4 ms·

False. Please stop spreading falsehoods without doing some basic research. It took me < 10 seconds of Googling to find many counterexamples to your claim. http

False. Please stop spreading falsehoods without doing some basic research. It took me < 10 seconds of Googling to find many counterexamples to your claim. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_loc... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit...

bpchaps 10y ago
Heh. A few examples means jack. I can give you tons of personal examples where it's true. It's mostly just a matter of how patient you are in filing a suit or pursuing with an AG. That takes months, and more often than not it's not worth it. It's incredibly frustrating and extremely sad on so many levels. I seriously doubt you've submitted a FOIA request or else you wouldn't have responded that way. Go submit one and you'll see. Edit: The linked article is actually similar to a lawsuit I would like to raise. A lack of technical knowledge can stop a technical request in its tracks without resorting to escalating the issue. Calling, emailing, leaving voicemail very often leads nowhere in just explaining what a domain name and becomes very mind numbing when that obstinate ignorance leads to a rejection.
dublinben 10y ago
Find a single one of them who was convicted of breaking the applicable public records law. These laws can be a powerful tool for government transparency, but only when they are actually enforced.
- asdfologist 10y ago
  The parent wasn't making claims about the public records law in particular. He said "There are never any consequences for the individual government employees who break the law".
  - jaredklewis 10y ago
    Ok, but I think you are being kind of picky. We are having a discussion about an article which alleges willful obstruction of FOIA requests by government employees. I think it's clear in this context the comment is not talking about murder, securities fraud, or what have you.
  - saghm 10y ago
    I think in the context it was used, "the law" is referring to the FOIA rather than being used as the general term for all laws. (Not taking a stand on whether the statement is correct or not though, as I don't have any specific knowledge about that)
colordrops 10y ago
Logical fallacy. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean a claim is false. If I say "humans eat meat", the claim is not false because I found a vegetarian.
- asdfologist 10y ago
  Err, you're the one making the logical fallacy. The parent said "There are never any consequences for the individual government employees who break the law" and the counterexamples disprove that. "X never happens" is false if I find examples of X happening, by definition of "never". QED.
  - colordrops 10y ago
    That's just word play and purposefully misunderstanding the parent's likely meaning. It would make no sense for the meaning to be exacting like a mathematical proposition, in that there are literally NEVER any consequences. When speaking of an entity as large as heterogeneous as the government, you can't make such specific claims, so the obvious meaning was "for the most part" or "in general".
- nerdponx 10y ago
  Yes, it actually does mean the claim is false.
  - prutschman 10y ago
    In ordinary English discourse "humans eat meat" is an existential proposition, with some possible claim of frequency, commonality, or representativeness. It's not a universal proposition; that's conveyed by "all humans eat meat" or "humans always eat meat" or some such.
    - colordrops 10y ago
      Do you really think the OP's claim was universal, when talking about something non-monolithic like the government? The implied meaning is one of frequency, not absolutes.
colordrops 10y ago
Logical fallacy. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean a claim is false. If I say "humans eat meat", the claim is not false because I found a vegetarian.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

bpchaps 10y ago

Heh. A few examples means jack. I can give you tons of personal examples where it's true. It's mostly just a matter of how patient you are in filing a suit or pursuing with an AG. That takes months, and more often than not it's not worth it. It's incredibly frustrating and extremely sad on so many levels. I seriously doubt you've submitted a FOIA request or else you wouldn't have responded that way. Go submit one and you'll see. Edit: The linked article is actually similar to a lawsuit I would like to raise. A lack of technical knowledge can stop a technical request in its tracks without resorting to escalating the issue. Calling, emailing, leaving voicemail very often leads nowhere in just explaining what a domain name and becomes very mind numbing when that obstinate ignorance leads to a rejection.

dublinben 10y ago

Find a single one of them who was convicted of breaking the applicable public records law. These laws can be a powerful tool for government transparency, but only when they are actually enforced.

asdfologist 10y ago
The parent wasn't making claims about the public records law in particular. He said "There are never any consequences for the individual government employees who break the law".
- jaredklewis 10y ago
  Ok, but I think you are being kind of picky. We are having a discussion about an article which alleges willful obstruction of FOIA requests by government employees. I think it's clear in this context the comment is not talking about murder, securities fraud, or what have you.
- saghm 10y ago
  I think in the context it was used, "the law" is referring to the FOIA rather than being used as the general term for all laws. (Not taking a stand on whether the statement is correct or not though, as I don't have any specific knowledge about that)

colordrops 10y ago

Logical fallacy. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean a claim is false. If I say "humans eat meat", the claim is not false because I found a vegetarian.

asdfologist 10y ago
Err, you're the one making the logical fallacy. The parent said "There are never any consequences for the individual government employees who break the law" and the counterexamples disprove that. "X never happens" is false if I find examples of X happening, by definition of "never". QED.
- colordrops 10y ago
  That's just word play and purposefully misunderstanding the parent's likely meaning. It would make no sense for the meaning to be exacting like a mathematical proposition, in that there are literally NEVER any consequences. When speaking of an entity as large as heterogeneous as the government, you can't make such specific claims, so the obvious meaning was "for the most part" or "in general".
nerdponx 10y ago
Yes, it actually does mean the claim is false.
- prutschman 10y ago
  In ordinary English discourse "humans eat meat" is an existential proposition, with some possible claim of frequency, commonality, or representativeness. It's not a universal proposition; that's conveyed by "all humans eat meat" or "humans always eat meat" or some such.
  - colordrops 10y ago
    Do you really think the OP's claim was universal, when talking about something non-monolithic like the government? The implied meaning is one of frequency, not absolutes.

colordrops 10y ago

Logical fallacy. Just because there are counterexamples doesn't mean a claim is false. If I say "humans eat meat", the claim is not false because I found a vegetarian.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]