3 ms·

Instead of completely baseless speculation about liberal conspiracies to suppress the truth, you could demonstrate your claim by finding similar errors in "libe

Instead of completely baseless speculation about liberal conspiracies to suppress the truth, you could demonstrate your claim by finding similar errors in "liberal" rulings. What you find "implausible" is irrelevant.

TimTheTinker 9y ago
^^ is making an interesting observation, followed by a plausible hypothesis. This is not “baseless speculation”.
- Sangermaine 9y ago
  It is completely baseless speculation. It creates an unfounded implication of wrongdoing or subterfuge on the part of Pro Publica without any evidence. This is a classic FUD tactic.
  - grasshopperpurp 9y ago
    Absolutely, you could just as easily speculate that Conservative judges are more willing to play fast and loose with facts to fit their purposes.
    - TimTheTinker 9y ago
      Either hypothesis is valid given the limited evidence investigated so far. What’s wrong with making a quick observation followed by a hypothesis?
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        Hypothesis without some evidence are quite literally baseless speculation; if there were evidence, it wouldn't be baseless.
        TimTheTinker 9y ago
        There _was_ preliminary evidence for OP’s hypothesis.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        No, there was his judgement of the results as partisan, that is not evidence. Thinking you see bias is not the same thing as finding evidence of bias.
        TimTheTinker 9y ago
        His judgment of the results as partisan wasn’t evidence of anything except perhaps his own bias. That was his hypothesis based on his one observation. Hypotheses are allowed to be biased as long as they’re tested before becoming anything more. The evidence (however preliminary) was the fact that nearly all of Pro Publica’s cited rulings were in favor of conservatives.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        > The evidence (however preliminary) was the fact that nearly all of Pro Publica’s cited rulings were in favor of conservatives. I'd still call that opinion, not evidence. A conservative might say those rulings were in favor of reason, not partisan. See, an alternate opinion.
        TimTheTinker 9y ago
        You’re quibbling about words. If we can’t agree that one side favors a particular viewpoint over the other in a given civil case, any further discussion about the presence or absence of political bias in the ruling or selection of the ruling is impossible.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        > You’re quibbling about words. So are you, this whole thread is you quibbling about words.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
- s73ver_ 9y ago
  Without something to back it up, it is baseless speculation.
LyndsySimon 9y ago
I offer no comment the GP, but an example springs to mind for where where a "liberal" ruling was based on a factual error - US v Miller (1939) The majority opinion stated: > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. In fact, "trench shotguns" were issued in WW1 and at the time of the ruling, which standard barrel lengths of ~20" - and were often shortened further in the field. Further, shotguns with barrels of <18" were standard issue elsewhere in the world and were used by US cavalry throughout the Civil War and into the Indian Wars in the latter part of the 19th Century.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  They really need to rewrite the second amendment in a more precise fashion. How about bazookas or soon laser weapons? Are they ok? I am not trying to be funny. What's an arm?
  - LyndsySimon 9y ago
    At the time of the ratification, "arms" basically meant a weapon that could be carried by a soldier. The next larger class of weapons would be "ordnance", to include things like cannon and explosives. It's also worth noting that the Constitution implicitly recognizes the civilian ownership of ordnance as well, through Article 1 Section 8: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" granting letters of marque wouldn't make sense if individuals did not possess suitably armed ships.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      A Stinger ground to air missile can easily be carried by a soldier so I assume that's OK. I have also spent considerable time carrying around an anti-tank missile. Heavy but very doable.
jerf 9y ago
Any error that would be found in a HN-comment amount of time, effort, and care, would simply be rebutted by a dozen replies putting in a similar amount of time, effort, and care, viz, nearly none. Even putting aside the grotesquely asymmetrical effort you're calling for here, that wouldn't advance the conversation at all. Citation: Nearly all the other subconversations going on already in this story's discussion.

TimTheTinker 9y ago

^^ is making an interesting observation, followed by a plausible hypothesis. This is not “baseless speculation”.

Sangermaine 9y ago
It is completely baseless speculation. It creates an unfounded implication of wrongdoing or subterfuge on the part of Pro Publica without any evidence. This is a classic FUD tactic.
- grasshopperpurp 9y ago
  Absolutely, you could just as easily speculate that Conservative judges are more willing to play fast and loose with facts to fit their purposes.
  - TimTheTinker 9y ago
    Either hypothesis is valid given the limited evidence investigated so far. What’s wrong with making a quick observation followed by a hypothesis?
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      Hypothesis without some evidence are quite literally baseless speculation; if there were evidence, it wouldn't be baseless.
      - TimTheTinker 9y ago
        There _was_ preliminary evidence for OP’s hypothesis.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        No, there was his judgement of the results as partisan, that is not evidence. Thinking you see bias is not the same thing as finding evidence of bias.
        TimTheTinker 9y ago
        His judgment of the results as partisan wasn’t evidence of anything except perhaps his own bias. That was his hypothesis based on his one observation. Hypotheses are allowed to be biased as long as they’re tested before becoming anything more. The evidence (however preliminary) was the fact that nearly all of Pro Publica’s cited rulings were in favor of conservatives.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        > The evidence (however preliminary) was the fact that nearly all of Pro Publica’s cited rulings were in favor of conservatives. I'd still call that opinion, not evidence. A conservative might say those rulings were in favor of reason, not partisan. See, an alternate opinion.
        TimTheTinker 9y ago
        You’re quibbling about words. If we can’t agree that one side favors a particular viewpoint over the other in a given civil case, any further discussion about the presence or absence of political bias in the ruling or selection of the ruling is impossible.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        > You’re quibbling about words. So are you, this whole thread is you quibbling about words.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
s73ver_ 9y ago
Without something to back it up, it is baseless speculation.

LyndsySimon 9y ago

I offer no comment the GP, but an example springs to mind for where where a "liberal" ruling was based on a factual error - US v Miller (1939) The majority opinion stated: > In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. In fact, "trench shotguns" were issued in WW1 and at the time of the ruling, which standard barrel lengths of ~20" - and were often shortened further in the field. Further, shotguns with barrels of <18" were standard issue elsewhere in the world and were used by US cavalry throughout the Civil War and into the Indian Wars in the latter part of the 19th Century.

maxxxxx 9y ago
They really need to rewrite the second amendment in a more precise fashion. How about bazookas or soon laser weapons? Are they ok? I am not trying to be funny. What's an arm?
- LyndsySimon 9y ago
  At the time of the ratification, "arms" basically meant a weapon that could be carried by a soldier. The next larger class of weapons would be "ordnance", to include things like cannon and explosives. It's also worth noting that the Constitution implicitly recognizes the civilian ownership of ordnance as well, through Article 1 Section 8: "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water" granting letters of marque wouldn't make sense if individuals did not possess suitably armed ships.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    A Stinger ground to air missile can easily be carried by a soldier so I assume that's OK. I have also spent considerable time carrying around an anti-tank missile. Heavy but very doable.

jerf 9y ago

Any error that would be found in a HN-comment amount of time, effort, and care, would simply be rebutted by a dozen replies putting in a similar amount of time, effort, and care, viz, nearly none. Even putting aside the grotesquely asymmetrical effort you're calling for here, that wouldn't advance the conversation at all. Citation: Nearly all the other subconversations going on already in this story's discussion.