4 ms·

Are you kidding me? She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed

Are you kidding me? She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure. Not everyone when disagrees with your favored political stance on am issue is too dumb to understand it. Some just disagree. Calling her am idiot on this context is simply without any basis Honestly, I'm not sure if any story since a started reading this site has resulted in such a high proportion of minimally thought-out comments.

jacquesm 14y ago
> She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. > That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure. This is true, and nobody has said that she should not have prosecuted. The things that are being said are: - this prosecution was subject to some discretionary powers - those powers were to some extent abused - in other cases, arguably more serious Ortiz has used her discretionary powers to *not* pursue cases > Not everyone when disagrees with your favored political stance on am issue is too dumb to understand it. Some just disagree. Pot, kettle, etc. You also do this. > Calling her am idiot on this context is simply without any basis If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way, you claim that she understood but you offer 0 proof. > Honestly, I'm not sure if any story since a started reading this site has resulted in such a high proportion of minimally thought-out comments. It has also resulting in a large number of very well thought out comments, not all of which you may agree with. Let's keep the meta discussion out of it.
- baak 14y ago
  Which other more serious cases did Ortiz choose not to pursue and why? Perhaps there wasn't good enough evidence to pursue them? I really don't think she's an idiot... I know we're honor-bound not to like her, but we're calling her an idiot because we have no proof to the contrary? What...?
  - jacquesm 14y ago
    > Which other more serious cases did Ortiz choose not to pursue and why? There were a bunch of pharmaceutical cases where Ortiz used her discretion in favor of the defendants. > Perhaps there wasn't good enough evidence to pursue them? Perhaps. > I really don't think she's an idiot... I know we're honor-bound not to like her, but we're calling her an idiot because we have no proof to the contrary? What...? Notice the 'If' at the beginning of that sentence please.
    - baak 14y ago
      Which pharma cases? I noticed the if. It's still a rather bold statement. "Soandso is an idiot." "Do you have any proof?" "If they think this, then they're an idiot. Have you provided evidence to the contrary?" It's like saying Stephen Hawking is an idiot if he thinks the holocaust never happened. Can you provide me with evidence that Stephen Hawking thinks the holocaust happened? Is it really okay to call someone an idiot on a conditional if you have zero proof?
- jamesaguilar 14y ago
  > I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. ... If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way ... Nobody has to prove things that should be the default assumption. You should assume that when someone has been extensively investigated by a law office, that office understands at least the most superficial, obvious facts of the case. Likewise, it is the default stance that a person at a high station in a technical field isn't an idiot. I don't have to prove it. There has to be evidence to contradict it before the accusation ought to be thrown about. > Pot, kettle, etc. You also do this. I honestly can't recall an occasion where I have accused someone of being stupid for disagreeing with my political stance on this site or in any other forum where you'd have cause to call me out on it. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that some time in the past two and a half years I've made that mistake. The hypocrisy accusation bears no weight when the accused is not currently endorsing a stance that runs contrary to their action. It is wholly irrelevant that at some point in time I have violated some part of my own moral code. > Let's keep the meta discussion out of it. I think the meta-discussion becomes appropriate when baseless accusations start being accepted without evidence simply because of the political stance of the majority of the site participants. It seems to me that HN is uniquely unsuited to approach this particular issue rationally, and I have provided evidence to that end. I will not keep the meta-discussion out of it.

jacquesm 14y ago

> She/her office understood, I'm sure, that he thought he was doing things for the greater good. I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. > That doesn't mean that he is legally allowed to nor that she is barred from prosecuting him because his intentions were so pure. This is true, and nobody has said that she should not have prosecuted. The things that are being said are: - this prosecution was subject to some discretionary powers - those powers were to some extent abused - in other cases, arguably more serious Ortiz has used her discretionary powers to *not* pursue cases > Not everyone when disagrees with your favored political stance on am issue is too dumb to understand it. Some just disagree. Pot, kettle, etc. You also do this. > Calling her am idiot on this context is simply without any basis If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way, you claim that she understood but you offer 0 proof. > Honestly, I'm not sure if any story since a started reading this site has resulted in such a high proportion of minimally thought-out comments. It has also resulting in a large number of very well thought out comments, not all of which you may agree with. Let's keep the meta discussion out of it.

baak 14y ago
Which other more serious cases did Ortiz choose not to pursue and why? Perhaps there wasn't good enough evidence to pursue them? I really don't think she's an idiot... I know we're honor-bound not to like her, but we're calling her an idiot because we have no proof to the contrary? What...?
- jacquesm 14y ago
  > Which other more serious cases did Ortiz choose not to pursue and why? There were a bunch of pharmaceutical cases where Ortiz used her discretion in favor of the defendants. > Perhaps there wasn't good enough evidence to pursue them? Perhaps. > I really don't think she's an idiot... I know we're honor-bound not to like her, but we're calling her an idiot because we have no proof to the contrary? What...? Notice the 'If' at the beginning of that sentence please.
  - baak 14y ago
    Which pharma cases? I noticed the if. It's still a rather bold statement. "Soandso is an idiot." "Do you have any proof?" "If they think this, then they're an idiot. Have you provided evidence to the contrary?" It's like saying Stephen Hawking is an idiot if he thinks the holocaust never happened. Can you provide me with evidence that Stephen Hawking thinks the holocaust happened? Is it really okay to call someone an idiot on a conditional if you have zero proof?
jamesaguilar 14y ago
> I have not seen any proof or acknowledgement of that. ... If she did not understand this she really is an idiot, I have no proof either way ... Nobody has to prove things that should be the default assumption. You should assume that when someone has been extensively investigated by a law office, that office understands at least the most superficial, obvious facts of the case. Likewise, it is the default stance that a person at a high station in a technical field isn't an idiot. I don't have to prove it. There has to be evidence to contradict it before the accusation ought to be thrown about. > Pot, kettle, etc. You also do this. I honestly can't recall an occasion where I have accused someone of being stupid for disagreeing with my political stance on this site or in any other forum where you'd have cause to call me out on it. But, for the sake of argument, let's assume that some time in the past two and a half years I've made that mistake. The hypocrisy accusation bears no weight when the accused is not currently endorsing a stance that runs contrary to their action. It is wholly irrelevant that at some point in time I have violated some part of my own moral code. > Let's keep the meta discussion out of it. I think the meta-discussion becomes appropriate when baseless accusations start being accepted without evidence simply because of the political stance of the majority of the site participants. It seems to me that HN is uniquely unsuited to approach this particular issue rationally, and I have provided evidence to that end. I will not keep the meta-discussion out of it.