****ing Texas

[grumbler]

Seriously? The moment you came back, you told everybody how tiresome it is to wade through endless personal attacks posing as conversations. Multiple times.

So, no actual examples of my "so frequently bemoan[ing] the incivility on this site." I have noted specific cases where people either abandon intellectual discourse in favor of ad hominim attacks, but those attacks merely demonstrate the intellectual bankruptcy of the other side's arguments.

And now you condescendingly attack my integrity, and act surprised that I should take offense because you used dry, impersonal terms instead of coming right out and calling me a lying idiot. These two things are not consistent.

Just an observation.

I note that you said untrue things in ignorance. You don't even deny that they are untrue, you simply moan that you don't like my observation. I can live with that.

I don't call you a lying idiot. Those are your words. But, if you think the shoe fits, go ahead and wear it. I can live with that, as well.

[grumbler]

This was in regards to my statement:

"If you don't feel a very real threat is posed by the "cops" in that scenario you're a moron."

Seems very similar to this:

It may seem very similar to you, but it is entirely different. I wasn't saying that Elok was a moron because he disagreed with me (which was your contention), I said he was wrong because he was ignorant of the kind of student he was referring to, based on my own, personal experience with exactly this kind of high school student. If you can't see the difference, then that's simply another cross I can gladly bear.

[Aeson]

It may seem very similar to you, but it is entirely different. I wasn't saying that Elok was a moron because he disagreed with me (which was your contention), I said he was wrong because he was ignorant of the kind of student he was referring to, based on my own, personal experience with exactly this kind of high school student. If you can't see the difference, then that's simply another cross I can gladly bear.

Yes, it is completely different ... because in one case you are whining about someone implying you are a moron, because that is "name calling", and in the other you are defending your civility in regards to implying Elok is ignorant. (Also, another difference is you actually are a moron if you think the cops in that scenario are not a threat, and Elok wasn't being ignorant.)

I'd excuse you due to your ignorance of how the term "moron" was being used, except you're being a hypocrite about how discussion should be kept civil.

[Kidlicious]

Yes, that was also almost certainly* a breach of the law by the principal and the cops. Minors cannot be interrogated (except to be asked questions when those are urgent for health or safety reasons) in the absence of the parents or someone acting in loco parentis. Had they charged this kid, the judge would have whacked those cops damned hard. Again, these people knew the law but ignored it.

But, of course, they were enforcing laws, they were punishing a kid they thought they couldn't get at any legal way.



*laws vary by state but I am sure Texas has such a law like every other state

You're making stuff up. Kids are interrogated all the time in school. This stuff you're making up is just ridiculous. Can't you imagine a school where the students can't be interrogated?

[The Mad Monk]

x-uncivil'd

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what should he have used instead of "ignorant" to carry the same meaning while maintaining civility?

[Kidlicious]

Except, of course, that the police were NOT doing their jobs, so they get full blame for the child abuse and false arrest. They knew they had no probable cause, yet restrained and arrested the kid anyway. Their job isn't to arrest innocent people nor cuff children illegally. The school principal was hired to prevent exactly this sort of child abuse - and you argue that abetting the crime was his job!. I'd argue his offense was worse, because he was the one morally and legally obliged to protect the child.

The reason you don't see people "generally up in arms about" the law against false arrest and child abuse is because no one opposes either one (at least, no one will openly admit they favor false arrest or child abuse).

They didn't really arrest him. They cuffed him and took him to get fingerprints. Have fun with your story sir.

[The Mad Monk]

Oh yeah, that is totally not arresting him. He was free to go whenever he wanted.

Do you actually listen to yourself? I mean, like ever?

[Kidlicious]

He wasn't free to go anywhere he wanted anyway. He was at school.

[The Mad Monk]

Until he was at the Police Station, getting fingerprinted.

[The Mad Monk]

I think what you mean to say is that he wasn't charged, since it is clear to everyone else that he was arrested.

[Aeson]

x-uncivil'd

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what should he have used instead of "ignorant" to carry the same meaning while maintaining civility?

Part of the meaning it carried was the problem, and so the full meaning could not have been conveyed in a civil manner (by grumbler's qualification). The problematic part was saying that Elok was misrepresenting things because he was ignorant. For something that simply addresses the non-personal point, "anecdotes are not evidence" or "some administrators are very bright". Both address the actual topic without delving into the realm of "ad hominims".

[Kidlicious]

Until he was at the Police Station, getting fingerprinted.

They can take him to the police station to take his prints. Would you say he was arrested if they took him to the museum?

His parents picked him up at their will. Until then he was already in custody, from the time he got to school.

[grumbler]

Yes, it is completely different ... because in one case you are whining about someone implying you are a moron, because that is "name calling", and in the other you are defending your civility in regards to implying Elok is ignorant. (Also, another difference is you actually are a moron if you think the cops in that scenario are not a threat, and Elok wasn't being ignorant.)

I'd excuse you due to your ignorance of how the term "moron" was being used, except you're being a hypocrite about how discussion should be kept civil.

Okay, whatever. I think it is clear why your use of "moron" was absurd, and why my use of "ignorance" was apt, and all your claims to the contrary for the sake of being contrary won't change that.

If people find that others observing their ignorance is "uncivil," then they shouldn't post in ignorance. Hell, there are people here who thought cops can arrest children without probable cause and so the cops in this case were "just doing their job!" That's pretty massive ignorance right there, I have called people on it, and they haven't been moaning like you and Elok.

[grumbler]

They can take him to the police station to take his prints. Would you say he was arrested if they took him to the museum?

His parents picked him up at their will. Until then he was already in custody, from the time he got to school.

Yes, of course he was arrested. That's not in the slightest doubt. He was arrested from the moment the cops took custody of him, even before he was cuffed. "Arrest" is a legal term. You don't get to redefine it to suit your own narrative.

[Elok]

x-uncivil'd

Not to put too fine a point on it, but what should he have used instead of "ignorant" to carry the same meaning while maintaining civility?

Assuming his meaning was something like "young robotics enthusiasts do this sort of thing all the time, I know from experience" or "administrators are not always incompetent," hey, I just did it. The whole Elok-is-ignorant-and-dishonest part of that paragraph is all speculation on my motives and/or character, and tells you nothing about what he is objecting to. I had to dig through my posts twice even to find out what he meant. The rudeness is not only rude, but vague and therefore useless.