Insane Clown Posse and ACLU sue FBI

[BMCSean]

More pictures, less words!!!

[racrguy]

I went from making a logical discussion, to jumping on some wild tangent that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand,

Dude, you didn't believe the number of gang members, and provided you a source, and you immediately went crazy spouting about how he needed to keep up, when that's exactly what he was doing. If anything, you are the one that needed to keep up because you're saying that the report is saying X when in fact it is saying Y.
Source: http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/sh...1&postcount=26

http://www.dfwmustangs.net/forums/showpost.php?p=1233791&postcount=27

From the way he vapor-locked, it seems to have worked.

Vapor-locked? Hardly. You started going on and on about how you aren't an authoritative source on why you do things. He's merely waiting for you to return from the realm of incredulity

His tactic is clever- spin the discussion with an array of tangents to divide the discussion, and then attempt to pick apart comments made on the tangents that he created. While everyone is trying to work though all of the unrelated bullshit that he created, it makes it harder to discuss the real topic at hand. It is a debate tactic.

Stevo

I am not convinced you know much about debate. You have failed to grasp what he's saying the entire time so you think he's going off on a tangent

What do you think he is saying, and what is your counter argument? I am not as smart as he is so maybe I can word it in a manner that you can understand. Are you attempting to say that people cannot use their own definitions in reports even with an explanation, like you did in post #30? I really have no idea what your argument is, aside from you thinking maddhattter is "off-topic."

Frost is being orders of magnitude more reasonable than you in this instance. He came in, asked a question, got an answer and moved on, whereas you kept beating the same drum after multiple explanations.

[stevo]

Man, Stevo. You know you're fucked when Frost is more reasonable than you are.

I went from making a logical discussion, to jumping on some wild tangent that had nothing to do with the discussion at hand, just like he did in the beginning. He bludgeoned me with non-topic shit not related to the discussion every post, so I decided to use it back on him. From the way he vapor-locked, it seems to have worked.

His tactic is clever- spin the discussion with an array of tangents to divide the discussion, and then attempt to pick apart comments made on the tangents that he created. While everyone is trying to work though all of the unrelated bullshit that he created, it makes it harder to discuss the real topic at hand. It is a debate tactic.

Stevo

[racrguy]

Man, Stevo. You know you're fucked when Frost is more reasonable than you are.

[YALE]

Damn! Y'all sure do have moist buttholes for each other!

[Maddhattter]

Yet you just stated that their definition isn't the legal one, so the FBI is making up their own definitions?

That report did, yes.

[Forever_frost]

No, because the report explicitly states that a subset of the Juggalo community meets the definition of gang, as they defined it in the report. It states that it is labeling only a small group of people who commit criminal activities as a gang, as they defined it in the report.



Except that's not what the report states, and it's explicitly stated that it is not labeling the people who are exercising their 1st amendment rights as a gang. Only the subset who meet the definition of gang, as defined by the report.



The report has no legal standing because it's not using the term "gang" as legally defined.

Again, are law enforcement agencies using that report as justification for violating peoples rights? Yea. However, that is those law enforcement agencies abuses.

Yet you just stated that their definition isn't the legal one, so the FBI is making up their own definitions?

[stevo]

You motherfuckers..

Don't be jelly. Wade on in, the mud is fine.

Stevo

You motherfuckers..

[stevo]

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Demonstrate where I stated an opinion.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

When you demonstrate that you have even a rudementary understanding of basic logic and reasoning, I'll respond respond to that post.

I'll take that as you resignation to defeat.

Stevo

[Maddhattter]

Prove you didn't.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Prove you didn't.

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

Again, your opinion.

Demonstrate where I stated an opinion.

Prove I'm wrong.

Stevo

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/burden-of-proof

When you demonstrate that you have even a rudementary understanding of basic logic and reasoning, I'll respond respond to that post.

[stevo]

Right. Demonstrate where I stated an opinion.

Prove you didn't.

Right. Demonstrate where I stated an opinion.

Prove you didn't.

It's an axiomatic statement.

Again, your opinion.

Then demonstrate it.

Prove I'm wrong.

Stevo

[Maddhattter]

You opinion doesn't count as proof.

Right. Demonstrate where I stated an opinion.

See above.

Right. Demonstrate where I stated an opinion.

More "he said". You have yet to show proof.

It's an axiomatic statement.

Yes, I am.

Stevo

Then demonstrate it.

[Maddhattter]

Then you have an FBI report labeling individuals as a gang who do not fit the definition of a gang, in violation of the law.

No, because the report explicitly states that a subset of the Juggalo community meets the definition of gang, as they defined it in the report. It states that it is labeling only a small group of people who commit criminal activities as a gang, as they defined it in the report.

If they are labeled as a gang, according to a report by the FBI, whether that is the 'legal definition' or not, that is THE federal law enforcement agency saying individuals exercising their 1st amendment rights are a gang.

Except that's not what the report states, and it's explicitly stated that it is not labeling the people who are exercising their 1st amendment rights as a gang. Only the subset who meet the definition of gang, as defined by the report.

When a federal agency labels you as something (domestic terrorist, gang) it means that they aren't playing and are looking at reasons to bring the hammer down on you.

The report has no legal standing because it's not using the term "gang" as legally defined.

Again, are law enforcement agencies using that report as justification for violating peoples rights? Yea. However, that is those law enforcement agencies abuses.

[stevo]

You are the highest authority on your intentions. So, you are valid proof because you are the authoritative source.

You opinion doesn't count as proof.

And, unlike what you did, I did provide valid proof.

See above.

As you are the highest authority on your intentions, that is sufficient proof.

More "he said". You have yet to show proof.

No, your not.

Yes, I am.

Stevo