Latest GeorgeZimmerman News

[Thermal]

No, anecdotes are accounts by a person, first-hand or otherwise.

Upchurch has been using it in the context of anecdotal evidence, which refers specifically to hearsay (linked on post #206). The primary definitions I looked up refer to anecdotes as being 'funny stories' which I think is clearly a different context.

Upchurch, if you are using 'anecdotal evidence' in the context of a 'short, funny story' or similar, I accuse you of equivocation. Fondly, though, in light of your avatar.

 

[Jules Galen]

"Anecdote" is not a relevant legal description of first-hand witness testimony in court. Basically all eyewitness testimony is anecdotal, yet courts still allow it, and for good reason. So while it may be technically true to call his testimony anecdotal, it makes no sense to do so, because that descriptor simply doesn't matter. It's not meaningful in context. It adds nothing.

But might your argument be wholly dependent on what the definition if "is" is?

 

[Ziggurat]

In this context it most certainly is.

So that meaning is true because you want it to be true, even though it's not actually contained in the words. Got it.

Oh, I'm sorry; you weren't propping yourself up, but putting me down.

You made this personal between us, not me.

 

[TheGoldcountry]

No. "You don't need to do that" isn't a request not to do it. It's a statement that you're not being requested TO do it.

For example, if you rent a car, and you say that you'll bring it back washed, and the agent says you don't need to wash the car, does that mean that the agent wants you to NOT wash the car? No, it doesn't. You can still wash the car, you just don't have to.

Do you realize how pathetic your semantic histrionics are? This is getting sad. The meaning is clear, and your silly pedantic arguments are ridiculous. Everyone knows it including yourself. Please stop.

 

[Ziggurat]

But might your argument be wholly dependent on what the definition if "is" is?

That's perhaps the dumbest thing you've said so far.

 

[Ziggurat]

Do you realize how pathetic your semantic histrionics are? This is getting sad. The meaning is clear, and your silly pedantic arguments are ridiculous. Everyone knows it including yourself. Please stop.

Translation: my view is unpopular, and even though you don't have a rational argument against it, I should concede the point because it's unpopular and you don't like it.

Here's the thing, though: Mumbles has provided the only relevant counter-argument to my position, and you all missed it. It's pathetic, really.

 

[TheL8Elvis]

The topic that never dies. Good times.

 

[Jules Galen]

That's perhaps the dumbest thing you've said so far.

Really?

Maybe you should learn a little history (and stop arguing meaningless semantics). I swear to Gawd...Bill Clinton could have used a person like you during his trial.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...98/09/bill_clinton_and_the_meaning_of_is.html

 

[Jules Galen]

Translation: my view is unpopular, and even though you don't have a rational argument against it, I should concede the point because it's unpopular and you don't like it.

Here's the thing, though: Mumbles has provided the only relevant counter-argument to my position, and you all missed it. It's pathetic, really.

But...what exactly do you mean by "concede"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Really?

You've said something even dumber? I'm ready to concede that point.

Maybe you should learn a little history

Oh, I know that history quite well, and I knew that you were referring to it. But since that history isn't relevant here, it's stupid to try to bring it up.

 

[Fast Eddie B]

Who said it was a command? We're simply saying that the dispatcher told him not to do it. Sure, not in those exact words, but I think it was clear.

I disagree.

Imagine I'm concerned about a friend's wellbeing, and I tell him I'd like to come over to make sure he's OK.

Two possible replies:

A: "Ed, I don't need you to do that."

B: "Ed, do not come over."

They have different meanings. For "A", I'm likely to respond that I'd like to come over, just the same. For "B", I'd likely just respect his wishes and not go over. There is a difference.

edited to add: I see Ziggurat made a similar analogy upthread.

 

[Jules Galen]

You've said something even dumber? I'm ready to concede that point.



Oh, I know that history quite well, and I knew that you were referring to it. But since that history isn't relevant here, it's stupid to try to bring it up.

I asked you before what you meant by "concede", but you did not answer. Are evading the question?

 

[Ziggurat]

But...what exactly do you mean by "concede"?

"Stalk" has a statutory definition. That legal definition is distinct from the common dictionary definition. Furthermore, the common dictionary definition encompasses actions which are legally permissible, and for which the use of force as a response is not justified. Since you were making an argument about legal culpability, what exactly you meant by the word matters.

But evidently you aren't smart enough to even know what you meant yourself.

 

[Ziggurat]

I asked you before what you meant by "concede", but you did not answer. Are evading the question?

Why should I answer your question when you haven't answered mine?

 

[Jules Galen]

"Stalk" has a statutory definition. That legal definition is distinct from the common dictionary definition. Furthermore, the common dictionary definition encompasses actions which are legally permissible, and for which the use of force as a response is not justified. Since you were making an argument about legal culpability, what exactly you meant by the word matters.

But evidently you aren't smart enough to even know what you meant yourself.

Yeah...you seem a bit ambiguous. Specifically, what exactly do you mean when you say "were"?

 

[Ziggurat]

Yeah...you seem a bit ambiguous. Specifically, what exactly do you mean when you say "were"?

I was using the Old English word for "man", obviously.

 

[sunmaster14]

Yes. That is pretty much the definition of "anecdote". Why is that startling?



No, you are completely wrong from a skeptical/critical thinking perspective. An anecdote amounts to a claim about an event or series of events. One should never ever just assume that an anecdote or claim is true by default.

For the beginning of the encounter, there is no evidence, for or against, that relates to Zimmerman's story. If you have any, please present it.

If I tell you that I am married and have two kids, do you have any reason to doubt it?

 

[Jules Galen]

I was using the Old English word for "man", obviously.

then why not use the word "man"? Are you trying to show us how much smarter than the rest of us that you are?

 

[Ziggurat]

then why not use the word "man"?

Because I'm a time traveler, obviouſly.

 

[Upchurch]

No, Zimmernan's testimony is entirely a first-hand account. Anecdotes are commonly defined as the use of secondhand or hearsay evidence in support of an argument. Are you discounting his first-hand testimony as anecdotal because...we were not the ones directly asking the questions? I accuse you of a heap of logical errors if so.

Quick edit: please provide an external definition of 'anecdotal' which fits your use of it. Methinks you're making it up.

Source

Anecdotal evidence is an informal account of evidence in the form of an anecdote. The term is often used in contrast to scientific evidence, as evidence that cannot be investigated using the scientific method. The problem with arguing based on anecdotal evidence is that anecdotal evidence is not necessarily typical; only statistical evidence can determine how typical something is. Misuse of anecdotal evidence is an informal fallacy.

"Anecdote" is not a relevant legal description of first-hand witness testimony in court. Basically all eyewitness testimony is anecdotal, yet courts still allow it, and for good reason. So while it may be technically true to call his testimony anecdotal, it makes no sense to do so, because that descriptor simply doesn't matter.

Do try to keep up:

Courts love eyewitness testimony. That doesn't make it any less anecdotal evidence, nor any more trustworthy.

Look, courts play be a different set of standards with different goals. Barring procedural muck-ups, they have to reach a decision and even the muck-ups fall back on a default conclusion, the presumption of innocence.

Upchurch has been using it in the context of anecdotal evidence, which refers specifically to hearsay (linked on post #206).

Untrue. It has meaning within scientific terms as well and, as I'm sure we all know, science is the best tool ever devised for determining facts (paraphrased).

Upchurch, if you are using 'anecdotal evidence' in the context of a 'short, funny story' or similar, I accuse you of equivocation. Fondly, though, in light of your avatar.

Fortunately, I am not.