The "Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong"--which consists of two people, one of whom is Durham's resident homophobe, former Nifong citizens' committee chair Victoria Peterson--has been sending out the following item:
The "Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong" is conducting a survey and we would consider your participation to be invaluable. If you are willing to give ten minutes of your time towards this endeavor, reply by e-mail and you will be sent a questionnaire of thirty six (36) yes/no questions, and a return stamped, self-addressed envelope for your convenience.
Please respond as soon as possible, and include a mailing address to assure delivery. Thank you for your consideration in being part of this important and informative survey.
If anyone gets a copy of the questions, please send them to me; I'll post them.
You can't make this stuff up.
45 comments:
You have to admit Victoria is always good for a laugh. I hope someone gets you the questions, they will no doubt be amusing.
I propose to form another "Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong"
We'll call it the "Committee FOR Justice for Mike Nifong"
The goal is to get him the 15-20 years in a medium security federal correctional facility that real justice calls for.
"Cause justice is the one thing you should always find,
You gotta saddle up your boys,
You gotta draw a HARD LINE!!!"
Is Peterson a Communist?
Where can one get a copy of the questionnaire to complete? I would be more than happy to fill it out although I do not think that Ms. Peterson would like what I have to say. Could it be that the only people to whom the questionnaire will be sent (or that the only people who will be allowed to participate) will be those who consider that Nifong was wronged in the proceedings? In that case, the Group of 88, Judge Smith, the Durham City Council, Brian Meehan, and everyone's favorite, Tara Levicy, will be the only one allowed to participate?
cks
Victoria has been attending those self esteems building and political awareness building workshops for so many years she sees all reality as nothing more than consensus building with a personal touch and hug.
The G88 has done a great job on her...especially the African and African American Studies and Women's Studies professors and students.
Now who do you think will be writing the summary of what was learned with all those surveys?
I would be very cautious about this 'spin' effort. The summary report will make it into circulation without any reference to the underlying data or design of the survey/study itself.
I do not love the smell of town/gown guerilla politics in the morning.
::
GP
As a gay male, Victoria Peterson is great for me. Anytime someone starts pulling unreasonable homophobia I can say, "Who do you wanna be like? Victoria Peterson?"
Okay, Victoria is one of the two certifiable Nifong supporters. Who's the other?
Lots of possibilities exist--one of 88, Broadhed, Steel, DPD,...
The questions, in yes/no format, should be interesting. Maybe KC can come up with his own 36 questions to help Vicky out. What say you Professor?
Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): Attacking the person instead of attacking the argument.
Example: Victoria Peterson isn't believable because she is Durham's resident homophobe.
I you were going to distribute a set of questions as part of "justice for Mike Nifong" what would they be?
What's the e-mail address to reply? I live in Durham. I'll request a survey from Ms. Peterson.
"Victoria Peterson isn't believable because she is Durham's resident homophobe."
I don't believe the commenter said that.
Besides, there's so much more to Peterson than that......as Triangle residents know.
--Perpetual political candidate who always comes up short
--Never met a convicted murderer or felon she can't champion and defend when allowed to self-style a role of family "spokesperson"
--Preaches fire and brimstone when she discovers someone has copped some nookie. What would the church people say? !!!
--Adept at hijacking TV screen from local reporters
--Never allows established rules of a courtroom to keep her from expressing herself
--Possesses a serious chapeau collection to rival the lids worn by Sheila Jackson Lee and Moms Mabley combined
This from past post at Pam's House Blend:
* Victoria Peterson (Ward 1), said she had been arrested for trespassing while protesting at abortion clinics. Records show five second-degree trespassing charges filed against Peterson in North Carolina between 1989 and 2001. She pleaded not guilty on three of the counts, but the records indicate she was found guilty at trial.
***
I have a special place for Ms. Victoria Peterson in my heart because she is is a good representative of our local Af-AmTaliban, serving as president of Christians for Morality in Government. She's an ace homo-bigot that didn't make it out of the primary the last time she ran.
In 2003, she testified before the County Commissioners to urge them not to extend partnership benefits because: "Many of them are infected with diseases, and their lifestyles are very, very dangerous," Peterson told the board. "Many don't live to be senior citizens. Who's going to pay this expense if they get sick in their gay lifestyle?" And here's another gem of her reasoning: "The gay community makes plenty of money. Just because of how you have sex, does not mean anyone is entitled to special rights."
The measure passed, making Durham North Carolina's first county to enact domestic partner benefits. Chapel Hill and Carrboro also offer domestic-partner benefits to both heterosexual and same-sex couples. Peterson threatened to sue the county over the passage of the measure.
When a bill to add sexual orientation to state anti-discrimination was defeated in 2003, she said: "They could come to work dressed one day looking like a female and two weeks later looking like a male. We do not recognize people who actively engage in a gay lifestyle."
My favorite Peterson quote came after she was roundly defeated in the 2003 primary. She just couldn't understand how, a good "Christian" conservative like herself came in next to last in a field of seven candidates in queer-laden, progressive Durham (no link to this N&O article, "Bell dominates mayor's race in Durham"):
Victoria Peterson, a community activist and frequent critic of the council, finished seventh, eliminated by the more than 2,700 votes she trailed Herndon.
"I am disappointed, to be honest," said Peterson, who was not endorsed by any of the major groups. "No one told the people who went to the polls to vote for me to vote for me. Politics were played with who got endorsements and who didn't. The political groups aren't looking out for the community."
***
Straw Man: Mischaracterizing one's opponent's argument and then attacking that mischaracterized version.
Example: See 8:33 above.
Anon 8:33 : I don't immediately discredit everything about a person just because some would consider her/him homophobic, or at least homo-critical/disapproving. There are some (conservatives mostly) who are critical of varied aspects of my sexuality, who I usually disagree with, but I don't think it negates everything they say. I give merit to other points of view. But Peterson is so unpleasantly irrationally homophobic, with no good arguments, that it just seems to go with the rest of her character regarding everything, so I think KC Johnson is perfectly within reason to mention it.
"No one can bar the road to truth and to advance its cause I am prepared to accept even death."
Mike Nifong?
Richard Brodhead?
Bob Steel?
Victoria Peterson?
NAACP?
ACLU?
Nope, Alexander Solzhenitsyn.
Eternal Rest grant unto him, O Lord,
And let Perpetual Light shine upon him.
May he Rest in Peace, Amen.
As one of his characters, Innokenty Volodin, stated in "The First Circle", "...you have only one life...you have only one conscience, too."
Joey7777 12:23
Reasonable from a matter of perspective? Maybe. Logical? Fallacious arguments are fallacious no matter what the situation.
Debrah, 9:41 AM
Can't believe I said it? I didn't. Read Joey7777 12:33. He understood who said what perfectly.
Anonymous 11:33.
Straw Man. I believe you'll agree that whether she is "homophobic" or "hetrophobic" has no relevancy to the issue presented.
The 8:33
I can't believe that someone hasn't gotten the list of questions yet.
It's been an evening and an entire day.
I thought about calling someone I know at N.C. Mutual who could call up V.P. easily, but I think someone who lives in Durham should get the list.
We want no deception!
It's Durham, after all.......
TO 2:48 PM--
You're ambiguous.
I'm multi-tasking this afternoon.
Not in the mood for navel-gazing.
That comes later.
Peterson on the campaign trail
Peterson saving lives.....
.....before saving Mikey.
This July column from Saunders sheds some light on the goofy things Peterson is aiming for.
LIS!
To the 2:48 p.m.
Straw Man. I believe you'll agree that whether she is "homophobic" or "hetrophobic" has no relevancy to the issue presented.
Distinctions matter. You may choose to characterize Professor Johnson's description of Ms. Peterson as "name calling," but it's not the logical fallacy of ad hominem, with which "name calling" or "personal mischaracterization" are often confused.
The ad hominem is a personal attack disguised as an argument. A personal characterization may also be an attack, but it's not an argument, doesn't pretend to be an argument, and falls short of an ad hominem.
Professor Johnson did NOT say "Victoria Peterson isn't believable because she is Durham's resident homophobe." You did: @8:33 a.m. (Example: Victoria Peterson isn't believable because she is Durham's resident homophobe.)
Professor Johnson didn't even address the logic or believability of an argument made by Ms. Peterson in this post– not even by implication, as you suggest above– because her survey announcement simply is not an argument, it's a request. Nor did I read anything in his post attacking or arguing against Ms. Peterson conducting the survey, nor her "believability" for doing so.
He did, however, characterize Ms. Peterson as homophobic, though not on the basis of anything she said in the announcement. You'd have to go elsewhere to find whether Professor Johnson has ever employed this characterization as an ad hominem against Ms. Peterson's arguments, but you won't find an ad hominem disguised as a rebuttal of anything here.
You're right that "homophobic" is irrelevant to Ms. Peterson's survey request, and I don't see the term applied to it. "Resident homophobe" describes Ms. Peterson, along with "former Nifong citizens' committee chair," characterizations that may or may not be relevant to who she is or what we ought to know about her.
The 11:33 a.m.'s characterization of your post as a "straw man" is entirely correct.
dave in l.a.
Dave 7:13,
There are many sources on line defining both arguments and I stand by my 6:22 Post.
This comment is an "Appeal to Authority".
The 6:22
To the 7:23 a.m.
This comment is an "Appeal to Authority".
Indeed, it is. Argumentum ad verecundiam ("there are many sources on line") is a recognized fallacy of logic, or a weak form of argument at best.
It's not to whom or to what you appeal to justify your argument (assuming you cite a verifiable source, which "online" is not), but the relevancy, accuracy, reliability, lack of bias, and representativeness of the source that matter. Some authorities are better than others– if your argument can't sustain itself without them.
I stand by my post is, of course, a form of ipse dixit, an appeal to the authority of oneself, which, in this instance (you are anonymous), is no argument at all.
dave in l.a.
at 8:33 AM, an anon posted:
"Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): Attacking the person instead of attacking the argument.
Example: Victoria Peterson isn't believable because she is Durham's resident homophobe."
8:33's argument with the implied premises spelled out reads something like this:
1) KC Johnson and his regular readers have decided, for some combination of reasons, that Victoria Peterson is not believable.
2) There are no valid reasons to decide that Victoria Peterson is not believable.
3) Therefore KC and his readers must have invalid reasons for deciding that Victoria Peterson is not believable.
4) KC Johnson mentions Peterson's status as "Durham's resident homophobe".
5) Therefore Peterson's homophobia must be KC's reason, invalid because it constitutes ad hominem, for not finding Peterson believable.
Now, of course, the most blatantly obvious error in the above argument is 2. No rational person could jump to the conclusion "KC and his readers know nothing about Victoria Peterson other than what is conveyed by the three words 'Durham's resident homophobe'" but one cannot put forth premise 2 without asserting such a conclusion.
However, a more interesting error is uncovered by overlooking the error in premise 2. Let us look instead how 8:33 gets from premises 3 and 4 to conclusion 5. Is the syllogism formed by 3, 4 and 5 a valid syllogism under deductive logic? No, it is not. Otherwise the following syllogism would be true:
1) Nifong must have committed some crime in order to have served jail time.
2) Nifong committed the crime of adultery with his now-spouse Cy Gurney.
3) Therefore Nifong must have been jailed for the crime of adultery.
8:33's 3-4-5 syllogism has no validity under deductive logic. Thus, in order to have any validity whatsoever, it would have to be evaluated under inductive logic. However, if we make the decision to do that, we must also re-evaluate the premises under inductive logic -- and as 8:33 may or may not be aware, the only time argument against the person is always fallacious is under deductive logic.
Under deductive logic, if someone makes a highly serious allegation with no evidence to support the allegation and all the indirect evidence contradicting it (such as when Peterson suggested that Duke hospital had tampered with the DNA evidence to produce essentially the same results that the SBI labs and Meehan's firm later got) you can't use that to evaluate their believability. Under deductive logic, if someone makes a statement contrary to common knowledge (such as when Peterson got confused between "gay/lesbian" and "cross-dresser") you can't use that to evaluate their believability. Under deductive logic, if someone advocates pointless and destructive criminal activity (such as when Peterson advocated that the house at 610 North Buchanan, already vacated by anyone connected with the case, be burned down) you can't use that to evaluate their believability. Under deductive logic, if someone engages in repeated inappropriate behavior which shows an ignorance of or disregard for common sense and norms of society (such as when Peterson accosted the mother of an exonerated defendant in a courtroom to inform her that she still believed in the original charges, an act which got her ejected from that courtroom, or when Peterson interjected herself into a live news broadcast later that same day to protest the reporter's recounting of that event) you can't use that to evaluate their believability.
But once you switch to inductive logic, those restrictions are gone. One is free to use Victoria Peterson's long record of counterfactual statements and questionable judgements to decide that she does not always start from sound premises and does not always follow them to sound conclusions. And frankly, that is a far solider induction than 8:33's "KC mentioned Peterson's homophobia and therefore it must be the only reason he doesn't find her believable."
Dave 8/10/08 11:09 AM
Dave,
You made the assumption that I was using "Appeal to Authority" in fallacious sense. Many, many arguments are based on citing recognized authorities on a subject. I was merely suggesting you look up the definition of the Ad Hominem argument. You are as anonymous as I and certainly pose no authority what so ever either.
The 8:33
8/10/08 11:28 AM
Your opening statement:
1) KC Johnson and his regular readers have decided, for some combination of reasons, that Victoria Peterson is not believable.
Your point 1) is the opening salvo of a straw man arguement. I never said KC and his readers have decided anything for any combination of reasons. My 8:33 comment contains 25 words
What is the relevance of the "homophobic" characterization of Victoria? Are there any homosexuals involved in the LAX case?
The 8:33
What is the relevance of the "homophobic" characterization of Victoria? Are there any homosexuals involved in the LAX case?
I can't believe this kind of question can be asked.
Have you been asleep for the last two years?
Politics, ideology, and personal agenda have been the spine of the Lacrosse Hoax.
The fact that an alleged "open-minded, liberal, black community suck-up" like Mike Nifong could have as his most loyal supporter a rabid pro-life homophobe is really quite marvelously insane.
Just like most of the characters in this Hoax.
To the 1.25:
To the 1.25:
You ask "What is the relevance of the "homophobic" characterization of Victoria?" I addressed this issue in one of the first posts I did on Peterson, pointing out the hypocrisy of a key element of Nifong's political base--the People's Alliance--remaining silent as Nifong publicly welcomed the involvement in his campaign of a homophobe, given the PA's ostensible commitment to gay rights.
As to the current relevance: one job of this movement, as I understand it, is to raise public support to restore Nifong's law license. The fact that it's being led by a person with a pattern of extreme homophobic statements makes it quite unlikely that the movement will generate much popular support--just as if the "justice for Nifong" movement was led by a person with a pattern of extreme racist statements, it would be unlikely for the movement to attract lots of support. In general, people on the fence don't like to associate with avowed racists or homophobes.
I had thought this point was self-evident, and am frankly surprised that anyone has struggled to discern it.
To KC,
I thought that Nifong's purpose in pursuing the LAX case was to win the support of the local African American community to get re-elected.
Thank you for educating me in this tangential issue.
What is your source for the existence of the questionnaire?
The 8:33
To the 2.01:
You noted, "I thought that Nifong's purpose in pursuing the LAX case was to win the support of the local African American community to get re-elected."
I'm not sure that I have said anything to the contrary. Nifong also attracted the strong support from the four or five precincts dominated by the (mostly white) PA, as I noted in my election analysis in 2006.
You asked, "What is your source for the existence of the questionnaire?"
A copy of the email from the Justice for Nifong committee, which I quoted (minus the email address and routing information) in this post.
KC,
You make no mention of an email in the blog.
Only that something is being sent out.
By mail, carrier pigeon, circular, utility pole poster or whatever is left to the imagination.
They sent you an email but not a copy of the questionnaire?
They may be taunting you.
The 8:33.
Apart from the debate going on here (lots of legitimate points, in my opinion), I'm glad Victoria Peterson's homophobia was cited again here by Prof. Johnson. I was so repulsed by the behavior of some of "my own kind" (gay/lesbian) in this case, from Allan Gurganus to the Durham Peoples' Alliance to a number of left-wing gay bloggers (joining the lynch mob against the falsely-accused) that I enjoy the homophobia of Peterson (as well as the New Black Panthers) being brought up just to further remind them what boobs they were in taking the wrong side. (But that's just a personal thing with me).
Debrah 1:32
Your comment, "The fact that an alleged "open-minded, liberal, black community suck-up" like Mike Nifong"
"Black Community Suck Up". Even though I'm a Yankee, I went to school in the South. I know your type. In the 60's you would have referred to African Americans as "Nigras".
Best you go back to contemplating your belly button.
The 8:33.
To the 3.10:
You wrote, "They sent you an email but not a copy of the questionnaire? They may be taunting you."
I have no idea to whom you are referring when you write "they."
I urge you to reread the text of the post to understand why my source was sent a copy of the email but not the questionnaire. While I try to respond to legitimate questions, it becomes rather tiresome when people ask questions that are answered in the post itself.
There seems to be a bit of "Amelia Bedelia"-style questioning here.
To the 1:01pm
An "appeal to authority" that cites not one single verifiable authority ("many sources online" @7:23 am? "recognized authorities" @ 1:01pm?) is, in any sense, fallacious as a defensive argument. That's not an assumption, but a painfully obvious fact.
I agree that I'm as anonymous as you are. However, I've made no appeals to authority at all in my assessment of your characterization of Professor Johnson's post as an ad hominem @8:33 am.
By your own definition of the term in that post, an ad hominem is attacking the person instead of attacking the argument.
In rebuttal, all I did was point out:
1) The post cites no argument of Ms. Peterson to attack.
2) The post doesn't attack any argument of Ms. Peterson via any personal attack, because there isn't an argument of hers in the post to attack (see 1 again). The post offers a characterization of Ms. Peterson, but there's no "instead of." The characterization is not used to rebut a non-existent, non-referenced argument. Without an argument to rebut, the characterization of the person can't be said to be anything more than... a personal characterization. As is the other appositive "former Nifong citizens' committee chair." (I note that Professor Johnson defends the relevance of "resident homophobe" @1:39 and 2:01pm as a characterization of Ms. Peterson.)
3) Ergo, Professor Johnson's post does not meet your own definition of ad hominem (i.e., attacking the person instead of her argument), much less that of any "recognized authority."
Simple logic suffices to tidy up the mess @8:33am, no reference to an authority needed. Which is why the "appeal to authority" is regarded as such a weak sister.
dave in l.a.
Everyone on the fora can take note of the fact that this perpetual commenter has kept up a nonsensical argument now for two days.
This is someone with a clear agenda which extends beyond the topic of this thread.
It's times like this that I wish for rules where no one could post anonymously.
In his/her first post, "8:33" posted:
"Ad Hominem (Argument To The Man): Attacking the person instead of attacking the argument.
Example: Victoria Peterson isn't believable because she is Durham's resident homophobe."
These words were never written by anyone else on this blog; they were entirely inferred by 8:33, and not necessarily correctly. Yet 8:33 protests that the simple fact that he/she inferred it was in turn inferred from the fact that he/she posted it:
"Your opening statement:
1) KC Johnson and his regular readers have decided, for some combination of reasons, that Victoria Peterson is not believable.
Your point 1) is the opening salvo of a straw man arguement. I never said KC and his readers have decided anything for any combination of reasons."
This is about as plausible as claiming "Why, just because I looked you in the eyes, pointed my finger right at you, and screamed in front of your boss and your co-workers 'I HATE CHILD-MOLESTERS!!' I never accused you of being a child molester or having anything to do with them! How can you make such a horrible accusation??" There is no point in conversing with such a person or dignifying their "discourse"; they are merely attempting to impede communication rather than sustain it.
"....they are merely attempting to impede communication rather than sustain it."
Exactly.
Which makes me curious about this commenter at all.
Everyone who has played an integral, and indeed, even peripheral, role in this case has been discussed.
It only follows that how they are known to the community would be significant.
The really incongruent aspect about Victoria Peterson championing the Nifongs is how she views abortion and various other issues.
IIRC, Cy Gurney has made a career on the opposite side of the street.
Doesn't her work involve helping women get access to abortions if they want one?
And if the Nifongs ever had negative opinions about the gay lifestyle, they would have certainly kept it to themselves. Otherwise, they never would have received the political support they did.
Peterson's views on such matters are an issue and provide a bizarre story all by themselves.
I think we might have missed this article earlier.
Read this one. The level of oily condescension and infantile retro language used by Tyson and his father is quite strange for the uninitiated.
The strange commenter on this thread who has really been a stealth supporter for the Gang of 88, Nifong, and all the enablers will use any element of condescension to "race" in an attempt to muzzle those who tell the truth of how the Lacrosse Hoax came to be.
When reading such an article as the one above, I feel both impatience and contempt for someone like Tyson who is essentially a poorly-scripted snake oil salesman....and those in the black community who go along and readily accept his kind of parasitic role-playing.
One thing that people like Tyson and all the other race baiters will learn is that most people have had enough of the "every black person as victim" routine.
I have never witnessed this type of condescension from people outside the South.
It's usually a feature of those whose background is similar to Tyson's.
There's a lot of effort from these people to live in the past as they change the tales and exaggerate as needed.
The strange commenter on this thread came here fully expecting to use the same inaccurate and overused narratives......and it didn't work.
Durham's news city manager begins work today.
He's a strange-looking bird.
Catotti and a few other "leaders" weigh in.
Debrah 12:05 said...
...Everyone who has played an integral, and indeed, even peripheral, role in this case has been discussed.
::
Exactly.
However, we don't spend nearly enough time and energy asking how the actors were acting together as a team and how they were communicating with one another.
I sometimes think that a small segment of the faculty/staff at Duke know for sure that Duke students and graduates would never imagine how people work together as a team. That little group just knew for sure that Duke students and graduates were going to try and blame a single person or Straw Man/Woman....rather than look for a team of people all working together.
Who in Mike Nifong's office was communicating with WHOM in the SANE department at the hospital; the Durham access center and Trinity Park folk ...together with WHO in the Office of Student Affairs and what was their plan A and B and C to take down a campus organization of privileged white males who swagger?
Victoria Peterson is being offered up again to divert attention...again.
::
GP
TO GP--
Thoughtful post.....
......but Peterson is never "being offered up".
This is one person who will "step up" all by herself.
(Think of the zany character who played Fred Sanford's sister-in-law...)
:>)
Does anyone know how Mike Nifong is making a living?
Does he still live in the same home....etc.....?
Get a load of this
Post a Comment