|
On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K.
Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything.
Your "more moral compromise", per your arguments on promiscuous women, is to judge promiscuous women as more likely to make false rape accusations, and therefore that argument should be allowed in a court of law to release the defendant.
Is the above incorrect?
|
United States43212 Posts
On August 24 2012 04:07 Vega62a wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.
A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. The problem with the compromise you suggest is that it literally invalidates everything that our justice system is predicated on - you are proposing that we allow a blatantly false argument to be considered valid in court.
I think it's much more likely he's inadvertently talked himself into a corner and doesn't see a way out of it than that he genuinely believes that. He started by genuinely believing the promiscuity argument had weight, got shown that it was total bullshit and therefore retreated to the shaky grounds of "all arguments in rape cases aren't entirely watertight". From there he retrenched to "some innocent men get found guilty, this will let them off" at which point he was pressed on what the purpose of the legal system was if you arbitrarily set people (innocent and guilty) free.
He can't actually believe what he's currently arguing. Nobody anywhere believes that. He just doesn't want to concede that the promiscuity argument shouldn't be used but no longer sees any way to argue that it can be used.
|
On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.
A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance.
You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail?
Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty.
|
United States43212 Posts
On August 24 2012 04:09 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds.
A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. Your "more moral compromise", per your arguments on promiscuous women, is to judge promiscuous women as more likely to make false rape accusations, and therefore that argument should be allowed in a court of law to release the defendant. Is the above incorrect?
And make the lawyers should make the argument while knowing that it is entirely spurious and that it doesn't make it any more likely that the woman is lying or that the defendant is innocent.
|
On August 24 2012 04:10 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:07 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.
But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.
No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. The problem with the compromise you suggest is that it literally invalidates everything that our justice system is predicated on - you are proposing that we allow a blatantly false argument to be considered valid in court. I think it's much more likely he's inadvertently talked himself into a corner and doesn't see a way out of it than that he genuinely believes that. He started by genuinely believing the promiscuity argument had weight, got shown that it was total bullshit and therefore retreated to the shaky grounds of "all arguments in rape cases aren't entirely watertight". From there he retrenched to "some innocent men get found guilty, this will let them off" at which point he was pressed on what the purpose of the legal system was if you arbitrarily set people (innocent and guilty) free. He can't actually believe what he's currently arguing. Nobody anywhere believes that. He just doesn't want to concede that the promiscuity argument shouldn't be used but no longer sees any way to argue that it can be used.
Yep, seems to be exactly what this is. Sometimes it is much better to just concede!
|
United States43212 Posts
On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.
But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.
No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty.
What about just scrapping all rape laws. That way no innocent men will ever be convicted of rape. I guess I just care more about the freedom of innocents than you.
|
On August 24 2012 04:12 Crushinator wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:10 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 04:07 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. The problem with the compromise you suggest is that it literally invalidates everything that our justice system is predicated on - you are proposing that we allow a blatantly false argument to be considered valid in court. I think it's much more likely he's inadvertently talked himself into a corner and doesn't see a way out of it than that he genuinely believes that. He started by genuinely believing the promiscuity argument had weight, got shown that it was total bullshit and therefore retreated to the shaky grounds of "all arguments in rape cases aren't entirely watertight". From there he retrenched to "some innocent men get found guilty, this will let them off" at which point he was pressed on what the purpose of the legal system was if you arbitrarily set people (innocent and guilty) free. He can't actually believe what he's currently arguing. Nobody anywhere believes that. He just doesn't want to concede that the promiscuity argument shouldn't be used but no longer sees any way to argue that it can be used. Yep, seems to be exactly what this is. Sometimes it is much better to just concede!
lol, there's many of you against me, I can't respond to everything, and you're preaching to the choir with your little buddies.
|
On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.
But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.
No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty.
Your position validates the raping of promiscuous women.
|
On August 24 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. What about just scrapping all rape laws. That way no innocent men will ever be convicted of rape. I guess I just care more about the freedom of innocents than you.
How about some more slippery slopes. Maybe we kill everyone too.
That's how you argue.
On August 24 2012 04:13 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. Your position validates the raping of promiscuous women.
No.
|
On August 24 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. What about just scrapping all rape laws. That way no innocent men will ever be convicted of rape. I guess I just care more about the freedom of innocents than you.
We could just abolish all conception of justice, as well. Then both terms wouldn't mean anything and we'd all be "innocent"
And to update regarding slippery slopes: You've now explicitly placed more weight upon the vindication of the innocent than upon prosecution. If this isn't the logical conclusion of that ideal, where do you draw the line? What number of one to the other is "okay" for you to say enough to the movement along the slope? You don't get to evade reductio ad absurdum just by saying the conclusion is absurd.
|
On August 24 2012 04:13 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:12 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 04:10 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 04:07 Vega62a wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. The problem with the compromise you suggest is that it literally invalidates everything that our justice system is predicated on - you are proposing that we allow a blatantly false argument to be considered valid in court. I think it's much more likely he's inadvertently talked himself into a corner and doesn't see a way out of it than that he genuinely believes that. He started by genuinely believing the promiscuity argument had weight, got shown that it was total bullshit and therefore retreated to the shaky grounds of "all arguments in rape cases aren't entirely watertight". From there he retrenched to "some innocent men get found guilty, this will let them off" at which point he was pressed on what the purpose of the legal system was if you arbitrarily set people (innocent and guilty) free. He can't actually believe what he's currently arguing. Nobody anywhere believes that. He just doesn't want to concede that the promiscuity argument shouldn't be used but no longer sees any way to argue that it can be used. Yep, seems to be exactly what this is. Sometimes it is much better to just concede! lol, there's many of you against me, I can't respond to everything, and you're preaching to the choir with your little buddies.
This is a low blow sir.
|
On August 24 2012 04:13 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. What about just scrapping all rape laws. That way no innocent men will ever be convicted of rape. I guess I just care more about the freedom of innocents than you. How about some more slippery slopes. Maybe we kill everyone too. That's how you argue. Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:13 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. Your position validates the raping of promiscuous women. No.
Then how do you protect promiscuous women in a court of law, if the argument that "they are promiscuous, the defendant is innocent" is used?
A court of law should be about finding the truth. It should not be swayed by imperfect arguments. If you are complaining that the courts are bad at their jobs, then the solution is not to continue allowing an imperfect argument, but to reform the court.
I fail to see why that is so hard to understand.
|
On August 24 2012 04:09 DoubleReed wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:On August 24 2012 03:43 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:38 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:36 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
Well fine, it's a poor argument by the defense that seems to work. But then again weak evidence of rape seems to be enough for a conviction a lot of the time. So what choice do they get?
If I get a 1 night stand with a girl and it's perfectly consensual, and yet she comes after me for rape, my first reaction will be that she does that all the time. It's circumstantial evidence. Don't try to school me on whether or not it constitutes solid evidence, I know it's not - but again nothing is in rape trials.
Even semen and DNA tests only confirm that there was intercourse, not necessarily rape. So you concede the utter irrelevance of promiscuity and yet still feel it has a place in the justice system because sometimes it gets people found not guilty, regardless of whether their guilty or not. We could cut out the middle man, stop dragging the sexual history of victims into the court and just let off every defendant whose surname begins with the letters A-K. Justice high five anyone? I will in fact concede the irrelevance of promiscuity, as a global failure of the justice system, which simply does not have the tools necessary to properly prosecute rape. That is, we can't read minds. A lot of rape cases are clear cut, I'd guess that a majority aren't. And innocent men are in prison for rapes they haven't committed. You guys are going after a bad but effective argument that I'm sure saved a few innocent men from undeserved years of jail. I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity. But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too. No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. By this logic we should abolish the justice system entirely under fear of possibly ever convicting an innocent person. You are arguing for a completely impotent, ineffective justice system. I have no idea why. Maybe in Canada there aren't the same issues as America. Perhaps Canada doesn't have as pervasive a rape culture as America does.
we wish! dont bring canada into this haha. most canadians would agree his argument is.... well... stupid...
|
United States43212 Posts
If I may sum up your position
You want to randomly let people accused of a crime go free, regardless of the circumstances or evidence against them, because you care so much about the possibility of an innocent man benefiting from that policy that you are willing to risk a guilty man benefiting from the same policy.
You believe this makes you more moral than the rest of us because clearly you care more about the rights of the innocent than us who want to deny them this chance at walking free.
|
On August 24 2012 04:18 KwarK wrote:
If I may sum up your position
You want to randomly let people accused of a crime go free, regardless of the circumstances or evidence against them, because you care so much about the possibility of an innocent man benefiting from that policy that you are willing to risk a guilty man benefiting from the same policy.
You believe this makes you more moral than the rest of us because clearly you care more about the rights of the innocent than us who want to deny them this chance at walking free.
It's not random either - if it's targeted at promiscuous women.
|
On August 24 2012 04:20 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:18 KwarK wrote:
If I may sum up your position
You want to randomly let people accused of a crime go free, regardless of the circumstances or evidence against them, because you care so much about the possibility of an innocent man benefiting from that policy that you are willing to risk a guilty man benefiting from the same policy.
You believe this makes you more moral than the rest of us because clearly you care more about the rights of the innocent than us who want to deny them this chance at walking free. It's not random either - if it's targeted at promiscuous women.
its even more mysoginistic.
|
On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:53 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 03:51 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:50 Crushinator wrote:
[quote]
I'm glad you acknowledge the irrelevance of promoscuity.
But your last paragraph is a bit silly. The argument is good because it keeps innocent men from undeserved jail time, is what you seem to be saying. Surely it also puts guilty men back on the street to continue their raping ways. More importantly, following the same logic, should we just never convict anyone? That would surely keep some innocent men out of jail too.
No, unsound arguments should be ''gone after'', always. Innocent people shouldn't be "gone after" either but they are. Would you be in favour of a giant wheel that people span that with 16 segments on it, 2 labelled "let go" and 14 labelled "proceed to court" that you have in the lobby of the courthouses? That is essentially what you are advocating. A system which lets a portion of defendants go free, regardless of the circumstances of their case. You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty.
So do I. The difference is that you assume a priori that rape cases cannot be prosecuted fairly. You base this on the fact that innocent people go to prison. Since all rape trials are injust in your eyes, adding more injustice atop the already existing injustice is not so bad.
I don't agree with your premise. Innocent people going to prison is a bad thing, a tragedy of the justice system. But the system is imperfect; unless you have evidence that a disproportionate number of accused rapists in prison are innocent, then your premise is invalid.
Furthermore, I don't agree with the logic that leads to your conclusion. Even if I assume that rape cases are a priori unfair, adding injustice atop injustice just because it sometimes lets the innocent free doesn't make the system less injust.
You're not fixing a broken dam; you're adding more holes to make the water drain out faster. That way, the flooding will be over quicker.
If you want to fix the justice system with regard to rape cases, feel free. But adding injustice to injustice isn't an improvement, moral or otherwise.
On August 24 2012 04:20 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:18 KwarK wrote:
If I may sum up your position
You want to randomly let people accused of a crime go free, regardless of the circumstances or evidence against them, because you care so much about the possibility of an innocent man benefiting from that policy that you are willing to risk a guilty man benefiting from the same policy.
You believe this makes you more moral than the rest of us because clearly you care more about the rights of the innocent than us who want to deny them this chance at walking free. It's not random either - if it's targeted at promiscuous women.
... That's not better. In fact, that's worse. Not only is it unfair and injust, now it's misogynistic.
At least with a big wheel, it's random.
|
On August 24 2012 04:15 JinDesu wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:13 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. What about just scrapping all rape laws. That way no innocent men will ever be convicted of rape. I guess I just care more about the freedom of innocents than you. How about some more slippery slopes. Maybe we kill everyone too. That's how you argue. On August 24 2012 04:13 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 03:56 Djzapz wrote:
[quote]
You're talking to me as if I were immoral. You certainly are on a high horse for someone who's fine with putting innocents in jail. The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess). I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. Your position validates the raping of promiscuous women. No. Then how do you protect promiscuous women in a court of law, if the argument that "they are promiscuous, the defendant is innocent" is used? A court of law should be about finding the truth. It should not be swayed by imperfect arguments. If you are complaining that the courts are bad at their jobs, then the solution is not to continue allowing an imperfect argument, but to reform the court.I fail to see why that is so hard to understand.
Just let go of the promiscuous women thing then, that was faulty in part and my response to a faulty justice system which prosecutes innocent men based on faulty arguments of the prosecution, and as such, I was advocating the use of bad argument by the defense to avoid the prosecution of innocent men.
The failure of all of you to have a view that's the slightest bit nuanced is shocking to me.
And to call me a misogynist is ridiculous NicolBolas. Have some respect.
|
On August 24 2012 04:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:15 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:13 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:
[quote]
The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess).
I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. What about just scrapping all rape laws. That way no innocent men will ever be convicted of rape. I guess I just care more about the freedom of innocents than you. How about some more slippery slopes. Maybe we kill everyone too. That's how you argue. On August 24 2012 04:13 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:
[quote]
The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess).
I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. Your position validates the raping of promiscuous women. No. Then how do you protect promiscuous women in a court of law, if the argument that "they are promiscuous, the defendant is innocent" is used? A court of law should be about finding the truth. It should not be swayed by imperfect arguments. If you are complaining that the courts are bad at their jobs, then the solution is not to continue allowing an imperfect argument, but to reform the court.I fail to see why that is so hard to understand. Just let go of the promiscuous women thing then, that was faulty in part and my response to a faulty justice system which prosecutes innocent men based on faulty arguments of the prosecution, and as such, I was advocating the use of bad argument by the defense to avoid the prosecution of innocent men. The failure of all of you to have a view that's the slightest bit nuanced is shocking to me. And to call me a misogynist is ridiculous NicolBolas. Have some respect.
Which faulty arguments is the prosecution using, though? They are not using arguments that are deliberately false. They are, at worst, allowing "he-said / she-said" to continue unabated. You are literally advocating lying in response to...what? To a hazy case?
|
On August 24 2012 04:22 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 24 2012 04:15 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:13 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:13 KwarK wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:
[quote]
The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess).
I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. What about just scrapping all rape laws. That way no innocent men will ever be convicted of rape. I guess I just care more about the freedom of innocents than you. How about some more slippery slopes. Maybe we kill everyone too. That's how you argue. On August 24 2012 04:13 JinDesu wrote:On August 24 2012 04:11 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:08 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:04 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 04:02 Byzantium wrote:On August 24 2012 04:01 Djzapz wrote:On August 24 2012 03:59 Byzantium wrote:
[quote]
The justice system has (tragically) some non-zero amount of Type 1 error: that is, false imprisonment. Due to this fact, we should increase the amount of Type 2 error: that is, wrongful acquittal by allowing an irrelevant argument to acquit people (in the hopes that it will decrease the type 1 error, I guess).
I'm not sure why this makes sense, and as far as I can tell seems to be your position. Meanwhile your position is "prosecute everything" and suddenly the non-zero false imprisonment goes up and that's fine with you. Makes a lot more sense. I'm sorry, I don't see myself taking a position at all here (please quote me where I stated one that would seem to suggest this if I did); I don't think that's anyone's position in fact. I'm not pretending my position is perfect. My position is what I consider to be the more moral compromise to make given our imperfect justice system which simply can't know everything. So your solution to imperfect knowledge is to introduce additional variance in the form of giving credence to a line of argument you yourself have said is irrelevant? That's only going to worsen the imperfect knowledge problem by inducing additional variance. You acknowledge that your position leads to more innocent people to go to jail? Then congrats, we agree to disagree. I personally care more about the freedom of innocents than the prosecution of the guilty. Your position validates the raping of promiscuous women. No. Then how do you protect promiscuous women in a court of law, if the argument that "they are promiscuous, the defendant is innocent" is used? A court of law should be about finding the truth. It should not be swayed by imperfect arguments. If you are complaining that the courts are bad at their jobs, then the solution is not to continue allowing an imperfect argument, but to reform the court.I fail to see why that is so hard to understand. Just let go of the promiscuous women then, that was faulty in part and my response to a faulty justice system which prosecutes innocent men based on faulty arguments of the prosecution, and as such, I was advocating the use of bad argument by the defense to avoid the prosecution of innocent men. The failure of all of you to have a view that's the slightest bit nuanced is shocking to me. And to call me a misogynist is ridiculous NicolBolas. Have some respect.
The fact that you judge us to condemn innocents, is more shocking.
None of us have stated that our view is to condemn innocents. Practically all of us are just pointing out that a justice system that allows imperfect arguments to work is wrong.
We want a better justice system. We are willing to find ways to improve it. Your solution, as argued in your initial posts (and now find faulty as well), does not help. Ergo - we're the bad ones.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
