[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> fundamentally ad hominem

Yes, but I'd point out that I was intending to speak "to the person" with those words. It is not to say "you're better than this" but instead to say I know you reach a certain baseline level of skill in critical thinking. Given that, I am genuinely not sure why you would choose to defend the actions of the agents. I suppose that's not really different, though.

Regardless, I guess I have my answer. "I wouldn't be murdered because I would comply with all of the agent's unreasonable demands." I will spare you an attempt to explain either the clear lack of reason in the agent's demands or the folly of this reasoning.

Apologies for not responding to the rest.

[zahlman]

> but instead to say I know you reach a certain baseline level of skill in critical thinking. Given that, I am genuinely not sure why you would choose to defend the actions of the agents.

Because an application of critical thinking to the available evidence clearly exonerates the agents in this specific case.

> I wouldn't be murdered because I would comply with all of the agent's unreasonable demands.

As an objective matter of fact, the demand to exit the vehicle was reasonable and legally justified, and she was legally required to comply with it. I have already repeatedly explained why, and given appropriate citations.

The evidence does not support the use of the term "murder" to describe this killing.

> I will spare you an attempt to explain either the clear lack of reason in the agent's demands or the folly of this reasoning.

Your claim of "clear lack of reason" is contradictory to evidence and you have not even attempted to make a case for it beyond bald assertion.

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> Your claim of "clear lack of reason" is contradictory to evidence

This is obviously false.

> you have not even attempted to make a case for it beyond bald assertion

That is correct: I am not attempting to sway you with the evidence you've already decided is in favor of your assertions. I instead "baldly assert" that said evidence seems to corroborate my perspective, the same as you.

[zahlman]

> This is obviously false.

No, it isn't. I showed the reason, repeatedly. And I cited the relevant law.

> I am not attempting to sway you with the evidence you've already decided is in favor of your assertions. I instead "baldly assert" that said evidence seems to corroborate my perspective, the same as you.

I clearly explained, with timestamps and extensive logical reasoning, how the evidence clearly does corroborate my perspective. I have calmly and repeatedly walked through it all and pointed out fallacies committed by you and others.

You have merely asserted that the evidence corroborates your perspective.

Why would any third party who sees this agree with you?

[lcnPylGDnU4H9OF]

> I have ... pointed out fallacies committed by you and others.

This is moot. Losing points in a debate competition does not invalidate the belief for which one is arguing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_fallacy

You're not going to suddenly change your mind strictly because you realized you made a bad argument; admittedly, you might do so after your bad argument makes you rethink the matter but it's certainly not a guarantee. Critically, anyone's ability to change their mind starts first and foremost with it being willing to adopt such a change.

> You have merely asserted that the evidence corroborates your perspective.

This is all you've managed to do as well, despite using more words; there seems to be no reason to point it out. Of course, that is what we are both doing. Oftentimes it's called a "discussion". The problem I am having with this one, which I believe is shared by others, is that you don't seem to be taking other perspectives seriously. Why should I, or any third party who sees this this, offer yours that dignity?

[zahlman]

> Losing points in a debate competition does not invalidate the belief for which one is arguing.

I did not make this argument. I simply pointed out the difference between my conduct and that of others, and between the logical validity of my argument and that of others.

> You're not going to suddenly change your mind strictly because you realized you made a bad argument

Of course I am not going to change my mind, because I did not make the argument you ascribe to me.

>This is all you've managed to do as well, despite using more words

This is blatantly untrue. I provided evidence and reasoning. You provided neither.

> Of course, that is what we are both doing. Oftentimes it's called a "discussion".

This is not a discussion. It has not at any point been a discussion. It has just been me pointing out where you (and others) are factually incorrect, where you (collectively) have hypocritically made emotional appeals while falsely accusing me of doing so (which again does not make you incorrect, but hypocrisy is a moral failing), and so on. It could not possibly be a discussion, because you repeatedly ignored that I was focused on a legal analysis while incorrectly accusing me of conflating that with a moral analysis, while engaging in a moral analysis that I repeatedly told you I was no concerned with. Again, my only interest in morality here is because my moral character has been unfairly impugned.