4 ms·

> It's evidence that prosecutors are motivated primarily by the scorekeeping of their professions: convictions and successfully-sold sentences. There's surely

> It's evidence that prosecutors are motivated primarily by the scorekeeping of their professions: convictions and successfully-sold sentences. There's surely some truth to that, but it doesn't justify dismissing it as counter-evidence. You could just as easily rationalize any other vague, unsubstantiated reason to do so, such as claiming that there was some entirely personal grudge that Sessions was holding against him. People act on a variety of motivations. Selectively dismissing evidence based upon one hypothesized motivation is intellectually dishonest. > Since these are all pretty straightforward observations, the attempts to "rehabilitate" Jefferson Beauregard Sessions III by pointing out his conviction of a KKK leader are pretty telling. As in, that's the best argument you have? (I'm sure there are in fact better arguments; you should find them and use them instead. Fair warning: "Sessions once shared a hotel room with another black lawyer", an argument that has actually been advanced on Twitter, is not one of the better alternatives). This is not a logical argument. You are taking evidence counter to your assertion and twisting it into a counter-attack in which, by even uttering it, a person proves himself wrong. This has been dubbed a Kafkatrap. It begs the question and is a bare attempt at emotional manipulation.

Dylan16807 10y ago
"X argument is trash, and just in case you try Y, it's also trash" is not a trap, it's an attempt at efficiency.
- WaxProlix 10y ago
  The mental gymnastics these people go through in order to retain some sort of high ground in the face of overwhelming evidence is pretty nuts.
  - alphapapa 10y ago
    Yes, his twisting simple facts, which are counter-evidence to his claim, into a Kafkatrap against me is quite some mental gymnastics. Or would you care to refute the logical fallacies I pointed out in his claims? I guess probably not. After all, I'm just one of "these people" who are "pretty nuts." It still hasn't sunk in: this hubris of yours is why Clinton lost the election. Be careful looking down your nose all the time--you might walk into something.
    - dang 10y ago
      Please don't post any more comments like this to HN. We're trying to avoid flamewars. About three notches of irritability ago is when you should have stopped posting. (I don't mean you personally; this applies to all of us.) Also, HN is not a site for political and ideological battle, which you've been doing quite a bit of. Please do that elsewhere, not here.
      - alphapapa 10y ago
        Not my intention to have a flamewar with anyone, just a discussion. I've seen tptacek make some very inflammatory posts and claims lately about political issues, and it seemed fair to respond with the opposing view. Of course, he is one of the upper-class of users here, so forgive me for feeling like he gets away with things that "nobodies" like myself cannot. > Also, HN is not a site for political and ideological battle, which you've been doing quite a bit of. Please do that elsewhere, not here. That's one of the reasons I visit HN more than other such sites nowadays (e.g. many years ago I was a Slashdot regular). I have a healthy interest in politics, but I much prefer technical discussions where I learn things and discover things I can use. So I will gladly refrain from political discussion here. I just ask that you ask all users to do so in the same way you have asked me, because, as I said, it seems that certain prominent users are somewhat above the rules. (This is not a slight or accusation against you or sctb, etc, just my impression.) Thanks. P.S. Dan, I'm curious about how this comment gets downvoted. The original story is 2 days old, and this comment is in a subthread under a flagged (therefore invisible) comment. No one should even be seeing this comment except you and me. Is there any way that this is not evidence of, shall we say, vendetta voting, i.e. someone going through my comments page and downvoting because they generally disagree with me? If it is, I wish that HN would crack down on it. Disagreement-without-discussion-downvoting is enough of a problem here without blanket, systematic brigading against individual users. No wonder I've been seeing so many throwaway accounts lately. It's practically "unsafe" (karma-wise) to express unpopular opinions around here. :/
- alphapapa 10y ago
  That was not the trap. The trap was 1) dismissing with prejudice the evidence that was counter to his claim, 2) asserting it as evidence for his claim, while also 3) implying that mentioning that counter-evidence is itself evidence of malfeasance on my part ("pretty telling"). That is the Kafkatrap.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    > 1) dismissing with prejudice the evidence that was counter to his claim He had already evaluated that evidence and found it weak and unconvincing. > 2) asserting it as evidence for his claim This did not happen. > 3) implying that mentioning that counter-evidence is itself evidence of malfeasance on my part ("pretty telling"). He's using a simple argument. A) When people are trying to be convincing, they usually use some of the better evidence they have. B) He asserts that X and Y are weak and unconvincing evidence, based on previous evaluation. This leads to a very simple conclusion: Someone pulling out X and Y as their main line of argument probably has no good evidence. This is not kafkaesque. He gave you a genuine opportunity to provide good evidence. The only 'telling' is of lacking good evidence, not malfeasance. - In other words, he's not trying to take your evidence and turn it backwards. He's saying that the use of weak evidence as the core of your argument implies that you don't have good evidence. Weak evidence is better than nothing, but he has evidence of his own on the other side, so weak evidence is not enough in this case.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

Dylan16807 10y ago

"X argument is trash, and just in case you try Y, it's also trash" is not a trap, it's an attempt at efficiency.

WaxProlix 10y ago
The mental gymnastics these people go through in order to retain some sort of high ground in the face of overwhelming evidence is pretty nuts.
- alphapapa 10y ago
  Yes, his twisting simple facts, which are counter-evidence to his claim, into a Kafkatrap against me is quite some mental gymnastics. Or would you care to refute the logical fallacies I pointed out in his claims? I guess probably not. After all, I'm just one of "these people" who are "pretty nuts." It still hasn't sunk in: this hubris of yours is why Clinton lost the election. Be careful looking down your nose all the time--you might walk into something.
  - dang 10y ago
    Please don't post any more comments like this to HN. We're trying to avoid flamewars. About three notches of irritability ago is when you should have stopped posting. (I don't mean you personally; this applies to all of us.) Also, HN is not a site for political and ideological battle, which you've been doing quite a bit of. Please do that elsewhere, not here.
    - alphapapa 10y ago
      Not my intention to have a flamewar with anyone, just a discussion. I've seen tptacek make some very inflammatory posts and claims lately about political issues, and it seemed fair to respond with the opposing view. Of course, he is one of the upper-class of users here, so forgive me for feeling like he gets away with things that "nobodies" like myself cannot. > Also, HN is not a site for political and ideological battle, which you've been doing quite a bit of. Please do that elsewhere, not here. That's one of the reasons I visit HN more than other such sites nowadays (e.g. many years ago I was a Slashdot regular). I have a healthy interest in politics, but I much prefer technical discussions where I learn things and discover things I can use. So I will gladly refrain from political discussion here. I just ask that you ask all users to do so in the same way you have asked me, because, as I said, it seems that certain prominent users are somewhat above the rules. (This is not a slight or accusation against you or sctb, etc, just my impression.) Thanks. P.S. Dan, I'm curious about how this comment gets downvoted. The original story is 2 days old, and this comment is in a subthread under a flagged (therefore invisible) comment. No one should even be seeing this comment except you and me. Is there any way that this is not evidence of, shall we say, vendetta voting, i.e. someone going through my comments page and downvoting because they generally disagree with me? If it is, I wish that HN would crack down on it. Disagreement-without-discussion-downvoting is enough of a problem here without blanket, systematic brigading against individual users. No wonder I've been seeing so many throwaway accounts lately. It's practically "unsafe" (karma-wise) to express unpopular opinions around here. :/
alphapapa 10y ago
That was not the trap. The trap was 1) dismissing with prejudice the evidence that was counter to his claim, 2) asserting it as evidence for his claim, while also 3) implying that mentioning that counter-evidence is itself evidence of malfeasance on my part ("pretty telling"). That is the Kafkatrap.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  > 1) dismissing with prejudice the evidence that was counter to his claim He had already evaluated that evidence and found it weak and unconvincing. > 2) asserting it as evidence for his claim This did not happen. > 3) implying that mentioning that counter-evidence is itself evidence of malfeasance on my part ("pretty telling"). He's using a simple argument. A) When people are trying to be convincing, they usually use some of the better evidence they have. B) He asserts that X and Y are weak and unconvincing evidence, based on previous evaluation. This leads to a very simple conclusion: Someone pulling out X and Y as their main line of argument probably has no good evidence. This is not kafkaesque. He gave you a genuine opportunity to provide good evidence. The only 'telling' is of lacking good evidence, not malfeasance. - In other words, he's not trying to take your evidence and turn it backwards. He's saying that the use of weak evidence as the core of your argument implies that you don't have good evidence. Weak evidence is better than nothing, but he has evidence of his own on the other side, so weak evidence is not enough in this case.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]