4 ms·

I request that as your style seems to be to attack details, which goes nowhere as each reply gets longer and less relevant until every reply is a marathon and y

I request that as your style seems to be to attack details, which goes nowhere as each reply gets longer and less relevant until every reply is a marathon and you’ve lost sight of the actual issue being discussed speaking of that, you’ve moved the goalposts. you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe because of the more abrupt job change. I said that it’s almost impossible to legislate against that now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me if you’d like, you can reread our original two comments, but I’ve laid out the bones of it here: your claim: easier to catch takers my disputation: yes easier to catch but impossible to convict your response: but takers wouldn’t take in the first place do you see how that doesn’t follow?

lapcat 4y ago
> each reply gets longer and less relevant Each gets longer and more detailed, as I defend my position. If length and details are a problem for you, then we'd better end the discussion here. me: "This is actually why bribes to randomly selected citizens would be easier to catch." you: "you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe" I said easier. You misquoted me as saying easy. Easier != easy. We're comparing sortition to the current electoral system. Sortition just has to be better, it doesn't have to be perfect. Moreover, I said, "Many elected politicians have been criminally convicted of corruption", so it's not in fact impossible. > now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all > however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me This is a misunderstanding. Of course some legislators (I won't call them "reps") might accept bribes. The problem is when some don't. When you're trying to bribe a bunch of random strangers, the number who don't accept bribes, even if the number is small, will blow up the whole bribery system and will send the bribers to jail. Even if there's some level of bribery in sortition — which I believe can't be high, for reasons explained earlier — it would be vastly better than the current electoral system, which is legalized bribery via campaign contributions.
- permo-w 4y ago
  yet again you're trying to argue multiple points irrelevant to the initial discussion: the semantics of easy vs easier; whether it's easier to bribe in the first place; whether sortitioning is better or worse than the current system. this is called the Gish gallop[1], and it is not conducive to good debate stop trying to move the goalposts it is difficult to prosecute someone who has taken this kind of bribe, even in a system of sortitioning. do you have a refutation to this argument? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
  - lapcat 4y ago
    This is pointless, because you seem to lack the capacity to follow a complex argument, and I disagree with you about what's relevant and irrelevant to the discussion. I'm done here.
    - permo-w 4y ago
      if you had a refutation, you would have said it by now. as it is, you’ve tried a gish gallop, then thrown your toys out of the pram when it’s been pointed out to you did you really think I was going to engage you in an exponentially growing series of piecemeal arguments growing less and less relevant with each iteration? let’s close this by saying that you completely failed - and even resolutely avoided - giving any evidence or arguments that it would be even remotely possible to convict anyone for this, and then tried to prove yourself right in some alternative discussions about: sortitioning as a whole, the word “representative”, easy vs easier, the difficulty of bribing a representative, whether they have constituents, whether I have a correct grasp of corruption as a whole, etc etc etc etc, not a single one of which mattered to the central question of “would you be able to convict an ex-rep for having a sudden upwards change in job?” to which the answer is a resounding and unchallenged: no
      - lapcat 4y ago
        > the central question of “would you be able to convict an ex-rep for having a sudden upwards change in job?” I think the problem here is that you believe it's the central question, whereas I don't. It's a minor issue in the larger question of whether sortition is better than elections. Anyway, I'll close this by dropping these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_loc...

lapcat 4y ago

> each reply gets longer and less relevant Each gets longer and more detailed, as I defend my position. If length and details are a problem for you, then we'd better end the discussion here. me: "This is actually why bribes to randomly selected citizens would be easier to catch." you: "you said that it would be easy to catch the people taking this style of bribe" I said easier. You misquoted me as saying easy. Easier != easy. We're comparing sortition to the current electoral system. Sortition just has to be better, it doesn't have to be perfect. Moreover, I said, "Many elected politicians have been criminally convicted of corruption", so it's not in fact impossible. > now you’re trying to argue a separate issue: whether reps will take these bribes at all > however, your initial comment assumes that they might take these bribes, and my reply is based on that assumption. when you abandon that assumption, you’re not actually responding to me This is a misunderstanding. Of course some legislators (I won't call them "reps") might accept bribes. The problem is when some don't. When you're trying to bribe a bunch of random strangers, the number who don't accept bribes, even if the number is small, will blow up the whole bribery system and will send the bribers to jail. Even if there's some level of bribery in sortition — which I believe can't be high, for reasons explained earlier — it would be vastly better than the current electoral system, which is legalized bribery via campaign contributions.

permo-w 4y ago
yet again you're trying to argue multiple points irrelevant to the initial discussion: the semantics of easy vs easier; whether it's easier to bribe in the first place; whether sortitioning is better or worse than the current system. this is called the Gish gallop[1], and it is not conducive to good debate stop trying to move the goalposts it is difficult to prosecute someone who has taken this kind of bribe, even in a system of sortitioning. do you have a refutation to this argument? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gish_gallop
- lapcat 4y ago
  This is pointless, because you seem to lack the capacity to follow a complex argument, and I disagree with you about what's relevant and irrelevant to the discussion. I'm done here.
  - permo-w 4y ago
    if you had a refutation, you would have said it by now. as it is, you’ve tried a gish gallop, then thrown your toys out of the pram when it’s been pointed out to you did you really think I was going to engage you in an exponentially growing series of piecemeal arguments growing less and less relevant with each iteration? let’s close this by saying that you completely failed - and even resolutely avoided - giving any evidence or arguments that it would be even remotely possible to convict anyone for this, and then tried to prove yourself right in some alternative discussions about: sortitioning as a whole, the word “representative”, easy vs easier, the difficulty of bribing a representative, whether they have constituents, whether I have a correct grasp of corruption as a whole, etc etc etc etc, not a single one of which mattered to the central question of “would you be able to convict an ex-rep for having a sudden upwards change in job?” to which the answer is a resounding and unchallenged: no
    - lapcat 4y ago
      > the central question of “would you be able to convict an ex-rep for having a sudden upwards change in job?” I think the problem here is that you believe it's the central question, whereas I don't. It's a minor issue in the larger question of whether sortition is better than elections. Anyway, I'll close this by dropping these links: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_federal_polit... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_local_politicians_convicted_of_crimes https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_American_state_and_loc...