4 ms·

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.

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.