motivations'. I simply assume he's doing his job, which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary I have no reason to doubt. Nor do you.

It is unpleasant to watch real violence and force.

It is also unpleasant to watch surgery or a plumber plunge a overflowed toilet.

But our discomfort does not mean what is occurring is wrong.

I did not ask you to consider "paranormal motivations". I asked you to imagine if it was your job to make the call, of whether to fire the cop or defend him.

Would you really be objective in making that call, when you considered facing the mob?

And yes, you made an Appeal to Authority when you cited the firing as evidence.

Wrong. I gave you the definition of the fallacy already and you choose to go

If I had said, "I went to my sheriff to get his opinion and he says the cop is wrong", then THAT would be Appeal to Authority. What part of this don't you get?

"Evidence" of what? We've already established the goon got his ass fired. That's a fact; it needs no "evidence". The evidence of his going apeshit is right there in the video.

Do you, like, understand English?

Why do you keep harping on the fact that the cop got fired?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Wrong. I gave you the definition of the fallacy already and you choose to go

If I had said, "I went to my sheriff to get his opinion and he says the cop is wrong", then THAT would be Appeal to Authority. What part of this don't you get?

"Evidence" of what? We've already established the goon got his ass fired. That's a fact; it needs no "evidence". The evidence of his going apeshit is right there in the video.

Do you, like, understand English?

ROFLMNAO!

You're as dense as a stone. You appeal to the Sheriff's decision, and imply that the decision was the right one, because the Sheriff made the decision. Even in your numerous responses, wherein you repeat your assertion, you never once explain WHY the decision was correct... and in THAT you fail reason and set your argument on the unsound construct OKA: ipse dixit.

The video to which you refer fails to show the attack the individual made against the officer. Where she struck the officer; a felony criminal act, which in my state is worthy of a 5000 fine and 5 years in prison.

At that point she becomes a belligerent and has subjected herself to the force necessary to subdue her... up to and including deadly force.