3 ms·

How? Are murders more likely to lie about bad prison conditions?

• waterlesscloud 12y ago
  If she'd done something relatively minor and ended up in jail because the system just grinded along, she'd have more credibility. The fact that she repeatedly broke laws and intentionally disregarded court orders and never seemed to really acknowledge the reality of her situation does reduce her credibility. Would you really judge someone in each of those situations as equally trustworthy? Really?
  • mschuster91 12y ago
    > If she'd done something relatively minor and ended up in jail because the system just grinded along, she'd have more credibility. Human rights are called human rights because they're universal and apply to every human being, no matter the circumstances. And I personally don't care about how exactly one landed in prison - for minor offences or major, that inmates do not have the right to shower daily is just fucked up. Or that sexual violence or drug dealing in prison seems to be widespread.
    • waterlesscloud 12y ago
      This isn't about the conditions, it's about her credibility in reporting the conditions.
      • mschuster91 12y ago
        And what exactly does the credibility of her reporting the conditions have to do with the conditions themselves? In my opinion, zero. Facts are facts, and it's not exactly new that prisons in the US tend to be shitholes.
        • Dylan16807 12y ago
          As a general rule, credibility is needed to figure out the facts.
          • stefantalpalaru 12y ago
            As a general rule, any fact you derive from a person's credibility is not a fact. Humans are unreliable and relying on their authority/credibility/good looks to establish the truth value of a proposition is a logical error. We accept this error when we have to do some fast thinking and the consequences of being wrong are small, but the moment you make this flawed logic the general rule is the moment you lose any chance at establishing the facts.
            • Dylan16807 12y ago
              'fact' generally excludes unreasonable uncertainty. Otherwise you've wandered into an area of philosophy where nothing is a fact. And that is not the general meaning of the word. And credibility is a measure of how close their assertions are to the truth, how is that a logical error?
              • dragonwriter 12y ago
                > Otherwise you've wandered into an area of philosophy where nothing is a fact. Or, rather, the area of philosophy where only the class of facts which can be certainly described as such are the facts of having particular present sensations (whether the kind that present as sense-data or the kind that present as memories) is a fact, and all other ideas about the world are either axioms or conclusions supported on the basis of either axioms, sensations, or a combination of the two. Of course, when you leave that area of philosophy, you are in the area of fuzzy and imprecise thinking, so its not a bad area of philosophy to be in.
        • vacri 12y ago
          You've generated something of a catch-22. If her information is already well-known, she doesn't need credibility - in which case, why bother with the article in the first place? But 'facts are facts', and if she had new information, then she would need credibility in order for it to be considered 'fact'. In any case, my curiosity had nothing to do with her credibility. I was curious about how she drew herself versus how she drew others. Why she was in jail speaks to some extent as to who she is, and fills in a little more of the mental picture of her.
      • andrewliebchen 12y ago
        So it's about ethics in cartoon journalism?
  • deleted 12y ago
    [deleted]