Since: Aug 12

United States

#7407 Nov 7, 2013
If I moved it would be to completely ex-patriate the US and expunge them from my tax liability.
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7408 Nov 7, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I understand each of these words but can't make them make sense put next to each other like this. I'm not sure latent means what you think it means.
I get that it is intended to be a form of put down, I just have no way to work out the content of it.
Latent means undeveloped, as in not much thought was used.

A logic fallacy is a classic instance of undeveloped thought.

Lame means weak and ineffectual.

Do you need any other explanations regarding the english language?

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#7409 Nov 7, 2013
UdintBuildThat wrote:
If I moved it would be to completely ex-patriate the US and expunge them from my tax liability.
I'm not sure you understand.

Short of renouncing your American citizenship, there's no real route to cutting them out of your obligation to pay them. I've not lived in the US for almost a decade and still get to pay US and local taxes when my income levels tip high enough to trigger US taxes responsibilities.

If you did want to renounce your US citizenship (which I wouldn't really suggest, especially if you're relocating to less stable portions of the globe) you'll be needing first to naturalize in Costa Rica. Which from a glance looks like it will require a 20 year residency for a non-Spanish applicant or marriage to a citizen.

While some of people think moving overseas will solve all their problems, having a practical idea of what is and isn't possible with a move is going to make decisions much easier.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#7410 Nov 7, 2013
Ole Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
Latent means undeveloped, as in not much thought was used.
A logic fallacy is a classic instance of undeveloped thought.
Lame means weak and ineffectual.
Do you need any other explanations regarding the english language?
Latent means something that exists in-state but that hasn't been developed or exposed.

When I helped students learn and use new words, I always suggested they try using a synonym in place of the word, to make sure they were using the right word.

Both Webster and the OED seem happy to list dormant and unused as synonyms for latent. Let's try both in a sample sentence.

Ex.
His latent talent for the piano blossomed with each lesson.
His dormant talent for the piano blossomed with each lesson.
His unused talent for the piano blossomed with each lesson.

So far, thing look good. Are we all happy with the meaning of latent, as demonstrated through these examples?

But when we try your sentence:
Is this your latent, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?
Is this your dormant, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?
Is this your unused, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?

These don't hold up to the substitution test, meaning that latent might not have the meaning we need to convey the intended message.

Similarly, I would think you're looking for the term 'logical fallacy', though that's more of a grammar issue and less central to being able to express content.

If I were looking to say what I think you're trying to say, I might try

"Is this a sort of poorly developed appeal to authority? These kinds of logical fallacies are lame."
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#7411 Nov 7, 2013
Ole Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this your latent, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?
I know at least as much about the US constitution as your buddy Obama. Also I am not a professional liar, like some people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =z6bC9w9cH-MXX
It is an inherent conflict of interest to allow lawyers to be elected public legislators. Lawyers make money litigating law, and a lawyer is highly motivated to create more laws with higher stakes. More litigation through more laws equals undue lawyer enrichment.
I am shocked to read a constitutional law professor suggest that local governments are immune from the protections the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution grants to the people.
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7412 Nov 7, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
Latent means something that exists in-state but that hasn't been developed or exposed.
When I helped students learn and use new words, I always suggested they try using a synonym in place of the word, to make sure they were using the right word.
Both Webster and the OED seem happy to list dormant and unused as synonyms for latent. Let's try both in a sample sentence.
Ex.
His latent talent for the piano blossomed with each lesson.
His dormant talent for the piano blossomed with each lesson.
His unused talent for the piano blossomed with each lesson.
So far, thing look good. Are we all happy with the meaning of latent, as demonstrated through these examples?
But when we try your sentence:
Is this your latent, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?
Is this your dormant, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?
Is this your unused, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?
These don't hold up to the substitution test, meaning that latent might not have the meaning we need to convey the intended message.
Similarly, I would think you're looking for the term 'logical fallacy', though that's more of a grammar issue and less central to being able to express content.
If I were looking to say what I think you're trying to say, I might try
"Is this a sort of poorly developed appeal to authority? These kinds of logical fallacies are lame."
Based on your grammar focus, I suspect you don't understand what is a logical fallacy, and your train of thought follows from your lack of knowledge.

You haven't as yet demonstrated you understand what is a logical fallacy.
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7413 Nov 7, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
I am shocked to read a constitutional law professor suggest that local governments are immune from the protections the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution grants to the people.
The 14th nevers mentions prohibitions on the people; only state prohibitions are mentioned.

Here's what it says:

"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."

Lawyers can read things that are not there, because it lines their pockets and fluffs their egos.

Greek democracy, an inspiration for the founders, was based on respect for city-state sovereignty, not national socialism as you and Obama prefer.

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#7414 Nov 7, 2013
Ole Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
Based on your grammar focus, I suspect you don't understand what is a logical fallacy, and your train of thought follows from your lack of knowledge.
You haven't as yet demonstrated you understand what is a logical fallacy.
You're saying (again, so far as I understand it) that as I've chosen to focus on the unreadability of the statement instead of speaking on the logical fallacy pointed to in the statement, that this would demonstrate my lack of understanding as to what makes up a logical fallacy?

Is this supposed to be ironic, presenting an argument that I'm not understanding the concept of logical fallacies as a faulty generalization? Because if it is, it's pretty clever!
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#7415 Nov 7, 2013
Ole Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
Is this your latent, lame appeal to authority logic fallacy?
I know at least as much about the US constitution as your buddy Obama. Also I am not a professional liar, like some people.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v =z6bC9w9cH-MXX
It is an inherent conflict of interest to allow lawyers to be elected public legislators. Lawyers make money litigating law, and a lawyer is highly motivated to create more laws with higher stakes. More litigation through more laws equals undue lawyer enrichment.
How about we have a landscaper perform your next neurosurgery?

woof
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#7416 Nov 7, 2013
UdintBuildThat wrote:
If I moved it would be to completely ex-patriate the US and expunge them from my tax liability.
Nobody is stopping you right this moment.

woof
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7417 Nov 7, 2013
In the US and pretty much elsewhere, local governments of the people existed long before stategovs and fedgov central governments.

Lowlives have pushed for centralized and unlimited national power for as long as liars have existed.
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7418 Nov 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
How about we have a landscaper perform your next neurosurgery?
woof
Professions based on objective science deserve to be trusted, not professions based on word games and emotions (lawyering).

Medicine in the US is based on science, whereas lawyering is not.

US lawyers struggle with logic, as you've demonstrated with your logic fallacy.

Bill Clinton illustrates your pompous and professional mentality very well.
Duke for Mayor

Akron, OH

#7419 Nov 7, 2013
Ole Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
Professions based on objective science deserve to be trusted, not professions based on word games and emotions (lawyering).
Medicine in the US is based on science, whereas lawyering is not.
US lawyers struggle with logic, as you've demonstrated with your logic fallacy.
Bill Clinton illustrates your pompous and professional mentality very well.
I hate to break this to you but there are hundreds of thousands of lawyers in this country who have bachelor's and master's degrees, as well as professional work experience in the sciences.

Words have specific meanings. Thrown together into statutes that affect the populous in varying ways, I'm not sure why you would be so afraid of having those who are trained to interpret them doing the drafting. Quite frankly, the reason bad legislation becomes law is because folks voting Yay and Nay don't know what the heck they're voting on, or don't understand the US and state Constitutions sufficiently to know what might be determined to be unenforceable if challenged, and what might stand up to a challenge...it isn't because they're lawyers.

Now the "emotion" part...we see that right here all the time... as well as during elections. People love to form their opinions without facts. Its human nature.

woof
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7420 Nov 7, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
You're saying (again, so far as I understand it) that as I've chosen to focus on the unreadability of the statement instead of speaking on the logical fallacy pointed to in the statement, that this would demonstrate my lack of understanding as to what makes up a logical fallacy?
Is this supposed to be ironic, presenting an argument that I'm not understanding the concept of logical fallacies as a faulty generalization? Because if it is, it's pretty clever!
What i'm obviously saying is that my original posting was easily comprehensible, but the post assumed you understand what is a logic fallacy.

Your continued focus on grammar and writing style is silly, but I understand why you do it.
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7421 Nov 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to break this to you but there are hundreds of thousands of lawyers in this country who have bachelor's and master's degrees, as well as professional work experience in the sciences.
Words have specific meanings. Thrown together into statutes that affect the populous in varying ways, I'm not sure why you would be so afraid of having those who are trained to interpret them doing the drafting. Quite frankly, the reason bad legislation becomes law is because folks voting Yay and Nay don't know what the heck they're voting on, or don't understand the US and state Constitutions sufficiently to know what might be determined to be unenforceable if challenged, and what might stand up to a challenge...it isn't because they're lawyers.
Now the "emotion" part...we see that right here all the time... as well as during elections. People love to form their opinions without facts. Its human nature.
woof
A masters degree in a non-science discipline doesn't demonstrate intelligence or wisdom or trustworthiness. It only indicates an ability to parrot blowhards.

You are very delusional.

There is no objective science behind lawyering. Just word games and emotions (aka blowhards).

The 14th amendment says what it says, mentioning only state prohibitions as I've demonstrated with quotation, but people like you ignore the obvious. You have a vested interest in denying the obvious.

You persist repeating your lame logic fallacy.
Che Reagan Christ

Lodi, OH

#7422 Nov 7, 2013
Ole Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
A masters degree in a non-science discipline doesn't demonstrate intelligence or wisdom or trustworthiness. It only indicates an ability to parrot blowhards.
You are very delusional.
There is no objective science behind lawyering. Just word games and emotions (aka blowhards).
The 14th amendment says what it says, mentioning only state prohibitions as I've demonstrated with quotation, but people like you ignore the obvious. You have a vested interest in denying the obvious.
You persist repeating your lame logic fallacy.
You work at H.H. Gregg, don't you?
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7423 Nov 7, 2013
Duke for Mayor wrote:
<quoted text>
I hate to break this to you but there are hundreds of thousands of lawyers in this country who have bachelor's and master's degrees, as well as professional work experience in the sciences.
Words have specific meanings. Thrown together into statutes that affect the populous in varying ways, I'm not sure why you would be so afraid of having those who are trained to interpret them doing the drafting. Quite frankly, the reason bad legislation becomes law is because folks voting Yay and Nay don't know what the heck they're voting on, or don't understand the US and state Constitutions sufficiently to know what might be determined to be unenforceable if challenged, and what might stand up to a challenge...it isn't because they're lawyers.
Now the "emotion" part...we see that right here all the time... as well as during elections. People love to form their opinions without facts. Its human nature.
woof
Bad laws originate from the leaders of diversity, a national victim cult, who are consummate liars.

Drafts of such bad laws originate in hundreds of NGOs such as ABA, the lawyers lobby.

Here's your lobby exalting the national victim cult labeled diversity:

http://www.americanbar.org/portals/diversity....

Diversity rank and file people, the dummies that rubberstamp their approval of bad law at election time, are easily manipulated by diversity leaders.

Diversity minions love a charismatic leader. As an example, Jim Jones of People's Temple fame exploited diversity people, so much so that he got them to commit mass suicide.
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7424 Nov 7, 2013
Che Reagan Christ wrote:
<quoted text>
You work at H.H. Gregg, don't you?
I cut the grass and do more honest work than you ever do at shysters-are-us:

http://www.brookings.edu/research/articles/20...

“Meh.”

Since: Aug 10

Location hidden

#7425 Nov 7, 2013
Ole Blue wrote:
<quoted text>
A masters degree in a non-science discipline doesn't demonstrate intelligence or wisdom or trustworthiness. It only indicates an ability to parrot blowhards.
You are very delusional.
There is no objective science behind lawyering. Just word games and emotions (aka blowhards).
The 14th amendment says what it says, mentioning only state prohibitions as I've demonstrated with quotation, but people like you ignore the obvious. You have a vested interest in denying the obvious.
You persist repeating your lame logic fallacy.
I'm not sure you understand what a logic[al] fallacy is. Could you document the one you're referring to here and talk a bit about the type of fallacy you see? What is his repeated logic[al] fallacy?
Ole Blue

Dayton, OH

#7426 Nov 7, 2013
tranpsosition wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not sure you understand what a logic[al] fallacy is. Could you document the one you're referring to here and talk a bit about the type of fallacy you see? What is his repeated logic[al] fallacy?
I've stated multiple times a shyster poster employed an appeal-to-authority logic fallacy argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_au...

You have a short attention span.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Columbus Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
OH Who do you support for Governor in Ohio in 2010? (Oct '10) 4 min xxxrayted 31,512
Is Barack Obama Doing a Good Job as President? (Aug '13) 16 min Go Blue Forever 3,578
Bennett Smith gate stories from the victims poi... (May '13) 24 min Reading into things 2,454
Rhiannon Rhi Hall 35 min mikemike 1
Catman Dave 50 min They cannot kill ... 30
Connecticut: Democrat arrested Voter Fraud 2 hr Duke for Mayor 13
Dear Duke (Got a problem, I've got your solution) 2 hr Duke for Mayor 105
Armed Contractor on Elevator with President 4 hr Male 64
Columbus Dating
Find my Match

Columbus Jobs

Columbus People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Columbus News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Columbus

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]