Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Statement [W:377]

[Excon]

Re: Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Statement [W:3

So not only are you more familiar with the evidence than the jury, but you're also an expert on the Glasgow Coma Scale, which means nothing. I guess that's why the EMS did the assessment; they had nothing better to do.

You straw men are just an indication that you have no valid argument Figures.

 

[nota bene]

Re: Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Statement [W:3

All I can say is that being vaguely familiar with a few fallacies' names doesn't mean that you understand what a fallacy is. For example, there is legitimate appeal to authority, and then there is the false appeal to authority. You don't seem to understand the difference. And calling something a "strawman" doesn't make it one.

 

[Excon]

Re: Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Statement [W:3

All I can say is

Yes, because you do not know any better.

that being vaguely familiar with a few fallacies' names doesn't mean that you understand what a fallacy is.

Your lack of understanding is what you have amply demonstrated.

For example, there is legitimate appeal to authority, and then there is the false appeal to authority.

This isn't that kind of case.
Our discussion of the evidence matters not to what another group found in their discussion of it.
That other group is not an authority, are not experts in the area, and are not infallible.
And as already pointed out, arguing such it is not only an appeal to authority but it is a circular argument.

‘The Jury is correct because that is what they found.’ ​

That doesn't fly and it never will.

We are discussing the evidence, what they found is irrelevant to that.
If you want to argue what they found is correct you need to argue the actual evidence, and thus far you have failed at doing so.

You don't seem to understand the difference.

No. That would be you.
As already shown.

And calling something a "strawman" doesn't make it one.

Hilarious.
But I guess it was a good thing that I was correct then.

But since you do not understand, lets make this a little more clear for you.
At anytime did I say I was more familiar with the evidence than the Jury? Of course not. Your retort was a "straw man".
At any time did I say I was an expert on the Glasgow Coma Scale? Of course not. Your retort was a "straw man".

And in reference to the GC Scale, I pointed out relevant information that apparently you didn't know.
iLOL
And EMS performing the test would be to see if she was in a comma as opposed to being passed out.

It was apparent that you were running around spewing what you read/heard elsewhere ([sarcasm]

OMG! it's an 11 out of 15 on the GC Scale, OMG!

[/sarcasm]) without an actual understanding of what had been communicated, because on the Scale, 1 is the worse and 15 is the best.
So like I said.

The scale you cite is basically meaningless, as we know why she was sleeping, she was drunk.
In addition, the scale goes from 1 (being the worst) to 15 (being the best). ​

A score of 8 and below would indicate a person is comatose. This test established that she was not comatose.

You should really learn about things before speaking on them.

 

[HenryChinaski]

Re: Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Statement [W:3

Yes, because you do not know any better.


Your lack of understanding is what you have amply demonstrated.


This isn't that kind of case.
Our discussion of the evidence matters not to what another group found in their discussion of it.
That other group is not an authority, are not experts in the area, and are not infallible.
And as already pointed out, arguing such it is not only an appeal to authority but it is a circular argument.

‘The Jury is correct because that is what they found.’ ​

That doesn't fly and it never will.

We are discussing the evidence, what they found is irrelevant to that.
If you want to argue what they found is correct you need to argue the actual evidence, and thus far you have failed at doing so.


No. That would be you.
As already shown.


Hilarious.
But I guess it was a good thing that I was correct then.

But since you do not understand, lets make this a little more clear for you.
At anytime did I say I was more familiar with the evidence than the Jury? Of course not. Your retort was a "straw man".
At any time did I say I was an expert on the Glasgow Coma Scale? Of course not. Your retort was a "straw man".

And in reference to the GC Scale, I pointed out relevant information that apparently you didn't know.
iLOL
And EMS performing the test would be to see if she was in a comma as opposed to being passed out.

It was apparent that you were running around spewing what you read/heard elsewhere ([sarcasm]

OMG! it's an 11 out of 15 on the GC Scale, OMG!

[/sarcasm]) without an actual understanding of what had been communicated, because on the Scale, 1 is the worse and 15 is the best.
So like I said.

The scale you cite is basically meaningless, as we know why she was sleeping, she was drunk.
In addition, the scale goes from 1 (being the worst) to 15 (being the best). ​

A score of 8 and below would indicate a person is comatose. This test established that she was not comatose.

You should really learn about things before speaking on them.

You're an odd dude, and it's pretty safe bet that whatever the circumstances, you'd always side with a rapist. The rapist is never accountable in your mind, it's always the woman's fault, she wanted it or asked for it in someway. The evidence in this case is clear cut showing his guilt and you just deny it.

 

[Excon]

Re: Outrage in Stanford Rape Case Over Light Sentence for Attacker and Statement [W:3

You're an odd dude, and it's pretty safe bet that whatever the circumstances, you'd always side with a rapist. The rapist is never accountable in your mind, it's always the woman's fault, she wanted it or asked for it in someway. The evidence in this case is clear cut showing his guilt and you just deny it.

Said the one making things up to believe and lying about another person.

Clear cut? Hilarious. You clearly do not know what that means, just like you do not know what the evidence is.

As for your stupid position about me? Getting personal again? How sad.
A very ignorant and stupid thing to say and just confirms the weakness of your overall arguments.