Can Anyone Explain How Defecation Laws Make Any Sense?

[Andrew D]

I realize that you were addressing me, Sean. And I rather doubt that anyone failed to grasp that it was I, not you, who aimed those words at Lord Jim.

But "had nothing to do with Jim"? I do not follow that.

The words of mine which you quoted were words I wrote in direct and explicit response to him. How could those words -- and, therefore, how could your quotation of those words -- have had nothing to do with him?

As to the points themselves:

--> there is no practicable way to ensure that one's cleanup will be adequate

--> there is no practicable way to ensure that whatever chemical(s) one uses for one's cleanup will be environmentally sound

Are you saying that those points are somehow germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked?

As far as I am aware, Lord Jim has not said so. You are of course, free to say so. If you are saying so, I am interested to see how you think that simply walking down the street naked gives rise to any issue of cleanup, be it adequacy or environmental soundness, at all.

The whole issue of cleanup strikes me as a fundamental difference between walking naked on a sidewalk and taking a dump on that sidewalk. Merely walking somewhere naked does not, it seems to me, require anyone to clean up anything.

But perhaps you see the matter differently.

[Sean]

I realize that you were addressing me, Sean. And I rather doubt that anyone failed to grasp that it was I, not you, who aimed those words at Lord Jim.

But "had nothing to do with Jim"? I do not follow that.

The words of mine which you quoted were words I wrote in direct and explicit response to him. How could those words -- and, therefore, how could your quotation of those words -- have had nothing to do with him?

As to the points themselves:

--> there is no practicable way to ensure that one's cleanup will be adequate

--> there is no practicable way to ensure that whatever chemical(s) one uses for one's cleanup will be environmentally sound

Are you saying that those points are somehow germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked?

As far as I am aware, Lord Jim has not said so. You are of course, free to say so. If you are saying so, I am interested to see how you think that simply walking down the street naked gives rise to any issue of cleanup, be it adequacy or environmental soundness, at all.

The whole issue of cleanup strikes me as a fundamental difference between walking naked on a sidewalk and taking a dump on that sidewalk. Merely walking somewhere naked does not, it seems to me, require anyone to clean up anything.

But perhaps you see the matter differently.

Andrew, I am not an imbecile. It would be a mistake on your part to take me for one.

Your words were in response to my post and certainly not "in direct and explicit response to" Jim. You did not address him. You addressed me (not to mention the fact that you quoted me) and referred to him.
You responded to my post as if I had been addressing him and not you. My post, as I stated, had nothing to do with Jim. It was YOU who brought Jim into it in an extremely puerile way. Do you follow now?

As to your other "points"...

I have not been, nor do I intend to be involved in this shit fight (pun very much intended). The only point I made was regarding your generic 'because I said so' type post. It was a very weak argument and, quite frankly, beneath you.

I'm going to re-quote a little here (all emphasis mine):

Are you saying that those points are somehow germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked?

As far as I am aware, Lord Jim has not said so. You are of course, free to say so. If you are saying so, I am interested to see how you think that simply walking down the street naked gives rise to any issue of cleanup, be it adequacy or environmental soundness, at all.

The whole issue of cleanup strikes me as a fundamental difference between walking naked on a sidewalk and taking a dump on that sidewalk. Merely walking somewhere naked does not, it seems to me, require anyone to clean up anything.

But perhaps you see the matter differently.

The parts I have bolded are simply your way of trying to draw me into an argument of which I am not part. Apart from the fact that you are using my words, which were stated explicitly about you, against Jim you are trying to corner me into an opinion which I have never expressed and have no intention of expressing to you. Put simply, you are baiting.

Very low as far as debating technique (and I use those words in their loosest sense) goes Andrew and, once again, beneath you. In fact beneath most of the members here... there are one or three exceptions, they know who they are.

Now you can acknowledge your mistake or carry on as you were but you would be wise not to assume that you are the more intelligent of us.


A wise man once said: "You can call me a cunt anytime just don't take me for one."

[Lord Jim]

Now you can acknowledge your mistake

LOL!

Yeah...let me know how that works out...

What seems clear to me has happened is that Andrew has looked at the whole array of intellectually dishonest tactics he employed in the discussion focusing on his smear of prosecutors and cops, and instead of being completely ashamed of his behavior in that instance (which obviously would have been the appropriate response) he has decided to adopt the completely unethical techniques he used as his general approach to discussion on this board.

[Lord Jim]

he doesn't like having his arguments shown up for what they are in this fashion, so he has to keep pretending that the health issue hasn't been addressed. In fact he has to pretend that it can't be addressed.

Andrew, quoted from Sean's post:

--> there is no practicable way to ensure that one's cleanup will be adequate

--> there is no practicable way to ensure that whatever chemical(s) one uses for one's cleanup will be environmentally sound

Once again, he seems determined to make me look like a world class psychic..

However in all honesty, once you've figured out that he's embraced complete intellectual dishonesty, it really isn't all that hard to figure out what his next move will be. Just ask your self what the most feckless and puerile course would be, and nine times out of ten you'll be calling the right shot....

As I said earlier:

He has to do this, because the alternatives would be to either acknowledge that the arguments are the same and agree that people should have the right to shit in public, (which he doesn't want to do because he knows that will make him look like a kook) or to admit that yes, there are some limits where the standards of social norms and civil comportment should be respected, and he doesn't want to do that either.

As has become his habit, whenever he is confronted with intellectually honest courses of action that would require him to modify his assertions or admit to some error, and an intellectually dishonest course of action that enables him to continue to delude himself about the absolute correctness of his position, he will invariably select the latter.

Now here's my next prediction:

He will now repeat his "no adequate clean-up" canard (has anyone looked at a public sidewalk lately?) as an assertion of fact, since trying to keep the focus on the clean up diversion is what he needs to in order to avoid taking an intellectually honest course that involves admitting to error.

He needs to keep clinging to the "no adequate clean up" strawman as though it were a fact, and trying to turn that empty diversion into the main point, because the alternative is to admit that his arguments for public nudity and the ones for shitting in public are exactly the same.

[Sean]

Now you can acknowledge your mistake

LOL!

Yeah...let me know how that works out...

*Shrugs* I'm just trying to give Andrew a fair go like I would anyone. I like to think of myself as fairminded... even if the reality is that I'm a complete arsehole!

Andrew can take or leave it as he pleases. That's his choice.

[Rick]

Put simply, you are baiting.

Very low as far as debating technique (and I use those words in their loosest sense) goes Andrew and, once again, beneath you. In fact beneath most of the members here... there are one or three exceptions, they know who they are.

Well presently I am but a novice.

One day I hope to be a master...

[Andrew D]

I do not recall ever having taken you for an imbecile, Sean, and I certainly do not do so now.

You are absolutely correct that your words were directed at me, not at Lord Jim. I -- not you, I and I alone -- turned them against Lord Jim.

I did not intend to be understood as asserting that you were making that claim about what Lord Jim has written. I intended to be understood as asserting that your description of what I have written applies more forcefully to what he has written than to what I have written.

In the debate context to which I am most accustomed, that is a common rhetorical device. But that context is not the whole world. So maybe I should have eschewed that rhetorical device and resorted to pure analytical clarity.

(On the other hand, when I have resorted to pure analytical clarity, I have often been derided for being "overly precise". What is one to do?)

Just so that the matter is clear, by using that rhetorical device, I intended to be understood as saying:

You are quite right, Sean. "Because I said so!" holds very little water. And the core of Lord Jim's argument is "Because I said so!" Thus, in my opinion -- an opinion which I am in no way meaning to ascribe to you -- his argument holds very little water.

I did not mean to suggest that you think that his argument holds very little water. My point was that taking your description of my argument and applying it to his, I think that his argument holds very little water.

If I was not clear enough about that before, the fault is mine. I hope that this unmuddies the waters.

[Andrew D]

And in the lack-of-clarity department, I did not intend anyone to understand me as saying that the words which I addressed to you were actually addressed to Lord Jim. I wrote that

The words of mine which you quoted were words I wrote in direct and explicit response to him.

(Emphasis added.)

Those words -- my words, not yours:

I have repeatedly pointed out that neither of those considerations is germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked.

were, in fact, directed at Lord Jim, not at you.

I thought that my phrase "The words of mine which you quoted" was sufficient to identify them as mine, not yours. But in case I was wrong about that, let me put it this way:

The words which I describe as having been directed at Lord Jim are my words and mine alone. They are not Sean's words. They are not anyone else's words. They are mine. Only mine.

I hope that that resolves any unclarity which I may have unintentionally created.

[dales]

Eschew Obfuscation.

[Andrew D]

Yep.

Try to say things as clearly and succinctly as one can.

And when succinctness turns out to leave some people with mistaken impressions, try again.

[Sean]

Like I said Andrew, I'm not that dumb. I certainly know a snow job when I see one. You are presently operating at about 250 bps on that one. I am however going to leave it alone, I think I've made myself clear.

Now would you care to address the rest of my post to you?

As to your other "points"...

I have not been, nor do I intend to be involved in this shit fight (pun very much intended). The only point I made was regarding your generic 'because I said so' type post. It was a very weak argument and, quite frankly, beneath you.

I'm going to re-quote a little here (all emphasis mine):

Are you saying that those points are somehow germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked?

As far as I am aware, Lord Jim has not said so. You are of course, free to say so. If you are saying so, I am interested to see how you think that simply walking down the street naked gives rise to any issue of cleanup, be it adequacy or environmental soundness, at all.

The whole issue of cleanup strikes me as a fundamental difference between walking naked on a sidewalk and taking a dump on that sidewalk. Merely walking somewhere naked does not, it seems to me, require anyone to clean up anything.

But perhaps you see the matter differently.

The parts I have bolded are simply your way of trying to draw me into an argument of which I am not part. Apart from the fact that you are using my words, which were stated explicitly about you, against Jim you are trying to corner me into an opinion which I have never expressed and have no intention of expressing to you. Put simply, you are baiting.

Very low as far as debating technique (and I use those words in their loosest sense) goes Andrew and, once again, beneath you. In fact beneath most of the members here... there are one or three exceptions, they know who they are.

Now you can acknowledge your mistake or carry on as you were but you would be wise not to assume that you are the more intelligent of us.


A wise man once said: "You can call me a cunt anytime just don't take me for one."

You can't really claim alternate meanings on that now can you?

[Andrew D]

What part of the phrase "The words of mine" do you find inadequate to convey that the words I referred to were mine?

[Andrew D]

Your answer to this:

Are you saying that those points are somehow germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked?

Is evidently "No."

Okay.

You are not saying that.

And?

[Sean]

What about the words of yours I have quoted above? Are you seriously trying to tell me that they were not aimed at me?

[Sean]

Your answer to this:

Are you saying that those points are somehow germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked?

Is evidently "No."

Okay.

You are not saying that.

And?

Now you're pissing me off! Don't put words into my mouth. I did not answer and nor do I intend to. You really have a very wide arrogant streak don't you?

[Andrew D]

Okay. Fine. Your answer to this:

Are you saying that those points are somehow germane to the issue of simply walking down the street naked?

is evidently:

I did not answer and nor do I intend to.

Fine. You don't want to answer. You have no obligation to answer. I have no problem with your declining to answer.

Is this going somewhere?

[Andrew D]

What about the words of yours I have quoted above? Are you seriously trying to tell me that they were not aimed at me?

Are you asking whether the question beginning "Are you saying ...?" was directed at you?

If that is your question, then my answer is "yes".

Of course it was.

I asked whether you were saying a particular thing. Maybe you were; maybe you weren't.

I am not trying to "corner" you into anything. I simply asked whether you were saying X. That does not require you to have been saying X. That does not require you to have been saying not-X. That does not require you to have been saying anything at all about X.

You have declined to state your opinion about X. Fine.

But why are you getting all feather-ruffled at me? You wrote:

To be fair Andrew, I don't think that the "Because I said so!" argument holds too much water.

What kind of response to that would you find permissible?

[Lord Jim]

You really have a very wide arrogant streak don't you?

About as wide as "the blue streak" across the Pacific Ocean...

It appears that he's now decided to borrow yet another Team Troll tactic....

Quad's "everyone who doesn't express an opinion agrees with me" move....

[Sean]

Okay Andrew, I'm done with this.

You are an arrogant shit who sees himself as intellectually and culturally superior to the rest of the membership ("Oh look at me! I know the names of some pieces of classical music!" ). I shan't be taking part in your puerile games on this thread any more. I know what you've done here, you know what you've done here and so does anybody else who cares to read it.

If this is how you are IRL then you really need to have a good think about your attitudes towards others. With your truth-twisting and blatant disregard for the evident truth YOU are the kind of person who gives those in the legal profession a bad name.

Like I said, I'm done with you in this thread so post what you like!

[Andrew D]

"Appears"?

How could anything I write "appear" to Lord Jim to be this, that, or the other?

He has claimed repeatedly that he does not even see what I write. So where do these "appearances" come from?