Skip to main content

View Diary: Mr. KOS, Code of Conduct Rule No. 1: Ad Hominem Attacks Are Verboten (151 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  False remark 1000% - Graham's Pyramid (0+ / 0-)

    and Dictionary's define "ad hominem" attacks

    as Attack of the person

    while failing to address the issues

    http://en.wikipedia.org/...


    Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

    by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:31:37 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Saying an argument is conspiracy theory... (5+ / 0-)

      ...is not an attack on the person. It is an attack on the argument. You can tell it's an attack on the argument because the argument would remain conspiracy theory no matter who espoused it.

      It doesn't matter who is saying that aliens have taken over the bodies of all the major world leaders and are getting us ready for an alien invasion; its status as conspiracy theory is completely disconnected from the person making the argument.

      Additionally, because the burden of proof is always on the person making the claim, charging that an argument is insufficiently-supported conspiracy theory does not require the person making the charge to disprove the theory, simply to point out where the lack of substantiation for the claims exists.

      To suggest that any argument that cannot be disproven must necessarily be true is the argumentam ad ignorantiam. It is the responsibility of the person making a claim to support that claim with sufficient evidence and reason.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:42:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Saying it is CT - without proof - is KILLER (0+ / 0-)

        of conversation.

        The whole reason we all write D's is to make a point and/or engage in banter upon the point.

        Calling out CT - without documentation it is CT

        IS BOGUS banter, in extreme bad faith and extreme bad form


        Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

        by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:46:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The standard in argumentation... (4+ / 0-)

          ...is that it is the responsibility of the person making the claim to support that claim with evidence and reason. CT is, at its heart, a failure on the part of the claimant to do so, in making claims that either are not or cannot be supported by evidence and reason.

          That's why the standard here for CT has always been "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence." If you're going to claim that aliens are impersonating all of our world leaders, then it's your job to provide some rather extraordinary evidence to that effect. It is not the responsibility of those who are arguing that aliens aren't impersonating all of our world leaders to prove that they're not.

          To make the charge that an argument is CT does not require proof on the part of the person making the charge that the argument in question is untrue; the burden of proof is on the person making the argument to support their claim, not on the interlocutor to disprove it. To suggest otherwise is to engage in the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantiam.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 06:53:20 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  BS - BIG Bull - you/yours make a claim of CT (0+ / 0-)

            as in court, the allegations in a complaint ("moi") is assumed to be true - until PROOF is proffered to the contray.

            You can NOT go to court on a case - and shove a prosecutors case out the window -

            by simply saying its CT.

            U R 100% full of bull that you can make an assault out of thin blue air - without providing proof your assault has merits.

            BOGUS logic - Inane!


            Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

            by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:13:15 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  This is patently false. (2+ / 0-)

              Under Twombly/Iqbal, the allegations must meet a base level of facial plausibility to get through the front door, and obviously at the end of the day the plaintiff must prove his case with evidence, not allegations.

              •  That is trial upon the merits. What you are NOT (0+ / 0-)

                willing to do.

                You consistently babble that you have disproved the allegations - as if your remarks are true.

                Professional Code of Conduct Rule 3.3

                http://courts.delaware.gov/...

                Candor toward the tribunal

                (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly:
                (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer


                You have made many false statements and when you get caught, you ignore the fact and move on to your next disingenuous banter /babble.


                Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:40:36 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  I guess that is what is meant (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Adam B

                by prima facia.

                "On the face of it" there should be an arguable case to answer or "at first sight".

                ... or, in a criminal sphere ... at least "probable cause".

                In other words, a set of unsupported assertions just isn't enough.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                Who is twigg?

                by twigg on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:16:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Again - your inference is disingenuous. There's (0+ / 0-)

                  NO set of unsupported assertions here.

                  They have already admitted their Affidavits had misleading information.

                  They are FALSE.

                  It is also confessed it was intentionally left to stand before the court - to mislead - even after they were aware they could get caught by the Bonus Sales case.

                  See United States Trustee (the POLICE of the bankruptcy court system) - remarks in part 18 of the Motion to Disgorge Traub Bonacquist & Fox ("TBF") for $1.6 million - of February 15, 2005.

                  http://petters-fraud.com/...

                  Part 18 is the Fed Police (US Trustee) states that;

                  TBF
                  further asserts that although Traub and Fox considered amending their disclosures in 2003 (as a
                  result of their July 2003 disclosure of the relationship between TBF and ADA in the Bonus
                  Stores case, No. 03-12284 (MFW), they determined that it was not necessary to do so because
                  the eToys plan had already been confirmed and gone effective.  Id. at ¶ 3

                  Traub knew they could get caught for the lie because of the affidavit (Smoking Gun evidence) in the Bonus Sales case.

                  But they decided to let the lie stand before the court; because the case was over (in 2003 - and here we are with the case still open in 2013).

                  They deliberately lied to a Chief Federal Justice and that's Fraud upon the court (which the U.S. Trustee concluded had transpired as is iterated in part 35)

                  Part 35 states;

                  Unlike R&R Associates, this case does not involve novice bankruptcy counsel
                  who borrowed a form of Rule 2014 affidavit from another attorney in the firm.  It instead
                  involves experienced bankruptcy practitioners who have filed applications to be retained as
                  Section 327 or Section 1103 counsel in numerous large and sophisticated Chapter 11 cases, both
                  in Delaware and elsewhere. TBF’s partners are well-versed in the comprehensive and ongoing
                  relationships analysis required of a professional employed at estate expense.  And as discussed
                  earlier in this Motion, TBF had engaged in discussions with the Office of the United States
                  Trustee about replacement officers of the debtors, and was aware of the UST’s concern that the
                  replacement officers not be related to any of the professionals employed in the case.  This, it is
                  respectfully submitted, is all of the intent needed to demonstrate that TBF’s Rule 2014 disclosure
                  violation was a fraud upon the court.

                  Fraud on the court by an officer of the court - is such a heinous & egregious violation of the integrity of the judicial process

                  That there's NO statute of limitations when it occurs!


                  Mitt Romney was CEO of Bain until Aug 2001. Proof of Bain & Romney Fraud

                  by laserhaas on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 08:50:58 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong, as a matter of law (3+ / 0-)

              Allegations in a complaint are assumed to be true when a dispository motion, such as a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim for which relief can be granted, is filed.  Such motions come before an answer in which allegations are denied or admitted to.

              At all events, the burden of proof remains with the plaintiff.  In this case, to continue your analogy, that would be you.

            •  I'm not talking about court. (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Adam B, VetGrl, pico

              I'm talking about argumentation theory—the very same philosophical discipline to which you appeal in your citation of Graham's Pyramid.

              (The lawyers here are doing a pretty good job taking apart your arguments about truth claims in the legal system.)

              In argumentation theory, it is not the case that a claim is assumed to be true until disproven; rather, the claim is assumed to be untrue until it is sufficiently supported. The burden of proof is on the person making the initial claim; only after they have provided sufficient evidence and reason to support their claim does there exist a burden of rejoinder on their interlocutor.

              In the case of CT, those who do not provide extraordinary evidence to back up extraordinary claims have not fulfilled the burden of proof; thus, their interlocutors do not need to marshal evidence and reason as disproof. They simply need to point out where the initial argument lacks sufficient support.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Mon Sep 09, 2013 at 07:56:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site