5 ms·
The point is, the officers did not deserve to make such claims. Not under the veil of ambiguity, nor pessimism. Your strawman is a fallacy. Suppose an inmate
by posterboy 7y ago
The point is, the officers did not deserve to make such claims.
Not under the veil of ambiguity, nor pessimism.
Your strawman is a fallacy. Suppose an inmate had committed a logical fallacy. Should they thence be barred from reason (reasoning?)?
English isn't my first language, sorry.
PS: You might say the hypothetically notional inmate deserved the offer, but wasn't eligable to go, though one had to wonder why. You might also say it was morally imperative for the officer to bring up charges, if they were sufficiently convinced, to instate conditions that would isolate the culprit from maths education, social interactions in general, and probably any hope of correction.
- ALittleLight 7y agoI don't understand your comment. My point is, because you don't know the officers, inmates, or the broader situation, you shouldn't comment as to whether the officers are right or wrong - because you don't know. There are possible worlds where the officers are justified or misunderstood and there are possible worlds where the officers hold incorrect beliefs. What evidence lets you know which possible world is more likely? Being prejudiced against the officers strikes me as similar to the imagined (and possibly real) situation where the officers are prejudiced against the inmates. We, as readers, just don't know.
- maxerickson 7y agoYour comment pretty much ignores the context of the statement about the correctional officers. You are basically saying "we can't tell a thing about the officers, but we know the author is a jerk for castigating them". Never mind that the author has all the things you want, the broader knowledge of the situation and so on.