Trick or treat?

[Janx]

It was neither, according to the standards proffered by Ms. Manners, and I'll take her view on matters like these more seriously than yours, based in what I've read of the writings of the two of you.



As stated above, I've yet to encounter a parent in this area who thought that these letters were anything but bullying.

As the old saying goes, "Don't mess with mama bear's cubs"

If a large chunk of the population thinks they wouldn't like it if their kid got one of those letters, whats the percent chance one of those people will be rich or crazy enough to react in one of the extreme ways I outlined.

I think this is one of those areas where the woman may have a RIGHT to hand out those letters, but that doesn't make it right to do so, nor does it make it a good idea to do so.

If her goal is to induce positive change in obese children, championing fitness and diet improvements in school lunches, after school activities for at-risk childern etc would seem to be more positive and more likely to be successful.

Versus doing a bait and switch at the door by advertising she's putting out for Halloween, but then Grinching on some of the customers.

 

[Kramodlog]

It was neither, according to the standards proffered by Ms. Manners, and I'll take her view on matters like these more seriously than yours, based in what I've read of the writings of the two of you.

Ad hominem. That is not a argument.

As stated above, I've yet to encounter a parent in this area who thought that these letters were anything but bullying.

An appeal to popularity, again, not an argument.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Ad hominem. That is not a argument.

That's not ad hominem. I am merely pointing out that I'm going to prefer the position of a known and accepted expert advisor on matters of civility and etiquette based on her writings and what I have seen of yours. She's an expert; you have offered no proof that you are.

And before you go "appeal to authority", it is only a logical fallacy if the source appealed to is not an actual authority.

An appeal to popularity, again, not an argument.

Not an appeal to popularity, it's my observation and informed assessment as a professional attorney- I wouldn't want to accept her case if she came to me, partly because I don't think she'd fare that well. (That, plus i'm not a trial attorney.) And besides, we are talking about behavior that is arguably a breach of a social norm, so there is an element of "popularity" that is going to be part of the discussion.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

No, all I'm assuming is that she has the intent to distribute said letters- that someone will be humiliated is a reasonably foreseeable consequence.

true, but that foreseeable consequence applies to a lot of things kids do. For example, when the school they attend send their report cards, our when the teacher announces the class grades for a test how about when colleges and rejection letters? Ask those things have the potential to someone.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Of my 4 grandparents and my mom- all teachers ranging from elementary to grad school- none was in the habit of distributing grades while announcing names. Nor were any of my teachers.

The only kids who got singled out did so by their own actions, like the 2 who bickered over which got a D- and which got an F, when only 2 tests had not been returned, and neither had a name on it.

 

[Kramodlog]

That's not ad hominem. I am merely pointing out that I'm going to prefer the position of a known and accepted expert advisor on matters of civility and etiquette based on her writings and what I have seen of yours. She's an expert; you have offered no proof that you are.

You're attacking my credibility without adressing the substance of my argument. This is an ad hominem.

And before you go "appeal to authority", it is only a logical fallacy if the source appealed to is not an actual authority.

Not exactly. What you said is true, but not complete. Authorities are not necessarely correct when they talk about their field of expertise and that also constitutes an appeal to authority.

it's my observation

that many people believe this. Yup, appeal to popularity.

and informed assessment as a professional attorney-

Lol, now you're making an appeal to authority (see above)!

And besides, we are talking about behavior that is arguably a breach of a social norm, so there is an element of "popularity" that is going to be part of the discussion.

You can't have it both ways, either it is an appeal to popularity or it is not.

Once you decide, we can go back to the actual debate and you can start defending harassment of that woman for being an evil sadist again.

 

[Homicidal_Squirrel]

Of my 4 grandparents and my mom- all teachers ranging from elementary to grad school- none was in the habit of distributing grades while announcing names. Nor were any of my teachers.

Right, and this lady isn't announcing what the letter says, nor is she telling the kids they are fat. She is simply giving them a letter to read on their own or give to their parents.

The only kids who got singled out did so by their own actions, like the 2 who bickered over which got a D- and which got an F, when only 2 tests had not been returned, and neither had a name on it.

Well there you go. The only way people are going to know what the letter says unless they start reading it for others to hear.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Right, and this lady isn't announcing what the letter says

1) she did- it's in the news.

2) it will also be immediately obvious that some kids are getting candy and others are not.

nor is she telling the kids they are fat

Sure she is- she's just doing it in print and by her actions rather than verbally.

You're attacking my credibility without adressing the substance of my argument. This is an ad hominem.

No, it isn't- its not a personal attack at all.

I'm stating that I'm more likely to believe a noted and trusted authority- who has spoken directly on the issue of unsolicited advice- rather than some anonymous person on the Internet with no apparent bona fides and who has made no attempt to offer any.

I would make a similar assessment if we were discussing your view of astrophysics vs Stephen Hawking's.

Not exactly. What you said is true, but not complete. Authorities are not necessarely correct when they talk about their field of expertise and that also constitutes an appeal to authority.

I didn't say you were flat-out wrong, or that Ms. Manners is simply correct, just that I am going to opt for an interpretation that is being delivered by a recognized, mainstream expert.

While it is true that an authority is not necessarily correct within their field of expertise, here:

1) The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2) There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

Thus, there is no "appeal to authority" fallacy being comitted.

It comes close to being so because social conventions are fluid, artificial constructs, so it is impossible to construct a logical syllogism involving them. At best, we can make probabilistic predictions in this arena.

now you're making an appeal to authority

Relying on my personal expertise- of which I have some nearly 17 years- isn't an appeal to authority. It's based on known statistical probabilities within the relevant field.

Thus, it is a probabilistic assertion, not a fallacious appeal to authority.

 

[Kramodlog]

No, it isn't- its not a personal attack at all.

I'm stating that I'm more likely to believe a noted and trusted authority- who has spoken directly on the issue of unsolicited advice- rather than some anonymous person on the Internet with no apparent bona fides and who has made no attempt to offer any.

I would make a similar assessment if we were discussing your view of astrophysics vs Stephen Hawking's.

But I'm supposed to lend you credibility, oh anonymous stranger on the internet?

Also:

That's not ad hominem. I am merely pointing out that I'm going to prefer the position of a known and accepted expert advisor on matters of civility and etiquette based on her writings and what I have seen of yours.

You are making a personal attack regarding my ethiquette and civility in my posts. It is pretty clear.

I didn't say you were flat-out wrong, or that Ms. Manners is simply correct, just that I am going to opt for an interpretation that is being delivered by a recognized, mainstream expert.

Oh well, mainstream experts. That makes a world of a diffence. That certainly is not an appeal to authority. No sir.

While it is true that an authority is not necessarily correct within their field of expertise, here:

1) The authority is a legitimate expert on the subject.
2) There exists consensus among legitimate experts in the subject matter under discussion.

Thus, there is no "appeal to authority" fallacy being comitted.

You mean aside from the lack of consensus (who else claims to be a lawyer in this thread?) and that, again, being an "expert" in itself doesn't mean you're right. You need to demonstrate that you are right with actual arguments, not just by refering to you supposed authority. So far that is the only thing you managed to do.

Now that this sidetrack is over, go back to the lady giving letters and use your "expert skills" to demonstrate your points: that she needs to be harassed for excercising her rights and that harassment is civil and polite.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

But I'm supposed to lend you credibility, oh anonymous stranger on the internet?

No. I told you my preferred source of advice in his area- a known expert in the field who has spoken directly on the issue of the politeness of unsolicited persinal advice.

in contrast, you have offered no basis for your interpretation beyond your personal opinion.

That's it.

Also: You are making a personal attack regarding my ethiquette and civility in my posts. It is pretty clear.

Again, no- all I said is that I'd trust her interpretation over yours. That isn't personal.

Oh well, mainstream experts. That makes a world of a diffence. That certainly is not an appeal to authority. No sir.

Not as a logical fallacy, no.

You mean aside from the lack of consensus (who else claims to be a lawyer in this thread?) and that, again, being an "expert" in itself doesn't mean you're right. You need to demonstrate that you are right with actual arguments, not just by refering to you supposed authority. So far that is the only thing you managed to do.

Lets see...I have advised that you consider the tort of intentional infliction emotional distress, which is relevant in that we are discussing an event in our (litigious) society that involves an adult (intentionally) attacking the self-esteem of children with foreseeably probable results.

I have also pointed out that her behavior is outside of the social norm for the holliday AND oversteps societal norms of 3rd party parenting. And that there was a far less confrontational and more acceptable method to avoid giving candy to fat kids.

None of which seemingly matters to you.

Now that this sidetrack is over, go back to the lady giving letters and use your "expert skills" to demonstrate your points: that she needs to be harassed for excercising her rights and that harassment is civil and polite.

I said nothing of her "needing" to be harassed, nor that harassment is civil or polite. I don't know where youre getting that.

However, her harassment is as foreseeable as that of a child being told by an adult stranger that they are too fat to have candy like all he other kids.

Ditto a lawsuit under that tort if she followed through on her stated intended actions.