4 ms·

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, usi

by 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.
    - philh 9y ago
      > Are you honestly going to claim that his description of "putting off victims" advocates for no position? No specific policy, certainly. There are many policies consistent with what he said. I gave one already; another would be we should punish false accusations of sexual assault, but not as severely as sexual assault itself. But you leapt to the most indefensible one. And you didn't even seem to notice that you were making this leap. I don't think it's nitpicking of me to point this out.
      - adekok 9y ago
        > But you leapt to the most indefensible one. Nonsense. His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Which is what I reacted to. Given the upvotes for my position and the downvotes for yours, I suspect the majority of people came to the same conclusion I did. Please stop grasping at straws. Your insistence on taking me at an extreme position while accusing me of the same is unsupported by facts.
        philh 9y ago
        > His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Not true. He was replying to a post that said "False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent." He said "This has the side-effect..." The referent of "this" is clearly not "any punishment of false claims". And even if true, that is still not a policy proposal. I've given two alternative interpretations of the original comment. Here's a third: I have no particular policy proposal myself, but I wonder whether you've thought through the implications of yours? > downvotes Not that it matters, but right now my comments are all upvoted/neutral. > Your insistence on taking me at an extreme position I don't think we disagree on what your position is? We just disagree about whether or not you're correct. That is, I'm accusing you of accusing peteretep of making a specific policy proposal. You insist that your accusation is correct. So I don't think I'm taking you at a position that you'd call extreme; I think I'm taking you at a position that you actually openly hold. If you disagree then we're wildly talking past each other.

by philh 9y ago

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.
  - philh 9y ago
    > Are you honestly going to claim that his description of "putting off victims" advocates for no position? No specific policy, certainly. There are many policies consistent with what he said. I gave one already; another would be we should punish false accusations of sexual assault, but not as severely as sexual assault itself. But you leapt to the most indefensible one. And you didn't even seem to notice that you were making this leap. I don't think it's nitpicking of me to point this out.
    - adekok 9y ago
      > But you leapt to the most indefensible one. Nonsense. His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Which is what I reacted to. Given the upvotes for my position and the downvotes for yours, I suspect the majority of people came to the same conclusion I did. Please stop grasping at straws. Your insistence on taking me at an extreme position while accusing me of the same is unsupported by facts.
      - philh 9y ago
        > His position was that any punishment of false claims was "putting off" victims from making real claims. Not true. He was replying to a post that said "False accusations should be punished with the same penalty as the accuser tried to put upon the innocent." He said "This has the side-effect..." The referent of "this" is clearly not "any punishment of false claims". And even if true, that is still not a policy proposal. I've given two alternative interpretations of the original comment. Here's a third: I have no particular policy proposal myself, but I wonder whether you've thought through the implications of yours? > downvotes Not that it matters, but right now my comments are all upvoted/neutral. > Your insistence on taking me at an extreme position I don't think we disagree on what your position is? We just disagree about whether or not you're correct. That is, I'm accusing you of accusing peteretep of making a specific policy proposal. You insist that your accusation is correct. So I don't think I'm taking you at a position that you'd call extreme; I think I'm taking you at a position that you actually openly hold. If you disagree then we're wildly talking past each other.