3 ms·

The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of t

by philh 9y ago

The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can."

adekok 9y ago
> The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. > You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can." That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. My claim is that when it's proven that people lie (i.e. fraudster, as I said), ignoring those lies is corrupting the justice system. The thing is, perjury is a criminal offence. I don't think you'd disagree. The mistake you're making is assuming that because I say some people are proven to lie, you think I'm claiming that all people lie. That's a logical fallacy, and basically assumes I'm an asshole or an idiot. Your claim seems to be that we should never prosecute liars, because it will dissuade real victims from coming forward. I think that claim is horrific, for reasons I explained. To counter your next comment.. no, I don't think claimants should be charged when their claims cannot be proven to be true. Again, making an unsubstantiated claim is not legally perjury, and is not a criminal offence. My claim is that provably false claims should be punished. Is that really so difficult to understand?
- philh 9y ago
  I'm not interested in talking about your claim. I'm talking about how you replied to someone else's claim. > That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. No you didn't. You gave some examples where the proposed policy would not have the side effect. You didn't show that it would never have the side effect. > That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. "The exact opposite of this policy", in context, would be letting people off for false accusations. Why were you talking about "the idea that those people should be let off" if you agree that peteretep never suggested letting people off?
  - adekok 9y ago
    > You didn't show that it would never have the side effect. I used the example of insurance fraud. Please pay attention. Do we prosecute insurance fraud? Yes. Do such prosecutions dissuade victims from making real claims? No. Or maybe you think that sexual assault is somehow magic. That prosecuting proven fraudsters in that case will somehow dissuade real victims from making claims. If so, you have to prove your position. I've already proven that no such correlation exists in other situations. > Why were you talking about "the idea that those people should be let off" if you agree that peteretep never suggested letting people off? He did implicitly. If he's against charging fraudsters (for whatever reason), he's for letting them off.
    - philh 9y ago
      Dropping the "proven" thread because it's not what I want to focus on. > Or maybe you think I'm deliberately avoiding taking an object-level position. > If he's against charging fraudsters You're still turning a descriptive statement into a prescriptive one. peteretep did not advocate any policy in the comment you replied to. Among the policies he did not advocate is "we should never charge any fraudster". Another policy he did not advocate is "we should be extremely careful which fraudsters we prosecute, to avoid of chilling effects". He did not advocate a policy, but you took his comment as advocating an extreme policy.
      - adekok 9y ago
        > He did not advocate a policy, but you took his comment as advocating an extreme policy. That's pedantically true, and more honestly false. Are you honestly going to claim that his description of "putting off victims" advocates for no position? That's ridiculous. He explicitly said ... which is generally thought to be not a good thing. Are you next going to claim that he thinks putting off victims is not a good thing... but he isn't really advocating against punishing fraudsters even if it "puts off" victims? And this is all ignoring the point that his claim was false. Honestly, I find this nit-picking to be utterly ludicrous, to the point of irrational.

by philh 9y ago

The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can."

adekok 9y ago

> The claim was a descriptive one: "This policy has this bad side effect." That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. > You seem to have taken it as a prescriptive one: "We should do the exact opposite of this policy, as hard as we can." That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. My claim is that when it's proven that people lie (i.e. fraudster, as I said), ignoring those lies is corrupting the justice system. The thing is, perjury is a criminal offence. I don't think you'd disagree. The mistake you're making is assuming that because I say some people are proven to lie, you think I'm claiming that all people lie. That's a logical fallacy, and basically assumes I'm an asshole or an idiot. Your claim seems to be that we should never prosecute liars, because it will dissuade real victims from coming forward. I think that claim is horrific, for reasons I explained. To counter your next comment.. no, I don't think claimants should be charged when their claims cannot be proven to be true. Again, making an unsubstantiated claim is not legally perjury, and is not a criminal offence. My claim is that provably false claims should be punished. Is that really so difficult to understand?

philh 9y ago
I'm not interested in talking about your claim. I'm talking about how you replied to someone else's claim. > That claim is provably false. I explained why, using examples. No you didn't. You gave some examples where the proposed policy would not have the side effect. You didn't show that it would never have the side effect. > That cannot possibly be concluded from what I said. "The exact opposite of this policy", in context, would be letting people off for false accusations. Why were you talking about "the idea that those people should be let off" if you agree that peteretep never suggested letting people off?
- adekok 9y ago
  > You didn't show that it would never have the side effect. I used the example of insurance fraud. Please pay attention. Do we prosecute insurance fraud? Yes. Do such prosecutions dissuade victims from making real claims? No. Or maybe you think that sexual assault is somehow magic. That prosecuting proven fraudsters in that case will somehow dissuade real victims from making claims. If so, you have to prove your position. I've already proven that no such correlation exists in other situations. > Why were you talking about "the idea that those people should be let off" if you agree that peteretep never suggested letting people off? He did implicitly. If he's against charging fraudsters (for whatever reason), he's for letting them off.
  - philh 9y ago
    Dropping the "proven" thread because it's not what I want to focus on. > Or maybe you think I'm deliberately avoiding taking an object-level position. > If he's against charging fraudsters You're still turning a descriptive statement into a prescriptive one. peteretep did not advocate any policy in the comment you replied to. Among the policies he did not advocate is "we should never charge any fraudster". Another policy he did not advocate is "we should be extremely careful which fraudsters we prosecute, to avoid of chilling effects". He did not advocate a policy, but you took his comment as advocating an extreme policy.
    - adekok 9y ago
      > He did not advocate a policy, but you took his comment as advocating an extreme policy. That's pedantically true, and more honestly false. Are you honestly going to claim that his description of "putting off victims" advocates for no position? That's ridiculous. He explicitly said ... which is generally thought to be not a good thing. Are you next going to claim that he thinks putting off victims is not a good thing... but he isn't really advocating against punishing fraudsters even if it "puts off" victims? And this is all ignoring the point that his claim was false. Honestly, I find this nit-picking to be utterly ludicrous, to the point of irrational.