4 ms·

> Then the fact that all his records were referee verified instead of video verified. The referee is serving a sentence for child rape. While that's deplorable

> Then the fact that all his records were referee verified instead of video verified. The referee is serving a sentence for child rape. While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee.

UsernameProxy 9y ago
It's a pretty safe bet, though.
- dkersten 9y ago
  I wouldn't want to listen to anything a child molester has to say, but that doesn't mean their knowledge of something completely unrelated is suspect at all. Just that I really don't care to know what a child molester has to say, on any topic. Although, I agree with the video in that I would question his honesty and character... So maybe you're right.
- Broken_Hippo 9y ago
  People commit horrible crimes. That's one of those things that happen. It doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime, even if they are a horrible, detestable human in many senses of the word. I'd nearly argue that it would be in his worst interest to participate in defrauding something since it might have revealed his horrible offenses.
  - rubicon33 9y ago
    > doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime Nobody said that > they are a horrible, detestable human Nobody said that either All that's being said is that it's more likely he would do something nefarious, given his background.
    - tsumnia 9y ago
      The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character". No one is arguing a child rapist is okay; the issue other posters are having is that it is a incorrect argument. Any further "but what if's..." are simply assumptions that do not have proof.
      - dgjj 9y ago
        I don't follow your logic, I could see either 1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character". or 2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character". being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement
        tsumnia 9y ago
        My apologies, you are correct. I suppose what I was attempting to say was that the connection between video game referee and child rapist was a weak connection due to the relation of "judgement of character". The statements "child rapist" implies "poor judgement of character" and "poor judgement of character" implies "poor ability to be a referee" can be negated if the person turned out to be a qualified referee. The gray area is what people agree to be what constitutes good/poor "judgement of character". This is where I believe what AdmiralAsshat is attempting to argue in his post "While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee."
  - posterboy 9y ago
    > It doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime But only because that'd be pretty hard to pull off.
danharaj 9y ago
Only the simplest deductions logically follow. Everything else is inference.
ogdoad 9y ago
It demonstrates poor exercise of judgment, which would render them partially unreliable. Then there's the question of whether they're your "peers".
- ogdoad 9y ago
  Knees are jerking like leaves in a gust, it seems?
kahnpro 9y ago
I would argue that it does. Being a child molester shows a horrifically bad sense of judgement and a flagrant disregard for the law.
- AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
  So, here's a thought experiment: consider "Carl H". Carl H ran the site computerscienceforeveryone.com. He was an incredibly passionate individual who spent his time creating free video tutorials on C programming. Along with these videos, he created supplementary materials, quizzes, and engaged with anyone who had questions. He even provided live one-on-one instruction to people over Skype, all for free. By all accounts, he was an excellent Computer Science teacher. Carl was arrested for molesting his nine year-old son. He committed suicide in jail awaiting trial. With that said, do we disregard all of the learning materials he created? Is their value inherently reduced to zero now that we know they were the product of a sick individual? This isn't just an thought exercise. Carl was a real person. He had a Reddit board dedicated to his lessons and instructing people. His website has since lost its host and pretty much all the videos are gone from the web, save for p2p torrenting, because no one will be caught dead hosting videos from a child molestor, not matter how innocuous the videos themselves were.
  - manfredo 9y ago
    Creating learning material isn't something that hinges entirely on trustworthyness. Sure authors of learning materials may be biased towards certain practices or styles, but it's trivial to verify that the content itself is legitimate - any coding tutorial that says 1 byte chars can increment up as far as 4 byte ints is going to get called out quickly. But for a referee putting down high scores from a video game, the referee's value stems entirely from the idea that the referee is a trustworthy observer.
  - 794CD01 9y ago
    It sounds like you answered your own question. Yes, society has clearly decided that everything he created has lost all value.
  - 9y ago
jstarfish 9y ago
Criminals can certainly have integrity in the absence of a moral compass but for this sort of crime, integrity is in fact lost. Child crimes are crimes that involve the abuse of trust in most cases. Like embezzlement, someone trusts you not to steal money or molest children given a situation with ample opportunity for you to do so, but you do it anyway. You demonstrate a lack of integrity when you commit a crime of this nature. So why we should also trust him to be a living authority of a particular record? He has proven that trust in him is misplaced.

UsernameProxy 9y ago

It's a pretty safe bet, though.

dkersten 9y ago
I wouldn't want to listen to anything a child molester has to say, but that doesn't mean their knowledge of something completely unrelated is suspect at all. Just that I really don't care to know what a child molester has to say, on any topic. Although, I agree with the video in that I would question his honesty and character... So maybe you're right.
Broken_Hippo 9y ago
People commit horrible crimes. That's one of those things that happen. It doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime, even if they are a horrible, detestable human in many senses of the word. I'd nearly argue that it would be in his worst interest to participate in defrauding something since it might have revealed his horrible offenses.
- rubicon33 9y ago
  > doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime Nobody said that > they are a horrible, detestable human Nobody said that either All that's being said is that it's more likely he would do something nefarious, given his background.
  - tsumnia 9y ago
    The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character". No one is arguing a child rapist is okay; the issue other posters are having is that it is a incorrect argument. Any further "but what if's..." are simply assumptions that do not have proof.
    - dgjj 9y ago
      I don't follow your logic, I could see either 1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character". or 2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character". being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement
      - tsumnia 9y ago
        My apologies, you are correct. I suppose what I was attempting to say was that the connection between video game referee and child rapist was a weak connection due to the relation of "judgement of character". The statements "child rapist" implies "poor judgement of character" and "poor judgement of character" implies "poor ability to be a referee" can be negated if the person turned out to be a qualified referee. The gray area is what people agree to be what constitutes good/poor "judgement of character". This is where I believe what AdmiralAsshat is attempting to argue in his post "While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee."
- posterboy 9y ago
  > It doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime But only because that'd be pretty hard to pull off.

danharaj 9y ago

Only the simplest deductions logically follow. Everything else is inference.

ogdoad 9y ago

It demonstrates poor exercise of judgment, which would render them partially unreliable. Then there's the question of whether they're your "peers".

ogdoad 9y ago
Knees are jerking like leaves in a gust, it seems?

kahnpro 9y ago

I would argue that it does. Being a child molester shows a horrifically bad sense of judgement and a flagrant disregard for the law.

AdmiralAsshat 9y ago
So, here's a thought experiment: consider "Carl H". Carl H ran the site computerscienceforeveryone.com. He was an incredibly passionate individual who spent his time creating free video tutorials on C programming. Along with these videos, he created supplementary materials, quizzes, and engaged with anyone who had questions. He even provided live one-on-one instruction to people over Skype, all for free. By all accounts, he was an excellent Computer Science teacher. Carl was arrested for molesting his nine year-old son. He committed suicide in jail awaiting trial. With that said, do we disregard all of the learning materials he created? Is their value inherently reduced to zero now that we know they were the product of a sick individual? This isn't just an thought exercise. Carl was a real person. He had a Reddit board dedicated to his lessons and instructing people. His website has since lost its host and pretty much all the videos are gone from the web, save for p2p torrenting, because no one will be caught dead hosting videos from a child molestor, not matter how innocuous the videos themselves were.
- manfredo 9y ago
  Creating learning material isn't something that hinges entirely on trustworthyness. Sure authors of learning materials may be biased towards certain practices or styles, but it's trivial to verify that the content itself is legitimate - any coding tutorial that says 1 byte chars can increment up as far as 4 byte ints is going to get called out quickly. But for a referee putting down high scores from a video game, the referee's value stems entirely from the idea that the referee is a trustworthy observer.
- 794CD01 9y ago
  It sounds like you answered your own question. Yes, society has clearly decided that everything he created has lost all value.
- 9y ago

jstarfish 9y ago

Criminals can certainly have integrity in the absence of a moral compass but for this sort of crime, integrity is in fact lost. Child crimes are crimes that involve the abuse of trust in most cases. Like embezzlement, someone trusts you not to steal money or molest children given a situation with ample opportunity for you to do so, but you do it anyway. You demonstrate a lack of integrity when you commit a crime of this nature. So why we should also trust him to be a living authority of a particular record? He has proven that trust in him is misplaced.