|
Ogmius815 posted:You also haven’t bothered to deal with the fact that not all communities will agree with your sense of who is a hero and who is a scumbag. That doesn’t seem to trouble you because for some weird you seem to assume the mob will always be on your side. That’s dumb and you’re dumb. remember... god, was it last summer? think it was last summer. there were five separate articles about how Alan Dershowitz felt sad he was being ostracized in Martha's Vineyard in a week. it is good that we have finally met the single person, anywhere on the planet, who 1. read those articles 2. thought "my god, what horrific new world is this, where people look down on a guy just for pedophilia and spending all his time advocating for monstrosity."
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:You also haven’t bothered to deal with the fact that not all communities will agree with your sense of who is a hero and who is a scumbag. That doesn’t seem to trouble you because for some weird you seem to assume the mob will always be on your side. That’s dumb and you’re dumb. Ok and? Does that mean I can't ever say anyone is a scumbag because someone else might say a gay person is a scumbag? The fact that someone might disagree with my moral judgments doesn't mean that we should abandon morality. Owlofcreamcheese posted:Do crimes as determined by what? You just telling us because you just know inherently? Before the trial? I recognize that someone else might think people who might be gay should go on trial for being gay, but the answer there is to convince people that it shouldn't be a crime to be gay, not that no one should ever go on trial for any crimes
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No I think that people who might have done a murderer should go on trial for murder. Should lawyers shun them because they were accused of murder? What crimes can someone be accused of that make them untouchable? Should we have little mini courts to know if they are guilty or not to know if lawyers need to shun them?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Should lawyers shun them because they were accused of murder? What crimes can someone be accused of that make them untouchable? Should we have little mini courts to know if they are guilty or not to know if lawyers need to shun them? i propose that we discuss these matters in public forums, such as this one, and come to the conclusion "lol jesus some people are REALLY attached to being able to buy their way out of the legal system, huh" all in favor? very good, motion carries, next item on our agenda Is It Fair That Some People Don't Agree With Me About What Constitutes A Good Person.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 16:59
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:Should lawyers shun them because they were accused of murder? What crimes can someone be accused of that make them untouchable? Should we have little mini courts to know if they are guilty or not to know if lawyers need to shun them? No of course not. Lawyers shouldn't be shunned for defending murderers; lawyers who participate and profit from a system of subverting justice for the benefit of the rich and powerful should be shunned for doing that. That is why Harvey Weinstein should have the same right to a vigorous public defender and the legal presumption of innocence as anyone else. I thought that I had made that clear. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:05 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:No of course not. You did. They are repeating bad arguments because they have no good ones. "we should do good things" "But what if bad and good things are the same. Can you imagine the damage it would do to the black community if Cosby could be turned away by law firms for being rich and gross." ad infinitum Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 17:09 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:05
|
|
|
Wait I think I realized why OOCC and I are talking past each other. I think that he thinks the only reason I want to shame Weinstein's lawyer is because I think Weinstein is guilty, but if I thought Weinstein were innocent then I would be okay with him taking advantage of our parallel justice system for the privileged rich to clear his name. Well I assure you OOCC, that is absolutely not the case! Even were Weinstein innocent, I still think he should get exactly the same trial as a poor person! I think that a system where innocent or guilty rich people use their money and connections to exonerate themselves, while innocent or guilty poor people are railroaded is extremely bad.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:16
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Ok and? My point is that “he defended someone I don’t approve of” is not a legitimate reason to declare that someone is a scumbag. You say it is. I ask you not to think that way because I say that such reasoning leads to pressure on lawyers to avoid socially suspect clients, which is bad because socially suspect clients are often not bad but merely disapproved of. I further say that even when clients are actually bad, I want them to be able to obtain good representation because due process isn’t just for nice people. You will reply again “but i only want to condemn the bad people, I would never condemn a lawyer for defending someone good!” Which will again miss the point that nonetheless your legitimation of this kind of reasoning is problematic because (and this is the part I think you might be having trouble with) there is no stone tablet anywhere spelling out your particular sense of morality and one person’s hero is another’s scumbag, so in order to prevent a social environment where lawyers do not want to take on socially undesirable clients, you will have to convince the community at large that your exact sense of morality is correct in a particular situation. That is a monumentally more difficult task than simply convincing them of a principle which is already a fundamental and widely acknowledge principle of legal ethics which is that a lawyer is not morally responsible for his clients and the positions he takes on their behalf. I know that is diffuse to accept because it makes it harder to be self righteous, and being self righteous is your raisin d’etre. I’m not sympathetic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:25
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:My point is that “he defended someone I don’t approve of” is not a legitimate reason to declare that someone is a scumbag. You say it is. I ask you not to think that way because I say that such reasoning leads to pressure on lawyers to avoid socially suspect clients, which is bad because socially suspect clients are often not bad but merely disapproved of. I further say that even when clients are actually bad, I want them to be able to obtain good representation because due process isn’t just for nice people. but Ogmius, if we start using social pressure to declare what are and are not legitimate reasons to consider someone a scumbag, then there's a risk that might be used against minorities in the future. the only way to avoid this is to avoid making any judgements, of any kind, on anyone, for any reason. for fear that the Mob might one day use its ability to judge things in a way that Ogmius does not approve of. i understand that this is diffuse to accept for your raisin detres. but we all must make sacrifices, and after years of you explaining why other people have to give poo poo up, it is now your turn to do so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:30
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:My point is that “he defended someone I don’t approve of” is not a legitimate reason to declare that someone is a scumbag. You say it is. No, not at all in fact! I say that "he is perpetuating and profiting from in a system in which justice is for sale for personal gain" is a legitimate reason to declare someone a scumbag. I think that a public defender who defended someone I don't approve of not for personal gain but because the proper functioning of a fair and just criminal justice system demands it is not a scumbag and is actually a very good person. Does that clear things up?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:33
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:a principle which is already a fundamental and widely acknowledge principle of legal ethics which is that a lawyer is not morally responsible for his clients and the positions he takes on their behalf. No it is not, lawyers can and do get sanctioned for taking frivolous positions on behalf of their clients, and can and do go to prison for unethical actions done on their clients' behalf. See Cohen, Michael. E: Also judges get exasperated with stupid shithead lawyers all the time and call them stupid shitheads on the record. The idea that not criticizing a lawyer is a fundamental principle of legal ethics is lolstupid. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:37
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait I think I realized why OOCC and I are talking past each other. It honestly seems like you wouldn't care either way if he is guilty or innocent and your end goal is to make a Calvin ball system that lets you claim righteousness by supporting any bad idea as long as it has any side effect of harming anyone you personally dislike. Regardless of whoever else it might hurt or if the other people it hurts are people you'd otherwise use as props to pretend it's them you are standing for.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:47
|
|
|
this thread is bizarre because the op and friends are clearly aware the present system is not the end-all-be-all best that can possibly be done. after all, a rich scumbag's scumbag lawyer suffered consequences for his actions, which they are extremely concerned by. but they are still morally opposed to any structures that might give rise to a change in that system. that their solution to a problem of a system functioning in a way they dislike is "we need to stop people from judging systems as functioning in a way we dislike" is just loving weird!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:51
|
|
|
Imagine a system where a defendant's guilt was predetermined by arbitrary community judgements like say, the market value of their labor or their melanin content. Such a system sound truly broken
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 17:57
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:It honestly seems like you wouldn't care either way if he is guilty or innocent and your end goal is to make a Calvin ball system that lets you claim righteousness by supporting any bad idea as long as it has any side effect of harming anyone you personally dislike. Regardless of whoever else it might hurt or if the other people it hurts are people you'd otherwise use as props to pretend it's them you are standing for. no, I care more about whether the legal system as a whole is just than I do about whether rich people are pampered enough. If the legal system is just, then there's no problem with Weinstein getting defended by a PD. If the system is unjust then I don't believe he should get to take advantage of a parallel justice system created special for rich people like him. If the argument is that treating Weinstein the same as any poor person accused of a crime is inherently unjust because poor people are treated unjustly by the system then I agree! But also, we've previously established that injustice in individual cases is okay if this results in the system as a whole becoming more just (the oft-cited example of excluding illegally obtained evidence even if the result is the unjust outcome of a rapist going free, because doing so is deters illegal searches in the future and therefore results in more just outcomes). So I am okay with treating rich people the same as poor people, even if that means an individual rich person gets treated unjustly (just like poor people are treated unjustly), because by aligning the interests of both rich and poor you create the will to reform the system and achieve more just outcomes for everyone. On the other hand, building a parallel special system for the rich so they no longer have an interest in a system that works for everyone entrenches injustice and makes the system more unjust. But it's becoming obvious that you don't care what I believe, you're more interested in projecting what you want me to believe onto me so you don't have to think about my argument.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 18:00
|
|
|
Ogmius815 posted:you will have to convince the community at large that your exact sense of morality is correct in a particular situation. That is a monumentally more difficult task than simply convincing them of a principle which is already a fundamental and widely acknowledge principle of legal ethics which is that a lawyer is not morally responsible for his clients and the positions he takes on their behalf. edit: Also we should be pushing the "gay people aren't bad" agenda anyways. If your response is "What if assholes weaponize parts of your moral systems?" the answer is "We should teach them not to be assholes" twodot fucked around with this message at 18:54 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 18:46
|
|
|
twodot posted:
This is also, incidentally, how we convinced people to support gay marriage. We didn't convince the diehard bigots who think gay marriage is equivalent to pedophilia and bestiality that they should be okay with all those things lest someone else call heterosexual marriage equivalent to pedophilia and ban straight marriage on those grounds. And thanks to their embrace of the ethical principle of "legalize everything" we got gay marriage. That didn't happen at all. We convinced the 60% of the population who were persuadable that gay marriage isn't equivalent to pedophilia and that we can legalize one and not the other. It worked very well! The diehard bigots still don't agree but they lost! In fact I'd go so far as to say that a campaign of "well if we ban child marriage we have to ban gay marriage and straight marriage to be fair, so let's all become okay with child marriage" would be a very bad campaign that would have failed horribly.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:if that means an individual rich person gets treated unjustly (just like poor people are treated unjustly), because by aligning the interests of both rich and poor you create the will to reform the system and achieve more just outcomes for everyone. This seems like the crux, it seems like your idea is accelerationism, where if we simply made the court system unjust enough for everyone that some process would then lead to a just system. What is supposed to happen to everyone in trials that are neither in abject poverty or obscene wealth? They just gotta be sacrificed?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:31
|
|
|
Again this weird belief that inequality should be perpetuated because the alternative is temporary problems for people who currently don't have many problems. Like why are you characterising universal services as bad because "they don't provide a safety net"? Do you have even the remotest experience with one? They're the biggest safety net there ever was... You're arguing literal nonsense by saying that the desire, and ability (because there is no reason why you should be able to provide decent service universally) to ensure everyone has access to good services is bad because it will somehow marginalize people who don't have much money in a way that relying on private services or woefully underfunded public options of last resort clearly doesn't? OwlFancier fucked around with this message at 19:43 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:33
|
|
|
Owlofcreamcheese posted:This seems like the crux, it seems like your idea is accelerationism, where if we simply made the court system unjust enough for everyone that some process would then lead to a just system. What is supposed to happen to everyone in trials that are neither in abject poverty or obscene wealth? They just gotta be sacrificed? What happens to the next victims of a murderer who was acquitted because illegally obtained evidence was excluded from from trial? They just gotta be sacrificed? I don't get your objection in general, I thought you and I already agreed that sometimes we have to be okay with individual unjust results if the consequence a more just system and therefore a net decrease in unjust results. So yeah if everyone using public defenders with short-term bad results ends up in adequate funding and staffing for public defenders and long-term better results for everyone that's good. But I also see your point, and I'm willing to concede that it's pretty obvious the justice the rich get isn't the same as the justice the middle class gets (the rich are paying for something after all), and the rich are the ones who hold all the political power in our plutocratic oligarchy, that shaming middle class peoples' lawyers isn't necessary and the same goal can be accomplished if we just shame the lawyers of the rich and powerful. If the result is rich and poor using public defenders, and the middle class using middle class lawyers, well all we need for political change is for the rich to want better public defenders. It's demonstrably irrelevant to politicians what the middle class wants so I'd rather get them on board with shaming the lawyers profiting from a parallel system of special justice-for-sale for the ultrarich.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:48
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Wait I think I realized why OOCC and I are talking past each other. The whole "justice system" model is broken in a lot of very fundamental ways. It's even beyond capitalism as you're discussing ; it's things like trying to shoehorn and cobble together a system of justice out of medieval or pre-historical concepts like "free will" or "just revenge" despite the fact that modern science is increasingly proving those notions to be about as valid as the geocentric model of the universe. Just from the DNA exonerations alone we know our error rate in convictions is about 10%; psychology is increasingly teaching us that punishment, i.e., "negative reinforcement," is largely useless and often counterproductive; neurological science is increasingly proving that human beings are creatures of hormones and genes and environments and that it makes about as much sense to talk about human "free will" as it does the "free will" of a dog or a plant. ("It chose to grow in bad soil!") That's all kindof of off topic though I guess. To bring it around, the larger point is that we probably shouldn't "judge" anybody for anything. Human beings are all much dumber and less competent than we think we are, even the best and smartest of us. The smartest human beings are just dogs who managed to open the doorknob with their paws but still poo poo on the floor half the time anyway. I mean I want to judge rich slimeball attorneys for profiting off the misery of others but end of the day they're just responding to stimuli like the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 19:51
|
|
|
ok well in that case people calling Sullivan a scumbag are just responding to stimuli too so what's the problem. But more seriously, yes Sullivan responds to stimuli, therefore we should apply stimuli to get him to act how we want. Also white people who say the n-word are responding to stimuli, therefore if we don't want them to say that we should use punishment when they do and reinforcement when they don't so their behavior changes and society improves.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:11
|
|
|
Yeah don't let determinism stop you from being angry, not least because if the world is deterministic, you can't!
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:14
|
|
|
If your whole shtick is "it should be impossible for a person to spend any money whatsoever to improve their legal defense" then the answer you're looking for is "abolish the free market". But frankly, that isn't going to happen any time soon so we have to work within the system that exists now. One avenue to do that would be to abolish private legal practice for criminal cases, which, even if it were possible, would have a whole bunch of negative consequences which you seem totally incapable of or unwilling to recognize. The other option is to try to shame lawyers who participate in private criminal defense (but only those whose clients you find disagreeable). When it is pointed out that normalizing the idea that lawyers should be shamed for choosing to represent unpopular clients would be extremely bad for the legal system, you flip back and forth between legal and ethical language to avoid dealing with the consequences of the policies you promote. "Of course a fair trial is important, it is deeply unfair that the state does not spend unlimited resources to ensure that indigent defendants have the best defense money can buy. What, you're saying that shaming dirt bags' lawyers erodes due process? Well, my opinions aren't a court of law, so due process has no relevance to using extralegal means to intimidate the lawyers of people I don't like." twodot posted:This is not a monumentally more difficult task because I have already demonstrated that your task is impossible. Behold! Weinstein's lawyers are dirtbags. You are plainly not able to convince people of your position or this thread wouldn't even exist. if you were able to convince people of this, I don't see how "also gay people aren't bad" isn't also achievable.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The whole point of societal ethics is to create a system of behavior that, when people follow it, produces acceptable outcomes even if the various parties don't agree on what "good" is. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" and all that. You and VitalSigns seem to think that there is no point in behaving ethically if other people don't, which defeats the whole idea of having ethics in the first place. edit: Also "acceptable outcomes", I've got bad news for you there is no alternate reality you can nope out to if you don't accept outcomes. Outcomes just loving happen, your only choice is sort them into good and bad and react accordingly. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:24 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:19
|
|
|
You've missed the whole point. Before doing or suggesting something, you should stop and think, "if everyone acted in this way, would I find the outcome acceptable?" So the calculus is "if everyone tried to pressure lawyers into avoiding clients they disapproved of, how would that go?" not "If everyone shamed the lawyers I think are Bad, then that would obviously be Good, because my opinions on right and wrong are objectively correct and ought to be universal." E: It would explain a lot if you see ordered societies as just an inexplicable and incomprehensible series of phenomena that you can only react to emotionally as they affect you. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:26
|
|
|
But that's purely an artifact of phrasing, though? Like if everyone pursued all available methods of political activism against inequality, we would end inequality overnight. Wow magic now it's actually great! The point is people don't magically act universally overnight... It is in fact possible to advocate for particular political activities in pursuit of particular goals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:30
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You've missed the whole point. Before doing or suggesting something, you should stop and think, "if everyone acted in this way, would I find the outcome acceptable?" So the calculus is "if everyone tried to pressure lawyers into avoiding clients they disapproved of, how would that go?" not "If everyone shamed the lawyers I think are Bad, then that would obviously be Good, because my opinions on right and wrong are objectively correct and ought to be universal."
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:But that's purely an artifact of phrasing, though? You can't just handwave the fact that people are going to disagree about what constitutes "equality" or whether some level of inequality is acceptable/good. The whole point is that you have to recognize that "OK, people are going to have disagreements about what is good, but by what set of rules can we live together as a free society in spite of that?" instead of saying "gently caress rules, I'm going to do what I think is good, because if everyone agreed with me about what is good, then they would do good things too  "
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:42
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't just handwave the fact that people are going to disagree about what constitutes "equality" or whether some level of inequality is acceptable/good. The whole point is that you have to recognize that "OK, people are going to have disagreements about what is good, but by what set of rules can we live together as a free society in spite of that?" instead of saying "gently caress rules, I'm going to do what I think is good, because if everyone agreed with me about what is good, then they would do good things too That's literally an argument for never changing anything because if you try to change anything and everyone else tried to change things then the change might be worse...
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:44
|
|
|
Hmm yes, maybe inequality is good. Persuasive argument, well thought out
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 20:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If your whole shtick is "it should be impossible for a person to spend any money whatsoever to improve their legal defense" then the answer you're looking for is "abolish the free market". I disagree. If we assume that justice isn't for sale, and the only thing you're buying with money is a better quality of argument and more and better pretrial preparation then obviously you're going to hit a point of diminishing returns. A billion dollar defense is not going to be a thousand times better than a million dollar defense. So you could create a situation where it is impossible for anyone to meaningfully improve their criminal defense by spending money if the government just paid for the maximum effective defense for everyone in every trial. If everyone gets a million dollar defense, it might be possible to spend more wastefully, but it would be impossible to spend more to get a better defense. Now you might object that we can't afford to spend a million dollars every time we want to lock someone up, but I say yes we can. The US prison population is 2 million people, at a million dollars each that's 2 trillion dollars (well the conviction rate is only 85% so counting the people that get acquitted it's about 2.3 trillion dollars). Comfortably less than we spent on much worse endeavors like the Iraq War. If you don't want to spend 2 trillion dollars to lock up 2 million people, then my response to that is "we lock up fewer people" and not "we should deny non-millionaires an effective defense so it's cheaper to lock them up because we'd rather spend money on wars than fair trials". On the other hand, if justice is for sale, and there is no upper bound to the amount of money that can buy the verdict you want, then yeah that should be banned. Dead Reckoning posted:The whole point of societal ethics is to create a system of behavior that, when people follow it, produces acceptable outcomes even if the various parties don't agree on what "good" is. "Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law" and all that. You and VitalSigns seem to think that there is no point in behaving ethically if other people don't, which defeats the whole idea of having ethics in the first place. But this is only a problem if you phrase every maxim in a stupid way. I think murderers should go to prison and I think this maxim should be universal and everyone should want to imprison murderers. And since murder is something I don't like, this maxim could be rephrased as "VitalSigns thinks people who do something he doesn't like should go to prison", but oh no if we universalize this maxim then other people will dislike things other than murder and now everyone is getting locked up for anything! But that is not an argument against imprisoning murderers, that's an argument against equivocating murder with "things VitalSigns doesn't like". Here's another one: I think people who call black people the n-word to denigrate them should be shunned from polite society. You can universalize this: nobody should call black people the n-word to denigrate them and those who do should be shunned from polite society. Works fine. You could rephrase that as "VitalSigns think people who say something he doesn't like should be shunned from polite society", and now we have a problem because other people might dislike someone saying "gay is okay" oh no! But again, that is not an argument that n-word should be acceptable, it's an argument against equivocating "saying a specific bad thing" and "saying something VitalSigns doesn't like". A universal maxim that no one use the n-word as an insult works fine and is good, a universal maxim that no one say it's okay to be gay would be bad. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:03
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:You can't just handwave the fact that people are going to disagree about what constitutes "equality" or whether some level of inequality is acceptable/good. The whole point is that you have to recognize that "OK, people are going to have disagreements about what is good, but by what set of rules can we live together as a free society in spite of that?" instead of saying "gently caress rules, I'm going to do what I think is good, because if everyone agreed with me about what is good, then they would do good things too This makes no sense, if people can't agree on what is good, then they obviously aren't going to agree that a free society is good either. Everyone agreeing to a set of rules in order to create a specific society they think is good is literally everyone agreeing about what is good.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:13
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:That's literally an argument for never changing anything because if you try to change anything and everyone else tried to change things then the change might be worse... Unoriginal Name posted:Hmm yes, maybe inequality is good. Persuasive argument, well thought out
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:15
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It is not. It is an argument that, if you want to make changes to improve an ordered system with multiple stakeholders, you have to use universal rules, rather than saying "everyone should just do what I think is best." ...why??? Like, do you think society operates on universal rules?? Because I think most of us are contending that it absolutely doesn't.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:18
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:...why??? Maybe asking a different question would help clarify. Why should people make the changes you want to make?
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:28
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It is not. It is an argument that, if you want to make changes to improve an ordered system with multiple stakeholders, you have to use universal rules, rather than saying "everyone should just do what I think is best." There aren't any universal rules, you're just saying everyone should follow the rules you think are best.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:29
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Maybe asking a different question would help clarify. Why should people make the changes you want to make? Beeecaaauuse the current system is bad and creates a tiered society where the wealthy can do crimes with impunity and the poor can be prosecuted and convicted wrongfully, and a big part of that difference is money, money allowing you to effectively buy immunity from the law. E: and to clarify that's bad, and if you don't think that's bad then I think everyone should poo poo on you until you either change your mind or gently caress off.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:Yeah don't let determinism stop you from being angry, not least because if the world is deterministic, you can't! VitalSigns posted:ok well in that case people calling Sullivan a scumbag are just responding to stimuli too so what's the problem. If we're actually planning on doing condition / response training on people, then the modern method isn't to use negative reinforcement at all ; it leads to evasive and unpredictable behaviors. You use positive reinforcement on the behaviors you want to encourage and very carefully do not reinforce or respond to negative behaviors in any way. There's a really good article introducing the basic approach here: https://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/25/fashion/what-shamu-taught-me-about-a-happy-marriage.html Anyway I realize I'm kinda diving into a long-running thread -- bookmarked browsing so I just saw this today! Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 21:42 on Jun 12, 2019 |
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 00:50 |
|
|
The massive contradiction at the heart of this discussion is that some people want to maintain the belief that the accused in our system receive a fair and just hearing, while at the same time preserve the ability to spend more money to get a better outcome. These are fundamentally incompatible goals.
|
|
#
?
Jun 12, 2019 21:41
|
|