You can be incredibly intelligent, yet you can still be ignorant. Ignorance is distinguished from stupidity, although both can lead to "unwise" acts.
Writer Thomas Pynchon articulated about the scope and structure of one's ignorance: "Ignorance is not just a blank space on a person's mental map. It has contours and coherence, and for all I know rules of operation as well. So as a corollary to [the advice of] writing about what we know, maybe we should add getting familiar with our ignorance, and the possibilities therein for writing a good story."There is also Willful delusion. That is a state where matters which are obvious are sometimes ignored, not taken into consideration. This phenomenon is not limited to ordinary persons without native ability but extends to the highest level of human governance resulting in nightmarish scenarios that could, with more wisdom, have been avoided. In fact, the term Ignoramus is sometimes used for someone who is willfully ignorant.
But the reason I mention this, is that I find when I deal with gunloons, I can show them passages which in which it is quite obvious that it supports my position, not theirs, where they will deny this.
In fact, they can even raise points that contradict their positions, yet they do not acknowledge this. It's weird how they can see or say things which contradict their position, yet still hold onto them for dear life.
Personally, I would prefer something substantive in the way of criticism rather than the fallacious arguments; in particular, the use of personal information--especially imagined personal information. Such attempts to negate the truth of a claim by pointing out a negative characteristic or belief of the person supporting it. That is a a logical fallacy, or more precisely an informal fallacy and an irrelevance to the argument.
But, I find that the gunloon argument is based upon fallacies, fiction (in particular Science fiction "an armed society is a polite society"), half-quotations, and just general historic misrepresentation. In fact, the gun rights concept is a good example of believing in the concept of just wanting to believe that one believes rather than actually believing in anything real.
Ultimately, I can provide far more facts than they do, yet they will choose not to believe it. Science has shown that a part of the brain, the amygdala, helps to keep one ignorant. The amygdala is responsible for the body's fight or flight response, setting off a chain of biological changes that prepare the body to respond to danger well before the brain is conscious of any threat. It's reactions will resist any information that conflicts with deeply held beliefs.
There is another thing, some people also justify their beliefs against any arguments to the contrary. Behavioural economist Dan Ariely says the assumption made by most economists that people behave rationally, balancing the costs and benefits of different courses of action, is simply wrong Ariely is the Duke University professor who wrote “Predictably Irrational,” a look at how irrational behavior bends our lives in predictable ways. Ariely explains that expectations, emotions, social norms, and other invisible, seemingly illogical forces skew our reasoning abilities.
Even sadder is the fact that these people will ignore experts and people with better knowledge of a topic merely because it conflicts with their deeply held beliefs. Expertise and knowledge is seen as elitism, while ignorance that reinforces ignorance is seen as a virtue.
So, while there are some who hope to conquer ignorance with truth. I think the reality is that it is hard to persuade people who are seriously stuck in their beliefs. The sad thing is that they can be incredibly intelligent, yet they can also be woefully ignorant.
"Even sadder is the fact that these people will ignore experts and people with better knowledge of a topic merely because it conflicts with their deeply held beliefs."
ReplyDeleteI know just what you mean Laci. For example - there is this lawyer I know that insists they have more say in what the Supreme Court will rule than an actual Supreme Court Justice. I know - hard to believe right?
Jumbo F - his grade average not just his initial - is an idiot, and a particularly ill-informed one, as persists in demonstrating here.
ReplyDeleteLaci is highly qualified, where you not only are unqualified in legal opinion, you apparently lack critical thinking skills generally, as well as an informed background on which to base such thinking.
Laci does qualify as a legal expert. Laci's opinions expressed here are shared by a wide range of highly qualified individuals who are also recognized jurisprudence experts; these are not ONLY his opinions. So we are back to it being "sadder that people like YOU ignore people with better knowledge of a topic because it conflicts with your deeply held beliefs".
The SCOTUS Justices are political appointees. The conservative extremist justices are arguably less qualified in terms of their expertise than the two recent moderates appointed by Obama, and the conservative rulings have been largely very bad for a variety of reasons ranging from judicial activism to violating the principle of stare decisis.
Sadly, that you, JumboFail, lack the resources and intelligence to recognize qualifications or lack of them is about what I would expect from your other comments here.
Jim, if ignorance led to riches, you would be the richest man in the universe.
ReplyDeleteBut, alas, Jim, it only leads to your being the object of ridicule.
Didn't you say that your engineering firm was going bust? Could that be due to the fact that you are an incompetent in that field? In fact, given your clownish attempts at legal reasoning, it is my opinion that you are a buffoon in most endeavours, Dimbo.
In this case, you demonstrate the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (or appeal to authority), which is that five supreme court Justices say that Laci is wrong--therefore, he must be wrong.
But, your argument fails because you have to admit that four justices agree with me.
And while some judges and lawyers will show deference to a poorly crafted decision, there are others who can find agreement with me.
You see, Jim, the interpretation I believe is the correct one was the one which was used for nearly 70 years. Nothing changed in the Second Amendment and nothing changed in history, yet the Supreme Court came up with a novel decision based upon lies and misinterpretation.
Lawyers make law and they do it by persuading judges.
Some judges are dishonest. In fact, in a lower court, Scalia would have had to recuse himself due to a conflict of interest, which you will see soon.
The court's opinion is not chiseled in stone and more honest judges could overturn Heller-McDonald. If anything, the law is in a state of flux.
But, Jim, the only person who is ignorant is you.
And it is made much worse because you think you know far more than you do.
But, you are a waste of my time due to your pathetic lack of knowledge, which I would venture goes to whatever "profession" you practise when you are not jerking off on the internet.
Laci - I don't understand why you have a hard time understanding the reality of the current situation. You are not a Supreme Court Justice at this time, so your legal opinion will not have the same weight as a current Supreme Court Justice when voting on the decisions is done by the nine Justices. Please point out the part of this statement that is incorrect.
ReplyDeleteI have never stated that the law will never change from what was decided by Heller or McDonald. I merely point out that as of today, the 2nd Amendment does guarantee an individual right to own a gun. The court did not establish a concrete list of restrictions that were okay, but they did acknowledge some restrictions were acceptable. I stated that it will likely take several other court decisions to flesh out the restrictions that are acceptable. In all of the decisions that are to come, it is my belief that the actual Supreme Court Justices (at the time of each ruling) will have more of a say in what the rulings will read than you will Laci. Again, please point out where that is wrong.
In fact, I have never even argued that the Justices were right or wrong in Heller - but I have argued that their ruling stands until another court decision says otherwise. Again, please point out what part of that statement is incorrect.
Laci - I don't understand why you have a hard time understanding the reality of the current situation. You are not a Supreme Court Justice at this time, so your legal opinion will not have the same weight as a current Supreme Court Justice when voting on the decisions is done by the nine Justices. Please point out the part of this statement that is incorrect.
DeleteLaci has never failed to distinguish between his role as an attorney and the role of any judge or justice.
YOU, JimF, are apparently the one who has the difficulty in understanding the reality of court decisions.
Some Supreme Court Justices have made bad decisions and badly reasoned decisions under law.
Those tend to get undone, overturned, and subsequently rejeucted. They are not strongly supported by current opinion at the time, and they do not hold up well in the longer context of history.
You confound the two. Just because a person is a Supreme Court Justice does NOT make them an expert; the quality of their knowledge and understanding of the law does.
You keep making the same mistake in looking at these court decisions. IF you had a clue about the law, you would be very skeptical of the quality of this decision, or the probable duration of it.
You could equally point out that the Dredd Scott decision, arguably one of the worst legal decisions in the history of the tradition of law was also a SCOTUS decision that remained in effect only briefly. It was handed down in the 1857, and was gone less than a decade later.
To praise Heller or to rely on Heller is as flawed as praising or relying on the Dredd Scott decision. It was a Supreme Court decision, and it was utter crap.
That has been true of most of the Scalito and Thomas opinions -- total crap, that is badly flawed jurisprudence, being on the Supreme Cout not witsthanding.
NOW DO YOU GET IT? Yes - for a little wwhile these decisions, like Dredd Scott are mistakes that are not yet corrected. You look foolish putting too much emphasis on mistakes, and you look even more foolish and ignorant for not understanding why the decisions are failures.
Only those who are considered bling stupid sheeple would follow an authority figure like those bad justices on the scouts without questioning the quality of those decisions.
You appear to lack those critical faculties, and are over-awed by the authority figures you like, while failing apparently to recognize legitimate experts or good quality authroity performance.
Jim, your ignorance could fill books--even Libertarian scholars will tell you that you don't have even a basic understanding of what these decisions ACTUALLY MEAN.
DeleteI have wasted more than enough time on you since you are a complete and total SHIT FOR BRAINS.
What is wrong in your statement is that you try an imply that in some way I am wrong in my interpretation, which is something even you appear to realise you cannot do.
What is wrong in what you say is that there could be a judge, or judges out there who follow my interpretation and concur that it is based in more solid legal fact basis than what Scalia wrote.
That is what happened to cause this travesty and what could happen to rectify this serious legal mistake.
The problem is that there is no Constitutional method for reversing incorrect Supreme Court decision (for that matter, there is no Constitutional clause providing for Judicial review).
Unfortunately, there are people who are willing to give deference to what is clearly a miscarriage of the legal system.
How does my opinion carry weight more weight than a Supreme Court Justice? I have a legal basis and background for making what is a well supported opinion and reason why these decisions should be ignored.
Should I be persuasive enough that my opinion is heard and headed, that could lead to these faulty reasoned decisions being legally shitcanned.
So, My opinion counts far more than an ignorant piece of shit like you, Dimbo.
"Laci has never failed to distinguish between his role as an attorney and the role of any judge or justice." Not true - My question to Laci: "I admit that your legal opinion is good, but in deciding the outcome of Supreme Court cases, the Justices of the Supreme Court opinions outweigh yours - would you not agree?"
DeleteHis response: "No" - To me that implies that his opinion is that he is free to disregard the decision of the court since his opinion outweighs that of the majority of the Court.
So my new question for Laci - Under current law, is DC allowed to outright ban ownership of guns? If not, then why not?
So, Jim, if a Supreme Court justice says something which is wrong, does it then become correct merely because the Supreme Court Justice said it was correct?
DeleteMy answer to your question, Jim, is that if DC had wanted to fight the Heller decision, they could have.
DeleteAnd they would have been morally correct. Not only that they would have had several legal bases on which they could have made their case.
But, fighting that decision would have cost them more money than they could have afforded.
In fact, if you really want to get into this, that is yet another reason why I despise the Heller Decision, Do you seriously think Dick Heller could have paid his way to get this decision?
Likewise, are you aware that Dick Heller was refused a permit for one of his guns?
So, Jim, are you saying that bad law because it was decreed by a judge, who has no right legislating from the bench, is something which should be encouraged?
Especially if the outcome is one that you support?
"My answer to your question, Jim, is that if DC had wanted to fight the Heller decision, they could have."
DeleteThat does not answer the question.
Do you seriously think Dick Heller could have paid his way to get this decision? I have no idea what Heller could or could not pay for. I am not sure if this question was intended to imply that the judges were paid off to make the ruling they made. If that was your question, then my guess would be no, but I don't have any basis one way or the other to say for certain.
Likewise, are you aware that Dick Heller was refused a permit for one of his guns? No. Does that invalidate the ruling of the Court?
So, Jim, are you saying that bad law because it was decreed by a judge, who has no right legislating from the bench, is something which should be encouraged? No I don't encourage bad law. Does that invalidate the current ruling without another ruling being issued?
Especially if the outcome is one that you support?
I still don't encourage bad law.
"So, Jim, if a Supreme Court justice says something which is wrong, does it then become correct merely because the Supreme Court Justice said it was correct?" The supreme court rulings become law until they are overturned by another ruling or Congress passes a law or amendment (that is ratified by the people) that reverses the judgement. Is that correct Laci? Does your opinion of the supreme court decisions have any effect on them becoming law until overturned as noted above?
DeleteBut, Jim, you are encouraging bad law by supporting these decisions.
DeleteSo, you're answer is that a wrong decision since it was made by a Supreme Court justice in violation of the law is correct.
Even if it is bad law.
In fact, you are saying that judicially created bad law is correct.
Laci - I am saying that it is the law until otherwise overturned as noted above. You seem to imply that it is not the law because your opinion is that it is bad law. So again, can DC ban handgun ownership under the current law? Is not, why not?
DeleteNo, you're saying that an legally incorrect decision is correct merely because you find it to be correct.
DeleteYes, DC could have fought this decision, but that would have cost them far more in time and money than the city could afford.
Instead, they have reverted to the Pre-1976 law.
It is your opinion that because the Cato institute could afford to pay for these litigations that it negates local legislatures. In fact, you are saying that Judically created law is the correct method for changing the laws.
So, no, it is not proper.
But, in your ignorance you say one thing that contradicts the other.
You support bad law and illegal actions by courts because they fit your worldview.
The problem is that by destroying the rule of law, DC v. Heller means that Judicial decisions can be ignored, especially if one has the money to outlast the opposition.
You are showing me more of your ignorance with each response you make, Jim.
Jim, what is the Constitutional provision that provides for Judicial review of laws for Constitutionality?
DeleteJumboFail wrote:Laci - I am saying that it is the law until otherwise overturned as noted above. You seem to imply that it is not the law because your opinion is that it is bad law.
DeleteShow me where Laci wrote that it was not the law instead of that it currently improperly in effect as law.
Then tell us if you use the same standard to apply to people who are critical of Roe V. Wade, or if you would take the side of one of our commenters -- FWM, was it you? or possibly RedAz - who claimed that an Obama action was unconstitutional because the NRA said so - only to have Obama's action upheld.
Are you going to tell every Roe v Wade critic they are wrong because they aren't on the Supreme Court? Would you please provide me with examples of that, so we can see your sterling integrity in defense of every Supreme Court decision ever rendered?
And then please tell us why Dredd Scott should be the law, since it came from a SCOTUS decision. Because to undo THAT one took a civil war with an awful lot of Americans dying to keep this nation intact, and to suppress an illegal insurrection by the southern states after they declared war on us.
In fact, Dimbo, not only are you saying that Judicially created bad law is correct, you are also saying that the Supreme Court Justices can rewrite the Constitution.
DeleteSo, Dimbo, you are in a very bad position by supporting the Heller-McDonald decisions in that you not only do you believe that illegal actions by judges create legally enforcable laws, but that the Constitution is meaningless.
Again, Jim, what is the Constitutional provision that provides for Judicial review of laws for Constitutionality?
"No, you're saying that an legally incorrect decision is correct merely because you find it to be correct." That is not what I said and you saying I said it does not make it so. I said that at this current date, the Supreme Court decision is the law until it is overturned as allowd for in our governmental system. There is a system for creating laws and deciding if those laws are indeed legal. The Congress passes laws and the Courts rule if they are legal or not. So as currently adjudicated, can DC ban gun ownership? If not, why not? You imply that because the city cannot afford to further litigate the matter that instead they would be right to simply ignore the ruling. If everyone took that approach to the law, then we might as well not have a law system.
DeleteJimbone wrote:I said that at this current date, the Supreme Court decision is the law until it is overturned as allowd for in our governmental system. There is a system for creating laws and deciding if those laws are indeed legal. The Congress passes laws and the Courts rule if they are legal or not.
DeleteThat is the way it is SUPPOSED to work; Judicial activism, through making it a binding interpretation, can legislate from the bench.
"David Strauss has argued that judicial activism can be narrowly defined as one or more of three possible actions: overturning laws as unconstitutional, overturning judicial precedent, and ruling against a preferred interpretation of the constitution.[7]"
So if you believe in the correct separation of powers, you would agree that it is not correct for the Supreme Court (or any other court) to ignore both legislative law and law created by legal precedent of rulings and interpretation. You would agree that the basis for Laci and I to object to decisions like Heller is that it violates the separation of powers.
You, Jimbum complain about Laci quoting you; I believe he did so accurately -- far more accurately than you have quoted him. He does NOT imply anywhere, or state anywhere, that the law resulting from the decision is not in force. He states rather that there is a distinction, between actual justice, and a bought decision where one party is grossly disproportionately able to litigate, where the decision is not based on the facts of the case, but on who can spend the most money. The tobacco industry used the tactic for years; other industries have done so to protect themselves from being accountable for pollution. Companies like Walmart have used that tactic to treat workers unfairly.
Do you approve of legal decisions always going to the party with the most money, regardless of facts involved?
Laci is capable of being more precise in his statements than you are, and beyond that I know from experience that he possesses an exceptiona intellectual integrity. He is more willing to admit when he is wrong, or even be the first to point out a flaw or mistake, than anyone I can think of -- and he will just as quickly (but very nicely) point out when I am wrong as well, even if he supports my larger position.
I'm not seeing you present that kind of integrity.
Really, Jim, what makes it law?
DeleteIs there a Constitutional provision that allows for the US Supreme Court to overturn legislatures based upon "Constitutionality" of the law--If there is, please tell me where it is?
Is there a Constitutional provision which allows for the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution? In fact, what exactly is the proper method for Amending the Constitution?
The reality, Jim, is that this is law because people said, Five justices of the Supreme Court said it must be the law--just as you are doing right now.
It is just as much "not law" if people say five justices were wrong and this is not something which should be followed.
The problem is that there is no legal mechanism for addressing the issue of Supreme Court justices acting outside their powers.
Or do you know of one? Is it with the Constitutional provision allowing for judicial review? Is it there with the Constitutional rule allowing for Judicial amendment of the Constitution?
Please educate me what makes a judicially created law "correct"?
If everyone took that approach to the law, then we might as well not have a law system.
DeleteBut, that is what has already happened and you are cheering it on, Jim.
Jim, you fail to distinguish between abiding by a bad law, and criticizing a bad law.
DeleteInstead of trying to create a false confusion between the two, if you REALLY believed in the separation of powers and the lawful process of legislation, you would be criticizing Heller etc. as well.
Why aren't you, Jim? Why do you support this badly reasoned Judicial Activism bad decision? Why?
Additionally, Jim, you have been saying that my opinion is not valid.
Deleteyet, you have not provided a legal basis for why Heller-McDonald should be followed.
Again:
s there a Constitutional provision that allows for the US Supreme Court to overturn legislatures based upon "Constitutionality" of the law--If there is, please tell me where it is?
Is there a Constitutional provision which allows for the Supreme Court to amend the Constitution? In fact, what exactly is the proper method for Amending the Constitution?
Is there a legal mechanism for addressing the issue of Supreme Court justices acting outside their powers?
But, Jim, Miller has not been explicitly overturned.
DeleteIf anything, Heller-McDonald has created a problem in Supreme Court Jurisprudence by 5 justices saying that it is inapplicable, and four justices saying it was in Heller.
In fact, one could argue that this has made more confusion in the law than it is worth.
So, yet another question for you, if two legal decisions exist which cover the law, one unanimous and one split 5-4, which controls?
"So, yet another question for you, if two legal decisions exist which cover the law, one unanimous and one split 5-4, which controls?"
DeleteI would think that the latest decision would overule a prior decision regardless of what the majority vote total is. I am sure you can confirm or deny this. Here is a sample where one 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court was later overruled by another 6-3 decision. http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases8.htm
But this is not the case in this instance as the majority noted Miller was inapplicable in this case. As you said, Miller has not been overturned.
Jim, I don't give a shit what "you think" since that is meaningless.
DeleteSo, then an incorrect later decision would overrule the correct unanimous decision?
Once again, Jim, you are saying this to cover your arse in yet another futile effort to hide the fact that you have no idea of how this would work.
The problem, Jim, is that you believe the lies of the majority. They have to say Miller is inapplicable in order to continue on with the rest of their intellectual dishonesty.
Problem is that Miller's language of:
"With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view."
Shows that is pure nonsense.
To quote Justice Stevens:
As we explained in Miller: “With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.” 307 U. S., at 178. The evidence plainly refutes the claim that the Amendment was motivated by the Framers’ fears that Congress might act to regulate any civilian uses of weapons. And even if the historical record were genuinely ambiguous, the burden would remain on the parties advocating a change in the law to introduce facts or arguments “ ‘newly ascertained,’ ” Vasquez, 474 U. S., at 266; the Court is unable to identify any such facts or arguments
I have asked you before: Where in the Second Amendment is it explicitly stated that the people have a right to self-defence? Is self-defence even mentioned in the US Constitution?
The Constitution does say one of its purposes is "provide for the common defence", which would make my interpretation more in line with the Constitution. Advocating an interpretation which is outside the scope of the text would mean that the majority was plainly engaging in something which is beyond the power of thw court.
Once again, Jim, you are saying that the 5 Justices were correct in creating law and you keep repeating the same bullshit over and over in the hope that it will become true.
The problem is that you are trying to justify something which is wrong--plain and simple.
So, if you have no problem with DC v. Heller and McDonald, then you should have no problem with other violations of the US Constitution.
Here is a sample where one 6-3 decision of the Supreme Court was later overruled by another 6-3 decision.
DeleteThat was not a unanimous decision.
What was US v. Sandidge, 520 A.2d 1057 (1987).
DeleteWhat had changed between 1987 and 2006 which would lead to that case being overturned?
Instead of showing that I am ignorant, Jim has solidified that he has absolutely no idea of what happened in the Heller-McDonald decisions.
ReplyDeleteFurthermore, he is showing that I am correct in that an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution is not "good law".
If anything, Heller-McDonald has shown that I am even more correct in that whoever has the most money can make law through the Judicial system bypassing the US Constitution.
Heller stands for the premise that Judicial precedent does not matter--the law is what five judges say it is.
But, that's the way Jim likes it to be.