4 ms·

You keep asserting this, yet despite repeated requests from myself and others you still have not pointed out the parts of the indictment that are presumably so

You keep asserting this, yet despite repeated requests from myself and others you still have not pointed out the parts of the indictment that are presumably so convincing. If it's so clearcut, give us the article numbers and let's talk about specifics. The indictment is easy enough to read. This whole subthread is starting to sound like the McMartin Preschool case.

tptacek 8y ago
"Article numbers"?
- stickfigure 8y ago
  The indictment is a long series of numbered paragraphs. Point out the ones that should make me feel something other than "the American Taliban is now fully running the country".
  - tptacek 8y ago
    Yeah that sounds super productive.
    - stickfigure 8y ago
      If you want people to take you seriously when you say "there's horrible things in the indictment", seems like it would be productive to actually be able to cite those things.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        I'm pretty comfortable with who does and doesn't take me seriously. I've been dragging up details from the indictment all day on the thread. I'm not going to take the time to go tie them back to paragraph numbers for you; that seems like a colossal waste of time for both of us.
    - GW150914 8y ago
      Productive or not, here’s the reference you can use the next time this comes up. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17815396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17815396 It does in fact completely validate your position, although I guess you know that.
      - tptacek 8y ago
        oh my god
pharrington 8y ago
In the McMartin Preschool case, 0 children were found to be abused by the accused.
philwelch 8y ago
I mean, it's an indictment. If you want some proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the proprietors of BackPage.com committed the crimes they are accused of, that's totally fair, and that's also what the criminal justice system is supposed to produce as an end result.
michaelmrose 8y ago
In the McMartin Preschool case the allegations were utterly fantastic. We had a bunch of Satan worshippers abusing children in a dungeon dug beneath the school that they would have had to have dug with spoons as people would have certainly noticed a backhoe and a bunch of construction workers digging the sex dungeon. No actual crimes were committed and there were no victims. In this case the facts are entirely pedestrian and the victims real. It seems pretty clear that people were abused. The only real question is how guilty are the people running Backpage. Since they were running a page selling people and seemed at best disinterested in not selling children I'd say very. If you sell produce you acquire along with customers money the obligation to ensure that the produce you sell is safe and doesn't cause your customers to die of food poisoning. If you sell sex it seems people selling children for sex is a foreseeable risk that they did at best NOTHING to mitigate. I'm not sure why some people seem apt to defend them.

tptacek 8y ago

"Article numbers"?

stickfigure 8y ago
The indictment is a long series of numbered paragraphs. Point out the ones that should make me feel something other than "the American Taliban is now fully running the country".
- tptacek 8y ago
  Yeah that sounds super productive.
  - stickfigure 8y ago
    If you want people to take you seriously when you say "there's horrible things in the indictment", seems like it would be productive to actually be able to cite those things.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      I'm pretty comfortable with who does and doesn't take me seriously. I've been dragging up details from the indictment all day on the thread. I'm not going to take the time to go tie them back to paragraph numbers for you; that seems like a colossal waste of time for both of us.
  - GW150914 8y ago
    Productive or not, here’s the reference you can use the next time this comes up. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17815396 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17815396 It does in fact completely validate your position, although I guess you know that.
    - tptacek 8y ago
      oh my god

pharrington 8y ago

In the McMartin Preschool case, 0 children were found to be abused by the accused.

philwelch 8y ago

I mean, it's an indictment. If you want some proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the proprietors of BackPage.com committed the crimes they are accused of, that's totally fair, and that's also what the criminal justice system is supposed to produce as an end result.

michaelmrose 8y ago

In the McMartin Preschool case the allegations were utterly fantastic. We had a bunch of Satan worshippers abusing children in a dungeon dug beneath the school that they would have had to have dug with spoons as people would have certainly noticed a backhoe and a bunch of construction workers digging the sex dungeon. No actual crimes were committed and there were no victims. In this case the facts are entirely pedestrian and the victims real. It seems pretty clear that people were abused. The only real question is how guilty are the people running Backpage. Since they were running a page selling people and seemed at best disinterested in not selling children I'd say very. If you sell produce you acquire along with customers money the obligation to ensure that the produce you sell is safe and doesn't cause your customers to die of food poisoning. If you sell sex it seems people selling children for sex is a foreseeable risk that they did at best NOTHING to mitigate. I'm not sure why some people seem apt to defend them.