Comments on: Paging the Department of Bogus Quotes . . . there’s a Mr. Zywicki here to see you

By: John Jenkins

John Jenkins — Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:10:57 +0000

Mike, I think you’re misreading what Tom said. He said now that there is proof of the quote’s veracity, someone who wants to question the quote bears the burden of showing why the quote isn’t valid. I think that’s quite right. Tom has carried his burden of production and the requirements of proof now shift to the other side unless you can impeach the source, which amounts to the same thing in any event.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 19:48:48 +0000

Mr. Blummer, it’s generally recognized in argumentation, and in issues involving the validity of source materials, that the one asserting a proposition or holding out some quote to be true has the burden of proving his case. You proved your case by providing the e-mail wherein the quote was contained. But make no mistake: A reader does not “bear the burden of disproving” anything until the writer has proved his case. Again, you proved your case, so the issue is moot here. But in the future, you should remember that the one who making the argument bears the burden of proof.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 03:02:11 +0000

Mike: I’ve no idea. I know from clerking that the vast majority of non-criminal constitutional claims that I saw were frivolous, or at least ultimately without merit.

By: Tom Blumer

Tom Blumer — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:45:05 +0000

M. Kaimipono D. Wenger:

I am Tom Blumer at BizzyBlog. My exact use of the quote in question was as follows at the 2nd last para of this post:

http://www.bizzyblog.com/?p=671

Land-use tyrants aren’t even trying to mask their outlook any more. According to the Measure 37 web site (scroll to near the bottom of page), one lawyer attempting to overturn the law was quoted as saying: “I will put a couple of enlightened attorneys up against a million Oregonians any day, since the masses do not make right in this Republic, no matter how many you stack up against the wall!!”

I left it to the reader, if they wished to question whether the quote was accurate based on its source.

I understand that Todd has since confirmed it, since your objection in this post is to him. I just confirmed it too, and have a copy of the e-mail Ron Myers at OIA/Measure 37 sent to Todd, which contains the name, address, phone number, e-mail addy, and web site of the person who sent the e-mail.

I suppose you're free to still question the quote's veracity, and to think that they have made it all up. But I believe you would be very mistaken to do so, and that you bear the burden of disproving it. Don't blame Todd or myself for relaying it, and before you question an attributed quote's veracity, maybe YOU should do the investigating first.

Cheers,

Tom Blumer BizzyBlog.com

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:44:39 +0000

Nate: Good point. Do you have any idea how often challenges brought by good lawyers (rather than pro se litigants) succeed in getting a ballot initiatives struck down? I don’t know, so that’s an actual question, and not a “question” with an argument smuggled in it.

That’d give us the answer to the question whether two smart lawyers are good on “any day” or a “rare or extraordinay day.” In the meantime, I amend my response: I’d take the smart lawyers on “some day.”

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:33:22 +0000

Mike: it seems to me that judicial review doesn’t amount to taking the opinion of smart lawyers over the masses on any day, but rather on rare or extraordinary days. It is a very important distinction.

By: Mike

Mike — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 02:25:42 +0000

I am friends with a lot of prominent liberal lawyers. I’ve heard some very competent liberal lawyers make comments similar to the one you ridicule as “[a] good example of how liberals talk in libertarian fantasyland.” In any event, I would take a couple good civil rights lawyers over a million people any day, too. After all, isn’t that what any challenge to a democratically-enacted law amounts to? Millions of voters say one thing; a team of smart lawyers tells the court to say another thing.

Anyhow, the point of your post is solid, namely that the quote is unreliable. It’s when you try making another claim (i.e., that liberals don’t say such things) that you fail. Competent liberals and conservatives all sometimes say stupid and elitist things. To the extent you argue otherwise, your argument fails.

By: John Jenkins

John Jenkins — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 01:50:08 +0000

It makes sense to view the quotation with some skepticism, but I fail to see what Prof. Z has done wrong here. He pointed readers on a track to observe all of the data you point to thereby allowing them to make up their own minds.

By: Nate Oman

Nate Oman — Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:56:10 +0000

Kaimi: It seems to me that your argument boils down to the claim that when conservative quote stupid things that liberals say as evidence of how stupid liberals are one ought not to believe them.

However, sometimes it is the case that liberals simply say stupid things.