4 ms·

> I don't think we disagree on what your position is? Yes, we do. Go back and read the history. I started off with a particular position, that you then misco

by adekok 9y ago

> I don't think we disagree on what your position is? Yes, we do. Go back and read the history. I started off with a particular position, that you then misconstrued, and mis-characterized. > I think I'm taking you at a position that you actually openly hold No, you're not. You've managed to twist what I say, and my defense of my position, to an extreme position. My position is that people should be punished for breaking the law. And, that saying such punishment (whatever the form) somehow "puts off" innocent people from making claims is wrong.

dragonwriter 9y ago
> My position is that people should be punished for breaking the law. And, that saying such punishment (whatever the form) somehow "puts off" innocent people from making claims is wrong. So long as enforcement does not perfectly avoid false positives even in beginning prosecution (even if no false convictions occur) it increases the expected cost of a true report, and is a rational disincentive. It may be that the particular punishment regime minimizes this cost and/or has benefits that offset the cost, but it's implausible that any real punishment scheme could avoid it altogether.
philh 9y ago
So I think I've been pretty clear that I've been taking about what peteretep originally said versus what you think he originally said. E.g. "I'm accusing you of accusing peteretep of..." And I think you've been pretty explicitly talking about what he originally said. E.g. "His position was that..." But now you seem to be denying that you said anything about what he originally said, or you seem to think that what you said about what he said isn't relevant, or... I don't know. Your comment does not make sense to me. All I can think is that you seem to be mixing meta-levels. Anyway, I'm not exactly proud of how easily I get sucked into crap like this, so I'm going to try to tap out after this comment.

by adekok 9y ago

dragonwriter 9y ago

> My position is that people should be punished for breaking the law. And, that saying such punishment (whatever the form) somehow "puts off" innocent people from making claims is wrong. So long as enforcement does not perfectly avoid false positives even in beginning prosecution (even if no false convictions occur) it increases the expected cost of a true report, and is a rational disincentive. It may be that the particular punishment regime minimizes this cost and/or has benefits that offset the cost, but it's implausible that any real punishment scheme could avoid it altogether.

philh 9y ago

So I think I've been pretty clear that I've been taking about what peteretep originally said versus what you think he originally said. E.g. "I'm accusing you of accusing peteretep of..." And I think you've been pretty explicitly talking about what he originally said. E.g. "His position was that..." But now you seem to be denying that you said anything about what he originally said, or you seem to think that what you said about what he said isn't relevant, or... I don't know. Your comment does not make sense to me. All I can think is that you seem to be mixing meta-levels. Anyway, I'm not exactly proud of how easily I get sucked into crap like this, so I'm going to try to tap out after this comment.