View Single Post
Old
12-18-2012, 04:25 PM
  #693
DrinkFightFlyers
Grave Before Shave
 
DrinkFightFlyers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: NJ
Country: United States
Posts: 11,699
vCash: 50
Send a message via AIM to DrinkFightFlyers
Quote:
Originally Posted by DownieFaceSoftener View Post
You're getting heated. Perhaps the defense should rest.

Edit: It is bizarre that I call you out on an argument from authority and your response is to quiz me to ascertain facts so you can further your argument from authority. That's the weirdest response to a logical fallacy I've ever seen.
I don't think it is bizarre. You aren't responding to my arguments directly, other than by saying you deal with acts every day (which, by the way, sounds like the authority argument you are calling me out on). There is not much else I can write that hasn't already been posted, especially when you haven't actually responded to the argument that preceded my "authority" argument.

As a response to you calling me out on my authority argument, I guess I don't really have a response. You say that you deal with acts every day, but don't say in what context.

If you are a lawyer, then you would either have said so already or would have a better understanding of how the legal system works, or at very least, made arguments based on the cases that I have cited to, not ignored them and cited to newspaper articles.

If you are not lawyer, then your understanding of the subject matter is an issue. If you don't understand the subject matter, my explanations and arguments are worthless to you, just like your explanations and arguments are worthless to me. Reading a couple blog posts and articles as well as the text of the act is not a good footing for arguing about anti-trust law.

Again, if you have some sort of information that says I am wrong I would be happy to see it. It certainly would not be the first time I have been wrong about things (legally, or otherwise). But to this point, you have not shown me anything.

You have:

-described, somewhat accurately, the process in which the Supreme Court hears a case.
-described, incorrectly, how the Sherman Act works
-described, incorrectly, the applicability of the single entity theory
-cited to articles that were hypothesizing about the outcome of a case that has since been decided the way I said it was
-cited to an article talking about the labor exemption that I had written about
-made accusations that I am not what I say I am
-said that I wasn't very classy
-made arguments about the fact that I used an authority argument (which, if you will go back, you were the first one to bring in the fact that they have some sort of leg up because of your position)

What you have failed to do is show me some sort of actual reason why I am wrong and you are right. So I am sorry that I brought my background and profession into this. I guess I should not have done that. But I will concede anyway, that based on your airtight arguments, that I am wrong and you are right. I never should have gone down this path with someone who deals with acts on a daily basis.

DrinkFightFlyers is offline