3 ms·

You claim that being profit driven does make things magically better and provide a single example. Do you really think I can't find a single example of where b

by skh 8y ago

You claim that being profit driven does make things magically better and provide a single example. Do you really think I can't find a single example of where being profit driven made things worse? You can't think of a single example in all the history of the world in which being profit driven made things worse? I guess you wrote in hyperbole but it seems like you actually believe it and to disprove your belief I merely need to come up with a single example. However, to prove your point you need much more than one example. Indeed, you need to prove it in all examples. Good luck! Prisoners are generally not treated humanely in the U.S. They tend to be treated better in government run prisons than in for profit prisons. If your point is that since prisoners are not humanely treated in government run prisons then it is OK for them to be treated the way described in the article then I think your position is morally repugnant.

antidesitter 8y ago
> If your point is that since prisoners are not humanely treated in government run prisons then it is OK for them to be treated the way described in the article Did the GP say that?
- skh 8y ago
  The "If your point..." is important and should not be left out. I don't understand the point rayiner was making. I made a deduction on what I think he/she was attempting to say and specifically qualified my statement with "if your point...". This is an implicit acknowledgement that I'm guessing and could be wrong. Statements have implications and a part of communication is that both parties end up making assumptions/deductions about what the other party is truly saying. This is why communication is hard. This is especially true for written communication. So it's possible for a person to mean something without explicitly stating so. For instance if I make the two statements: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Then one can deduce that I'm saying Socrates is mortal (and edit on my part here) even though I didn't make that explicit claim. Of course, if I'm illogical - and this frequently happens - I may or may not intend to imply this.
  - Stratoscope 8y ago
    You may want to proofread your comment, especially the discussion of the logical fallacy at the end. I think what you wrote is not what you intended to write.
    - skh 8y ago
      I didn't write a logical fallacy at the end or purport to have written one. I think you may have misread my comment. Can you elaborate? I think I wrote exactly what I intended to write. I gave an example of how someone can make statements that logically imply a statement without explicitly having written said statement. EDIT: Yes, I need to change a word. Thank you.
      - Stratoscope 8y ago
        Cool, glad my note was helpful. BTW, the logical fallacy I was referring to is this version (which is definitely not what you wrote or intended, it just came to mind reading it): All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is a man.
  - antidesitter 8y ago
    Your example is that of a deductive entailment. There’s no similar deductive entailment for the claim you (possibly) attribute to rayiner from the contents of their post, so I don’t think it’s a valid comparison. You should seriously consider the possibility that your comment did more harm than good by muddling the discussion and deliberately promoting the impression that someone said something you know they didn’t say.
dominotw 8y ago
> provide a single example. India is not a single example. You didn't have the same objection to comment agreeing with your point that used > Here in Europe > If your point is that since prisoners are not humanely treated in government run prisons then it is OK for them to be treated the way described in the article then I think your position is morally repugnant. I dont' think he said that, I read it as refuting your analysis by giving you a counter example where removing the culprit you idientified as cause didn't solve the original problem
- skh 8y ago
  India is not a single example. You don't count India switching to a capitalist system from a socialist system and improving as a single example of the profit motive making things better. Great. What is your point? Let's say it is x number of examples. The claim that was made can only be shown to be true if it is demonstrated that it works in every single example and not some small subset of examples. So pointing out that you think the example given counts as many instances of the claim being true is not relevant.
  - dominotw 8y ago
    > You claim that being profit driven does make things magically better and provide a single example. > you think the example given counts as many instances of the claim being true is not relevant. > claim that was made can only be shown to be true if it is demonstrated that it works in every single example and not some small subset of examples. Your claim that govt run prisons are more humane doesn't "works in every single example" either, as pointed out by GP.
    - skh 8y ago
      I didn’t claim government run prisons are always better. I’ve consistently said they are generally better.
      - deleted 8y ago
        [deleted]
rayiner 8y ago
> They tend to be treated better in government run prisons than in for profit prisons. The article presents no evidence of that (much less the actual relevant comparison, which is whether government-run prisons in those same states would be better). > If your point is that since prisoners are not humanely treated in government run prisons then it is OK for them to be treated the way described in the article then I think your position is morally repugnant. The question in this sub-thread isn't whether prisoners should be treated humanely, but whether its the for-profit nature of prisons that makes then inhumane. The fact that government-run prisons in the U.S. also are inhumane is highly relevant to that question.
- skh 8y ago
  The article presents no evidence of that (much less the actual relevant comparison, which is whether government-run prisons in those same states would be better). My evidence is not limited to the NYT article. Your original comment indicated that the profit motive always improves things. If true then for profit prisons ought to be an improvement to government run prisons. My belief based on working at prison and knowing some people who work at jails and having read a bit about the topic is that for profit prisons are not better than government prisons. You further asked if prisoners are humanely treated in government run prisons in Illinois. Are prisoners treated humanely in Illinois, where private prisons have been banned since 1990? Prisoners in the U.S. are not humanely treated by either government run prisons or for profit prisons. Prisons are generally better run and more humane when run by government. It appeared your argument was that since government run prisons are still inhumane then for profit prisons are OK. I think that logic is bad. But I gather from what you wrote above that to you the question is whether or not the profit motive is what makes for profit prisons bad. My answer is yes given that the voting public in general does not want to fund humane prisons and that a for profit enterprise ought to run it cheaper than what government run prisons cost. To me the question is one of betterment. Which system is better? Both are bad but one is worse than the other. That is what is germane to me. Pointing out government run prisons are bad is not relevant to the discussion if despite them being bad they are better than for profit prisons.

by skh 8y ago

antidesitter 8y ago

> If your point is that since prisoners are not humanely treated in government run prisons then it is OK for them to be treated the way described in the article Did the GP say that?

skh 8y ago
The "If your point..." is important and should not be left out. I don't understand the point rayiner was making. I made a deduction on what I think he/she was attempting to say and specifically qualified my statement with "if your point...". This is an implicit acknowledgement that I'm guessing and could be wrong. Statements have implications and a part of communication is that both parties end up making assumptions/deductions about what the other party is truly saying. This is why communication is hard. This is especially true for written communication. So it's possible for a person to mean something without explicitly stating so. For instance if I make the two statements: All men are mortal. Socrates is a man. Then one can deduce that I'm saying Socrates is mortal (and edit on my part here) even though I didn't make that explicit claim. Of course, if I'm illogical - and this frequently happens - I may or may not intend to imply this.
- Stratoscope 8y ago
  You may want to proofread your comment, especially the discussion of the logical fallacy at the end. I think what you wrote is not what you intended to write.
  - skh 8y ago
    I didn't write a logical fallacy at the end or purport to have written one. I think you may have misread my comment. Can you elaborate? I think I wrote exactly what I intended to write. I gave an example of how someone can make statements that logically imply a statement without explicitly having written said statement. EDIT: Yes, I need to change a word. Thank you.
    - Stratoscope 8y ago
      Cool, glad my note was helpful. BTW, the logical fallacy I was referring to is this version (which is definitely not what you wrote or intended, it just came to mind reading it): All men are mortal. Socrates is mortal. Therefore, Socrates is a man.
- antidesitter 8y ago
  Your example is that of a deductive entailment. There’s no similar deductive entailment for the claim you (possibly) attribute to rayiner from the contents of their post, so I don’t think it’s a valid comparison. You should seriously consider the possibility that your comment did more harm than good by muddling the discussion and deliberately promoting the impression that someone said something you know they didn’t say.

dominotw 8y ago

> provide a single example. India is not a single example. You didn't have the same objection to comment agreeing with your point that used > Here in Europe > If your point is that since prisoners are not humanely treated in government run prisons then it is OK for them to be treated the way described in the article then I think your position is morally repugnant. I dont' think he said that, I read it as refuting your analysis by giving you a counter example where removing the culprit you idientified as cause didn't solve the original problem

skh 8y ago
India is not a single example. You don't count India switching to a capitalist system from a socialist system and improving as a single example of the profit motive making things better. Great. What is your point? Let's say it is x number of examples. The claim that was made can only be shown to be true if it is demonstrated that it works in every single example and not some small subset of examples. So pointing out that you think the example given counts as many instances of the claim being true is not relevant.
- dominotw 8y ago
  > You claim that being profit driven does make things magically better and provide a single example. > you think the example given counts as many instances of the claim being true is not relevant. > claim that was made can only be shown to be true if it is demonstrated that it works in every single example and not some small subset of examples. Your claim that govt run prisons are more humane doesn't "works in every single example" either, as pointed out by GP.
  - skh 8y ago
    I didn’t claim government run prisons are always better. I’ve consistently said they are generally better.
    - deleted 8y ago
      [deleted]

rayiner 8y ago

> They tend to be treated better in government run prisons than in for profit prisons. The article presents no evidence of that (much less the actual relevant comparison, which is whether government-run prisons in those same states would be better). > If your point is that since prisoners are not humanely treated in government run prisons then it is OK for them to be treated the way described in the article then I think your position is morally repugnant. The question in this sub-thread isn't whether prisoners should be treated humanely, but whether its the for-profit nature of prisons that makes then inhumane. The fact that government-run prisons in the U.S. also are inhumane is highly relevant to that question.

skh 8y ago
The article presents no evidence of that (much less the actual relevant comparison, which is whether government-run prisons in those same states would be better). My evidence is not limited to the NYT article. Your original comment indicated that the profit motive always improves things. If true then for profit prisons ought to be an improvement to government run prisons. My belief based on working at prison and knowing some people who work at jails and having read a bit about the topic is that for profit prisons are not better than government prisons. You further asked if prisoners are humanely treated in government run prisons in Illinois. Are prisoners treated humanely in Illinois, where private prisons have been banned since 1990? Prisoners in the U.S. are not humanely treated by either government run prisons or for profit prisons. Prisons are generally better run and more humane when run by government. It appeared your argument was that since government run prisons are still inhumane then for profit prisons are OK. I think that logic is bad. But I gather from what you wrote above that to you the question is whether or not the profit motive is what makes for profit prisons bad. My answer is yes given that the voting public in general does not want to fund humane prisons and that a for profit enterprise ought to run it cheaper than what government run prisons cost. To me the question is one of betterment. Which system is better? Both are bad but one is worse than the other. That is what is germane to me. Pointing out government run prisons are bad is not relevant to the discussion if despite them being bad they are better than for profit prisons.