quote:

An abusive ad hominem can apply to a judgment of cultural works or academic efforts based on the behavior or unconventional political beliefs of an artist, author, or musician, or the taste of an infamous person who loved a certain work. Examples:

Jimi Hendrix died of a drug overdose, so his music was worthless.
This person is a troll boy, so his article is worthless
Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi, so her film The Triumph of the Will is devoid of merit.
Sylvia Plath was a depressive who eventually committed suicide, so her works are unreadable.
That Boris Godunov was the favorite opera of Joseph Stalin indicates the worthlessness of the opera.
What Ted Kaczynski wrote about boundary conditions in mathematics is shown false due to his crimes.
What Jenny said about Axel in third period wasn't true because she got breast implants.

quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

My major pet peeve with the justice system in the US.... "convicted" people sitting in jail after DNA has proven they did not commit the crime.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

FR

Lest recent posts might be obfuscating things, the dissenting opinion did not say that Davis should have a new trial or should have his execution stayed. It said that the SCOTUS should not even have bothered sending it back to the District Court because it has no power to grant the relief that Davis petitioned for.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

You have a point? How funny.

Edited to add:

Given the low quality and antagonistic nature of your past posts, why on earth would I take anything you have to say seriously? If you had posted intelligent, thoughtful responses, that would be a different matter. But pretty much everything you've posted is inflammatory.

And apparently you dont pay attention to American politics

Well I don't know if he pays attention to American politics, but he obviously pays attention to the forums here because he nailed you in his replys. But then again you didn't create this screen name to be taken seriously did you? So what's the problem[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet

Too true Rule. Although sometimes the most interesting opinions are the dissents.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

In regards to Troy Davis
Justice Antonin Scalia stated

quote:


This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

I agree, why should actual innocents matter when he was already convicted of being guilty by a jury of his peers. New evidence and new Facts should not taint our legal system after a person has been convicted. It sends a message to criminals every where that if you didnt commit a crime you may go free. In this case, when deciding whether or not to kill someone, his possible innocence is irrelevant.  Justice is blind people, it doesnt see the color of your skin, nor does it see the "facts" or "evidence", it hears them, it feels them. Do you really want to live in a society that allows wrong convicted criminals to go free? What about the victims? When will they get their Justice if we start letting actual innocents taint our legal system?

And dont go linking that clip from Boston Legal where Alan Shore takes on the Supreme Court. Thats fiction not reality.

I'm convinced you are what is known as a Loki troll. Time to fess up to who you actually are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

So sorry, I clicked on your profile before I responded to check, but it came up not found. I guess I need to pay more attention to the posts I read in the future.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

In regards to Troy Davis
Justice Antonin Scalia stated

quote:


This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

I'm far from a legal expert.  But let me interpret as best I can.  The second sentence is the crux.  In it, Scalia (Sanity disputed the source but I'll ignore him here and simply play ball with Masta808) states that the court's determination of innocence vs guilt must suffice.  There can be no claim of "facts" that override a court of law because the purpose of the court is to weigh various facts which may even be conflicting and determine the truth to the best of its abilities.

The first statement is weak because it omits mentioning that a full and fair trial includes provisions for appeal if it is found that the process for arriving at its verdict was flawed.  There are provisions for do-overs.

The entire statement could be translated as "The US court system is designed to produce the fairest verdict possible.  People may disagree with it, but it works."

quote:

ORIGINAL: rulemylife

quote:

ORIGINAL: DarkSteven

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

In regards to Troy Davis
Justice Antonin Scalia stated

quote:


This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

I'm far from a legal expert.  But let me interpret as best I can.  The second sentence is the crux.  In it, Scalia (Sanity disputed the source but I'll ignore him here and simply play ball with Masta808) states that the court's determination of innocence vs guilt must suffice.  There can be no claim of "facts" that override a court of law because the purpose of the court is to weigh various facts which may even be conflicting and determine the truth to the best of its abilities.

The first statement is weak because it omits mentioning that a full and fair trial includes provisions for appeal if it is found that the process for arriving at its verdict was flawed.  There are provisions for do-overs.

The entire statement could be translated as "The US court system is designed to produce the fairest verdict possible.  People may disagree with it, but it works."

And what everyone is overlooking is this is a dissenting opinion.

The Court ruled otherwise.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

In regards to Troy Davis
Justice Antonin Scalia stated

quote:


This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

I agree, why should actual innocents matter when he was already convicted of being guilty by a jury of his peers. New evidence and new Facts should not taint our legal system after a person has been convicted. It sends a message to criminals every where that if you didnt commit a crime you may go free. In this case, when deciding whether or not to kill someone, his possible innocence is irrelevant.  Justice is blind people, it doesnt see the color of your skin, nor does it see the "facts" or "evidence", it hears them, it feels them. Do you really want to live in a society that allows wrong convicted criminals to go free? What about the victims? When will they get their Justice if we start letting actual innocents taint our legal system?

And dont go linking that clip from Boston Legal where Alan Shore takes on the Supreme Court. Thats fiction not reality.

I'm convinced you are what is known as a Loki troll. Time to fess up to who you actually are.

quote:

ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

In regards to Troy Davis
Justice Antonin Scalia stated

quote:


This Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is “actually” innocent.  Quite to the contrary, we have repeatedly left that question unresolved, while expressing considerable doubt that any claim based on alleged “actual innocence” is constitutionally cognizable.

I agree, why should actual innocents matter when he was already convicted of being guilty by a jury of his peers. New evidence and new Facts should not taint our legal system after a person has been convicted. It sends a message to criminals every where that if you didnt commit a crime you may go free. In this case, when deciding whether or not to kill someone, his possible innocence is irrelevant.  Justice is blind people, it doesnt see the color of your skin, nor does it see the "facts" or "evidence", it hears them, it feels them. Do you really want to live in a society that allows wrong convicted criminals to go free? What about the victims? When will they get their Justice if we start letting actual innocents taint our legal system?

And dont go linking that clip from Boston Legal where Alan Shore takes on the Supreme Court. Thats fiction not reality.

I'm convinced you are what is known as a Loki troll. Time to fess up to who you actually are.

You only just became convinced of that? It was obvious from his first post, except that he kept getting confused and slipped into lib talking points now and then.

quote:

ORIGINAL: SternSkipper

quote:

An abusive ad hominem can apply to a judgment of cultural works or academic efforts based on the behavior or unconventional political beliefs of an artist, author, or musician, or the taste of an infamous person who loved a certain work. Examples:

Jimi Hendrix died of a drug overdose, so his music was worthless.
This person is a troll boy, so his article is worthless
Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi, so her film The Triumph of the Will is devoid of merit.
Sylvia Plath was a depressive who eventually committed suicide, so her works are unreadable.
That Boris Godunov was the favorite opera of Joseph Stalin indicates the worthlessness of the opera.
What Ted Kaczynski wrote about boundary conditions in mathematics is shown false due to his crimes.
What Jenny said about Axel in third period wasn't true because she got breast implants.

Too chicken to take on David Brudnoy I see

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

You have a point? How funny.

Edited to add:

Given the low quality and antagonistic nature of your past posts, why on earth would I take anything you have to say seriously? If you had posted intelligent, thoughtful responses, that would be a different matter. But pretty much everything you've posted is inflammatory.

And apparently you dont pay attention to American politics

Well I don't know if he pays attention to American politics, but he obviously pays attention to the forums here because he nailed you in his replys. But then again you didn't create this screen name to be taken seriously did you? So what's the problem[8|]

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

You have a point? How funny.

Edited to add:

Given the low quality and antagonistic nature of your past posts, why on earth would I take anything you have to say seriously? If you had posted intelligent, thoughtful responses, that would be a different matter. But pretty much everything you've posted is inflammatory.

And apparently you dont pay attention to American politics

Well I don't know if he pays attention to American politics, but he obviously pays attention to the forums here because he nailed you in his replys. But then again you didn't create this screen name to be taken seriously did you? So what's the problem[8|]

*ahem* she :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

You have a point? How funny.

Edited to add:

Given the low quality and antagonistic nature of your past posts, why on earth would I take anything you have to say seriously? If you had posted intelligent, thoughtful responses, that would be a different matter. But pretty much everything you've posted is inflammatory.

And apparently you dont pay attention to American politics

Well I don't know if he pays attention to American politics, but he obviously pays attention to the forums here because he nailed you in his replys. But then again you didn't create this screen name to be taken seriously did you? So what's the problem[8|]

You also dont pay much to American politics either. Its sad state when people who go to comment on poitical matters dont know what they are talking about. They only resort to personal attacks in the end. Here is proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

So sorry, I clicked on your profile before I responded to check, but it came up not found. I guess I need to pay more attention to the posts I read in the future.

Yeah, sorry about that. I got tired of the types of responses I was getting on the other side, so I decided to hide it, but still participate on this side.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808
Its sad state when people who go to comment on poitical matters dont know what they are talking about. They only resort to personal attacks in the end. Here is proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

So sorry, I clicked on your profile before I responded to check, but it came up not found. I guess I need to pay more attention to the posts I read in the future.

Yeah, sorry about that. I got tired of the types of responses I was getting on the other side, so I decided to hide it, but still participate on this side.

Oh look someone calling me a troll doesnt have a profile. I wonder who the real troll is.

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808
Its sad state when people who go to comment on poitical matters dont know what they are talking about. They only resort to personal attacks in the end. Here is proof.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Masta808

quote:

ORIGINAL: DeviantlyD

quote:

ORIGINAL: thishereboi

So sorry, I clicked on your profile before I responded to check, but it came up not found. I guess I need to pay more attention to the posts I read in the future.

Yeah, sorry about that. I got tired of the types of responses I was getting on the other side, so I decided to hide it, but still participate on this side.

Oh look someone calling me a troll doesnt have a profile. I wonder who the real troll is.

You were saying? [:D]