4 ms·

I'm not 'siding with the authorities', I'm advocating fighting if you're innocent. Plea'ing out when you're innocent just encourages this sort of abuse. If eve

I'm not 'siding with the authorities', I'm advocating fighting if you're innocent. Plea'ing out when you're innocent just encourages this sort of abuse. If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself. Civil rights are only upheld when they're exercised.

namaria 2y ago
You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty, which is a perverse argument given the immense cost and general toll a legal defense can impose on a person. > If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself. Yes, that is precisely why the system is stacked against the average person being able to fight the State on criminal charges, and it is very out of touch to imply that anyone that the State has convicted presumably deserved it for not putting up an effective defense. The system is working as intended on you and I hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal prosecution.
- lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
  > You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty I can see how one could get this implication because they said "why would you" but that's a common phrase that people use to (I guess literally) call some decision into question. It's not necessarily about saying that they are obviously lying and could be more about wondering why someone would make that choice. The reply made a good case, which they don't seem to be arguing with.
  - ssl-3 2y ago
    Why would you use that kind of phraseology, if not to imply something?
    - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
      Because you're curious for the answer to your question. Why would you think there must be some other implication? (What did I imply by using that phrase in the previous question?)
      - ssl-3 2y ago
        Because in real speech with real people in my real life, expressions like "Why would you do x" are nearly exclusively rhetorical and unambiguously accusatory.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        Similarly, I have heard expressions like "Why would you do x" and "Why would you think y" as questions being asked with curiosity. I've also seen how my perception of their intentions has been distorted such that I would not believe they are simply trying to understand. That isn't to say the phrasing does not seem to trigger such a response (I personally think it sounds hostile in text), it is to say that I can take them at their word when they tell me they did not have that intention. I will, however, concede that the phrase seems to be more commonly said with hostile ignorance rather than humble curiosity. But... that's kinda beside the point which I did not seem to have made clearly. The original assumption of that person's decision to write that phrase is that it is intended as an accusation to this thread's OP that their brother was actually selling heroin. They do not seem to have made that specific accusation. Recall what I originally replied to: > You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty That is decidedly not what they were implying, if they were implying anything.
        ssl-3 2y ago
        I don't know why you would make these kinds of arguments, and I do not care. Stealing is always wrong. Stealing is wrong even when it is stupid people who are doing stupid things that are stolen from. Nobody deserves to be stolen from. Especially by a cop. The end. Further replies will be ignored. I don't willfully talk to Nazis. (Is that an implication? Hmm. Why would anyone think that?)
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]

namaria 2y ago

You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty, which is a perverse argument given the immense cost and general toll a legal defense can impose on a person. > If everyone that remotely had the resources to fight charges actually fought them, this whole system would collapse on itself. Yes, that is precisely why the system is stacked against the average person being able to fight the State on criminal charges, and it is very out of touch to imply that anyone that the State has convicted presumably deserved it for not putting up an effective defense. The system is working as intended on you and I hope you never find yourself on the wrong end of a criminal prosecution.

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
> You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty I can see how one could get this implication because they said "why would you" but that's a common phrase that people use to (I guess literally) call some decision into question. It's not necessarily about saying that they are obviously lying and could be more about wondering why someone would make that choice. The reply made a good case, which they don't seem to be arguing with.
- ssl-3 2y ago
  Why would you use that kind of phraseology, if not to imply something?
  - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
    Because you're curious for the answer to your question. Why would you think there must be some other implication? (What did I imply by using that phrase in the previous question?)
    - ssl-3 2y ago
      Because in real speech with real people in my real life, expressions like "Why would you do x" are nearly exclusively rhetorical and unambiguously accusatory.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        Similarly, I have heard expressions like "Why would you do x" and "Why would you think y" as questions being asked with curiosity. I've also seen how my perception of their intentions has been distorted such that I would not believe they are simply trying to understand. That isn't to say the phrasing does not seem to trigger such a response (I personally think it sounds hostile in text), it is to say that I can take them at their word when they tell me they did not have that intention. I will, however, concede that the phrase seems to be more commonly said with hostile ignorance rather than humble curiosity. But... that's kinda beside the point which I did not seem to have made clearly. The original assumption of that person's decision to write that phrase is that it is intended as an accusation to this thread's OP that their brother was actually selling heroin. They do not seem to have made that specific accusation. Recall what I originally replied to: > You're implying that someone who didn't fight is presumably guilty That is decidedly not what they were implying, if they were implying anything.
        ssl-3 2y ago
        I don't know why you would make these kinds of arguments, and I do not care. Stealing is always wrong. Stealing is wrong even when it is stupid people who are doing stupid things that are stolen from. Nobody deserves to be stolen from. Especially by a cop. The end. Further replies will be ignored. I don't willfully talk to Nazis. (Is that an implication? Hmm. Why would anyone think that?)

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]