Re: Ohio Student Points Finger Like Gun, Is Suspended
I have met the question right head on in its face. And in doing so I deny a reward to intellectual laziness by offering you a shortcut for your own lack of work and research.
I was trained in collegiate debate. I debated in college for two years all over this nation against some of the best. We were trained to always understand that it is the complete and total responsibility of the person making the allegation to support that claim with verifiable evidence. When they cannot do that, simply pointing out their failure scores the matter in your favor.
Which would be fine in formal debate, which this isn't. I am simply pointing out that to the outside observer the absence of a gratuitous denial is rather telling.
For several years now I have taken one consistent position here before all others: if you make an accusation against me as to what I believe or what my position is - it is totally incumbent upon the accuser to document it with quotes from me taking that position. I WILL NOT bail you out by putting myself on your witness stand with you in the position of prosecutor helping you out of the corner you painted yourself into.
I am a third party to this. I am, again, simply pointing out the difference is these two forms of exchange:
Conversation 1:
Person 1: "You ate the last bagel!"
Person 2: "No I didn't!"
Person 1: "Yes you did!"
Person 2: "Then prove it!"
Conversation 2:
Person 1: "You ate the last bagel!"
Person 2: "You can't prove it!"
In the first conversation the casual observer will identify with Person 2 and withhold judgement, in Conversation 2 Person 2 comes off as guilty as charged.
All you need to do is deny the claim, but you don't. It makes it look like you fully expect that there is evidence out there that you support higher taxes on the rich to pay for more entitlements for the poor (which is the extent of the claim Fletch leveled against you) so you won't commit to a denial.
The other alternative would be to simply accept Fletch's assertion and challenge him on why that should matter.
You see jMotivator - when one does that it only encourages irresponsible allegations since the person making them knows they can go on a fishing expedition and make the person they irresponsibly accused give testimony which helps them out. And that is the type of intellectual laziness which will NOT be rewarded by me nor abetted by me.
When one person makes a gratuitous assertion and the other person doesn't deny the claim then it encourages irresponsible allegations because, in the end, it looks like the charge was valid.
I am more than happy to engage in any discussion about my actual positions I have taken but simply provide that position from me before that discussion can take place.
You've given nobody reason to since you haven't actually rejected the claim that you support wealth transfer.
Nothing could be fairer than that.
It isn't fair or unfair. You have a very simple out that you refuse to take and it makes you look guilty. It is as simple as that.
I do fully realize that there are some here who prefer the prosecutorial approach and feel it is their right to make any manner of unfounded allegations or claims and to put the other person on the defensive. Sorry - try that on some newbie without proper training. Its not going to work here and its not going to work on me.
No, that is my whole point. You don't need to be on the defensive. A gratuitous assertion can be denied gratuitously. The only defense required of you is "No I don't." or an acceptance of the claim followed by "Why does that matter in this case?" and Fletch then has a heavy burden placed on him to make his case. Without either of those he can just assume he hit the nail on the head.