Conquer Club

Funkyterrance wrote:Jb, I can relate with you on at least part of the issue but I can't help but point something out:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Why are you a cook with a subscription?

What does this have to do with the debate?

AD HOMINEM

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The ironly here...

I don't know what ironly is... can you explain this concept to me???

Does our discussion have to be well pressed or something?

Those are two seperate and distinct things.

A person's skill (or lack thereof) at CC... does not necessarily translate to his/her intelligence.

A person's inability to spell (especially in light of the fact that CC provides a spell-checker) i believe does relate to intelligence.

Furthermore...

1) It can be argued that score / rank is not even in absolute correlation with ability in CC. I generally float around Sergeant (still a low rank, but better than cook)... however I have been trying a bunch of different maps, plusn the new "trench warfare" option has had a negative impact on my rank.

2) Symmetry ONLY attacked my score and did not comment or rebutt ANY of my points at all. I did make fun of Player... but I ALSO did reply to and/or rebutt several of her points. I would agree that personal attacks are not the "right" way to "debate" here... however I also think that mixing up silly insults along with actually responses is fina and common; wereas resposne that are ONLY personal attacks are a complete different story.

Make sense?

Do I get some points back... if not FULL aquittal?

jimboston wrote:
Do I get some points back... if not FULL aquittal?

Well I'm not really keeping a tally but admittedly symmetry broke the proverbial ice. However, it's customary to make a low blow back at the offender, not someone else. Of all the posters on here player is probably one of the least likely to make potshots.
Also, to be fair I don't think it was a spelling mistake, more likely a typo. But even if it were a spelling mistake I'm not sure how much of a reflection spelling skills are of overall intelligence but that's another debate in of itself.

jimboston wrote:

Funkyterrance wrote:Jb, I can relate with you on at least part of the issue but I can't help but point something out:

jimboston wrote:

Symmetry wrote:
Why are you a cook with a subscription?

What does this have to do with the debate?

AD HOMINEM

jimboston wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The ironly here...

I don't know what ironly is... can you explain this concept to me???

Does our discussion have to be well pressed or something?

Those are two seperate and distinct things.

A person's skill (or lack thereof) at CC... does not necessarily translate to his/her intelligence.

A person's inability to spell (especially in light of the fact that CC provides a spell-checker) i believe does relate to intelligence.

Furthermore...

1) It can be argued that score / rank is not even in absolute correlation with ability in CC. I generally float around Sergeant (still a low rank, but better than cook)... however I have been trying a bunch of different maps, plusn the new "trench warfare" option has had a negative impact on my rank.

Your intelligence appears low, Mr Ad Hominem.

jimboston wrote:2) Symmetry ONLY attacked my score and did not comment or rebutt ANY of my points at all. I did make fun of Player... but I ALSO did reply to and/or rebutt several of her points. I would agree that personal attacks are not the "right" way to "debate" here... however I also think that mixing up silly insults along with actually responses is fina and common; wereas resposne that are ONLY personal attacks are a complete different story.

Make sense?

Do I get some points back... if not FULL aquittal?

Starting to look downright dumb, in fact...

Funkyterrance wrote:

jimboston wrote:
Do I get some points back... if not FULL aquittal?

Well I'm not really keeping a tally but admittedly symmetry broke the proverbial ice. However, it's customary to make a low blow back at the offender, not someone else. Of all the posters on here player is probably one of the least likely to make potshots.
Also, to be fair I don't think it was a spelling mistake, more likely a typo. But even if it were a spelling mistake I'm not sure how much of a reflection spelling skills are of overall intelligence but that's another debate in of itself.

I don't see a distinction between a spelling mistake and a typo. I understand the distinction... but don't agree.

You're right, Player doesn't take a lot of potshots, kudos to her... she's a "bigger" poster than I.

My pothsot at Player wasn't caused Symmetry... I have a long history of insulting her.

Woodruff wrote:

jimboston wrote:mixing up silly insults along with actually responses is fina and common; wereas resposne

Starting to look downright dumb, in fact...

touche'

I know I am on the wrong side of an argument when Woody turns against me.

jimboston wrote: .

Correction... he followed HIS interpretation of the law. Bending or stretching the law is "bench activism". I am sure there is no law that states "the DOC must provide sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) to all who request it". The law does say that (paraphrasing) that the DOC must provide reasonable health care... I just don't think that SRS would be reasonable to THE VAST MAJORITY of people... and therefore, ordering it is activism.

The Constitution states that punishments must not be "cruel and unusual"... I don't see how NOT providing SRS is either "cruel" or "unusual".

I also will refer to recent posts regarding the slippery slope of this ruling... which only one poster has addressed.

Thank you for clarifying your lack of understanding of our legal process.

See, only the Supreme court uses the Constitution as its sole guide. Judges use local/state/federal laws (depending on their jurisdictions) and the interpretations of higher courts as their law. They are not allowed to go against precedence set by a higher court. And, only in some cases (talk to an attorney on this one) by "parallel" courts.

So, what the judge did was not to say that he himself thought xyz is cruel and unusual.. he said that other courts had already determined surgeries dictated by the medical profession have to be provided to avoid violation of the crule and unusual bit, so he had to approve this.

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jimboston wrote: .

Correction... he followed HIS interpretation of the law. Bending or stretching the law is "bench activism". I am sure there is no law that states "the DOC must provide sexual reassignment surgery (SRS) to all who request it". The law does say that (paraphrasing) that the DOC must provide reasonable health care... I just don't think that SRS would be reasonable to THE VAST MAJORITY of people... and therefore, ordering it is activism.

The Constitution states that punishments must not be "cruel and unusual"... I don't see how NOT providing SRS is either "cruel" or "unusual".

I also will refer to recent posts regarding the slippery slope of this ruling... which only one poster has addressed.

Thank you for clarifying your lack of understanding of our legal process.

See, only the Supreme court uses the Constitution as its sole guide. Judges use local/state/federal laws (depending on their jurisdictions) and the interpretations of higher courts as their law. They are not allowed to go against precedence set by a higher court. And, only in some cases (talk to an attorney on this one) by "parallel" courts.

So, what the judge did was not to say that he himself thought xyz is cruel and unusual.. he said that other courts had already determined surgeries dictated by the medical profession have to be provided to avoid violation of the crule and unusual bit, so he had to approve this.

Bingo. Hopefully framing the argument in this "his job was on the line" context will shed some further light to all parties involved.