Logical Fallacies (Lesson Two)

Spread the love

Ok, I’m back. Possibly for a short time, possibly for a long time. But an incident this evening involving an anonymous blogger who claims to be in law enforcement in the City of Toronto has motivated this.

Balbulican thought my return to blogging would involve a bottle of wine and an evening with Leonard Cohen music. Neither is correct, but instead, a deletion of a comment at the Lost Budgie Blog has motivated my return.

First however, for the first lesson on logical fallacies, see this if you’d like.

What’s got my ire is the fact that when taken to task on an insinuation, which in fact is ad hominem regarding the mayor of Toronto, David Miller, Lost Budgie continues to respond with further ad hominem, and then finally deleted my last comment.

I have sent Mr. Last Budgie a personal email which he is free to publicize on his website if he wishes. I have no idea if the bird has banned me from further commenting on his blog; deleting a comment that pointed out his ad hominem is enough for me to not bother trying to engage him on his own turf so instead, I’ll engage him here.

In this post, the Budgie Bird writes”

Toronto: Where an off-duty police officer wounded in last night’s gunfire was unarmed because police are prohibited from carrying their weapons off-duty. Mayor Miller doesn’t trust police officers that much.

However, I know for a fact that the prohibition against police officers carrying their service weapons while off duty long predates David Miller. David Miller alone has no authority regarding this issue, and it is completely up to the Police Services Board and the Chief of Police to set rules for what police officers in Toronto may or may not do, within the laws and regulations set out by the Province of Ontario.

I took the budgie bird to task for his ad hominem. A short dialogue continued, when finally budgie bird continued with further ad hominem against me, jumped to conclusions, made Silly Foolish Untrue statements (what do you call someone who writes lies?) to which I responded something to the effect (I did not copy my response or take a screen shot, so this is from memory):

Budgie Bird Ad Hominem – 4

Truth – 0

I am not a supporter of David Miller and I don’t start drinking until after 11PM. You’re jumping to conclusions is showing through.

Why don’t you just answer the question? Is David Miller responsible for the prohibition of off-duty police officers carrying their service weapons or not? A yes or no answer will suffice and no further ad hominem is needed.

Is David Miller responsible for the prohibition of off duty carrying of service weapons, yes or no?

By the way, have you made first class yet? Just wonderin’….

OK, it’s not word for word, but I there was nothing offensive in my post, unless budgie bird was offended about my asking about his rank. I merely pointed to truth and asked a simple yes or no question.

If indeed the budgie is a police officer in Toronto, is this the kind of police officer you want? Someone who removes truth and straight up questions put to him about his own statements on his blog?

Is the budgie more interested in truth, or simply furthering his own opinions and ends, regardless of truth?

A police officer, who has plenty of time to read, think about, and respond to a comment on his blog, and responds the way he does – by deleting that which he doesn’t like, while leaving his own ad hominem “evidence,” does it make you wonder what this guy might be like on the street?

Do you really think he’s interested in truth?

Come on dude.. answer the question… yes or no.. is David Miller the one responsible for the prohibition against off duty police officers from carrying their service weapons, or not?

Lost Budgie seems incapable of answering a basic question. Or are afraid of truth when his own falaciousness is questioned. In other words, he’s a coward when it comes to truth. I ask you what your duty is exactly? Isn’t it to truth, Mr. Police Officer?

Now tomorrow, if I still feel like carrying on with this blogging bullshit, I’ll improve the look and feel, add some links, and who knows.. maybe I’ll blog again.

Update In case my last comment to someone that thinks such of themself to comment as ” Sigmund, Carl and Alfred,” and in case my comment gets deleted from the bird brain’s blog, here’s what I wrote:

“He is however, responsible for not rescinding the idiotic policy, even as crime has flourished in Toronto”

Bullshit. You have no fucking clue obviously, as to how regulations for the TPS are created or developed.

This prohibition goes back many years. Some police officers even support the prohibition. Some do not, I agree. However, I know for a fact that some TPS members are quite happy not to carry around their sidearm while off duty.

Furthermore, Miller is NOT responsible for not rescinding the policy. If you are going to discuss city level politics, then get a fucking clue about how they work. It is the Police Services Board that is responsible for rescinding such a prohibition. Not Miller himself, alone.

I’m quite familiar with all of Peel’s Principles. Go read them again yourself. In Peel’s Principle’s, the Police are simply to be an extension of the citizenry, to do full time what the citizenry should be able to do at any time, including any actions against those who call themselves police officers. Police officers were never intended to be some “special” group of citizens; instead, just a full time group of people that would be able to do the same things as any citizen would be able to do, without the distractions of the day to day activities of a citizen. A citizen has just as much right to arrest and detain a police officer for any illegal activity, including assault on false pretenses, as a police officer has.

Is David Miller responsible for the prohibition of police officers carrying service weapons off duty or not? Is David Miller responsible for having off duty police officers carry service weapons?

Out of curiosity, can you name all the police forces in Ontario where officers are allowed, without special permission, to carry their service weapons while off duty?

1 thought on “Logical Fallacies (Lesson Two)”

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top