The difference between our law of prosecution and the philosophy of debate.

-“And you presume to know anything about argumentation? You have a lot of learning to do, including in the areas you think you know.”-

(a) conflates formal argument (proofs) with informal (debate) (b) conflates persuade with testify (c) conflates neutrality with criminality.

So what you fail to understand is that in western philosophical tradition, we presume only potential truth or error. Whereas in western legal tradition, truthfulness, diligence, or liability. And in NL truth candidacy, diligence, error, bias, deceit, fraud, and other criminality.

So what you’re detecting is the difference between debate, argument, and prosecution. I (we) do measurement, prosecution, judgment, guilt or innocence, and stated or implied, restitution and prevention.
Most people, by tort, do little but lie, by failure of due diligence alone.

So your failure of due diligence was making a presumption and rendering an accusation, rather than asking a question and seeking to understand. That’s why I often react as would any judge, by intolerance and judgment of criminal behavior in the process of any discovery process.

A recommendation is to pay the high cost of seeking to understand (due diligence) before presumption you have even the vaguest idea what’s being said under what limits: manners, exchange, debate, argument, accusation, prosecution.

I (we) tend to see y’all as petulant children.

“Thus Endeth The Lesson”

Leave a Reply