california-launches-new-effort-to-fight-election-disinformation (Santa Monica: lawyers, school, live)

[2sleepy]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

So the two of you honestly believe that releasing criminals from prison does not increase crime in the free world? Do you two also believe that releasing sharks into a swimming pool does not increase a swimmer's chance of getting attacked by a shark?

Odd question since I never said anything like that. Let me refresh your memory.

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

...And yes, keeping people in prison does prevent them from committing crimes - until they get out that is. But the downside is the cost, 75k per head per year, and the fact that many people commit more serious crimes after they have been in prison (it's a great place to learn how to commit crimes) and many inmates became affiliated with a gang in prison that they can't drop out of when they are paroled. That's not an argument against sending people to prison, but rather being selective about who we send to prison and making sure they are going to prison because they are a danger to the public, not because we're Pi$$ed off at them.

Maybe I needed to bold it the first time I posted it?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

So the two of you honestly believe that releasing criminals from prison does not increase crime in the free world? Do you two also believe that releasing sharks into a swimming pool does not increase a swimmer's chance of getting attacked by a shark?

Originally Posted by 2sleepy

Odd question since I never said anything like that. Let me refresh your memory.



Maybe I needed to bold it the first time I posted it?

Right. I was the one who challenged your (Exitus’) argument that “inductive logic says ...” etc. letting criminals out of prison .... your statement here:

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

... it's simply a matter of logical induction to assume that, when you let criminals out of prison, crime is going to increase since the whole point of putting criminals in prison is to prevent them from committing crimes since their criminal behavior indicates that they have a proclivity to commit crime.

And I was correct in my challenge ... because what I challenged wasn’t that there is no recidivism ... but that your statement does not provide a proper foundational set of premises for a logical deduction. And I then went on to point out that you would have to be more specific, rather than generic.

Your declaration as you wrote it presented an absolute set, when the deduction calls for multiple sets to be considered. Facts are, some crimes / criminals have high rates of recidivism ... others have rates of nearly zero. Thus it depends on what subset of criminals being released results in more crime or no increase.

Property crime felons have high recidivism rates (roughly 75% or so within 5 years).

Interestingly, murder, not so much:

Mullane said she was able to determine that 988 convicted murderers were released from prisons in California over a 20 year period. Out of those 988, she said 1 percent were arrested for new crimes, and 10 percent were arrested for violating parole. She found none of the 988 were rearrested for murder, and none went back to prison over the 20 year period she examined.

But my reason for challenging you wasn’t simply to be pedantic. You are supposedly educated. Yet you seem intellectually lazy on many issues. You over simplify the homeless, and criminals, for example. 75% of homeless resolve their homelessness within a year ... average time on the streets: 2 months or less.

Yet, you refer to homeless generically as “bums” and dangerous criminal psychos who should be taken out to sea and abandoned or given “Pinochet helicopter rides”.

Here, in this thread, you have gone off on a tangent to attack Prop 47 by making numerous false assertions, as well.

I consider it my calling to call you out. If I thought you were simply short brain cells, like a number of regular posters to these threads, I wouldn’t hardly bother commenting, as I mostly don’t with the obvious dullards.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a brain that you just don’t bother to exercise.

[Tulemutt]

Meanwhile, back at the ranch ... we were discussing California taking the lead in battling election disinformation?

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Right. I was the one who challenged your (Exitus’) argument that “inductive logic says ...” etc. letting criminals out of prison .... your statement here:
And I was correct in my challenge ... because what I challenged wasn’t that there is no recidivism ... but that your statement does not provide a proper foundational set of premises for a logical deduction. And I then went on to point out that you would have to be more specific, rather than generic.

Your declaration as you wrote it presented an absolute set, when the deduction calls for multiple sets to be considered. Facts are, some crimes / criminals have high rates of recidivism ... others have rates of nearly zero. Thus it depends on what subset of criminals being released results in more crime or no increase.

Property crime felons have high recidivism rates (roughly 75% or so within 5 years).

Interestingly, murder, not so much:


But my reason for challenging you wasn’t simply to be pedantic. You are supposedly educated. Yet you seem intellectually lazy on many issues. You over simplify the homeless, and criminals, for example. 75% of homeless resolve their homelessness within a year ... average time on the streets: 2 months or less.

Yet, you refer to homeless generically as “bums” and dangerous criminal psychos who should be taken out to sea and abandoned or given “Pinochet helicopter rides”.

Here, in this thread, you have gone off on a tangent to attack Prop 47 by making numerous false assertions, as well.

I consider it my calling to call you out. If I thought you were simply short brain cells, like a number of regular posters to these threads, I wouldn’t hardly bother commenting, as I mostly don’t with the obvious dullards.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a brain that you just don’t bother to exercise.

-You are supposedly educated.
-Yet you seem intellectually lazy on many issues.
-You, on the other hand, seem to have a brain that you just don’t bother to exercise

Here we go again. Ad hominems pop out. Ad hominems display weakness.

And this:

And I was correct in my challenge ... because what I challenged wasn’t that there is no recidivism ... but that your statement does not provide a proper foundational set of premises for a logical deduction.

Whaaat in the heck are you even trying to say?

Do you understand statistics?

Your declaration as you wrote it presented an absolute set, when the deduction calls for multiple sets to be considered. Facts are, some crimes / criminals have high rates of recidivism ... others have rates of nearly zero. Thus it depends on what subset of criminals being released results in more crime or no increase.

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

Right. I was the one who challenged your (Exitus’) argument that “inductive logic says ...” etc. letting criminals out of prison .... your statement here:
And I was correct in my challenge ... because what I challenged wasn’t that there is no recidivism ... but that your statement does not provide a proper foundational set of premises for a logical deduction. And I then went on to point out that you would have to be more specific, rather than generic.

Your declaration as you wrote it presented an absolute set, when the deduction calls for multiple sets to be considered. Facts are, some crimes / criminals have high rates of recidivism ... others have rates of nearly zero. Thus it depends on what subset of criminals being released results in more crime or no increase.

Property crime felons have high recidivism rates (roughly 75% or so within 5 years).

Interestingly, murder, not so much:


But my reason for challenging you wasn’t simply to be pedantic. You are supposedly educated. Yet you seem intellectually lazy on many issues. You over simplify the homeless, and criminals, for example. 75% of homeless resolve their homelessness within a year ... average time on the streets: 2 months or less.

Yet, you refer to homeless generically as “bums” and dangerous criminal psychos who should be taken out to sea and abandoned or given “Pinochet helicopter rides”.

Here, in this thread, you have gone off on a tangent to attack Prop 47 by making numerous false assertions, as well.

I consider it my calling to call you out. If I thought you were simply short brain cells, like a number of regular posters to these threads, I wouldn’t hardly bother commenting, as I mostly don’t with the obvious dullards.

You, on the other hand, seem to have a brain that you just don’t bother to exercise.

I'm tired and I don't feel like reading all that -- could you trim it down?

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

-You are supposedly educated.
-Yet you seem intellectually lazy on many issues.
-You, on the other hand, seem to have a brain that you just don’t bother to exercise

Here we go again. Ad hominems pop out. Ad hominems display weakness.

And this:

And I was correct in my challenge ... because what I challenged wasn’t that there is no recidivism ... but that your statement does not provide a proper foundational set of premises for a logical deduction.

Whaaat in the heck are you even trying to say?

Do you understand statistics?

Your declaration as you wrote it presented an absolute set, when the deduction calls for multiple sets to be considered. Facts are, some crimes / criminals have high rates of recidivism ... others have rates of nearly zero. Thus it depends on what subset of criminals being released results in more crime or no increase.

Yeah, what LuvSouthOC said.

Tulemutt can't have a rational discussion without turning into a cranky cyber-bully, so I should probably take my own advice and stop enabling his crude behavior.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

I'm tired and I don't feel like reading all that -- could you trim it down?

No. You need the exercise.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

Yeah, what LuvSouthOC said.

Tulemutt can't have a rational discussion without turning into a cranky cyber-bully, so I should probably take my own advice and stop enabling his crude behavior.

This is hilarious. The guy who lumps all homeless people together and proposes that they should be drowned at sea or shoved out of an helicopter ... calls me a cyberbully for pointing out his inability to frame his arguments logically.

That is frickin rich ...

[Exitus Acta Probat]

Originally Posted by Tulemutt

This is hilarious. The guy who lumps all homeless people together and proposes that they should be drowned at sea or shoved out of an helicopter ... calls me a cyberbully for pointing out his inability to frame his arguments logically.

That is frickin rich ...

I never said that homeless people should be drowned or shoved out of an helicopter. Furthermore, which arguments have I not framed logically, in your opinion?

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

-You are supposedly educated.
-Yet you seem intellectually lazy on many issues.
-You, on the other hand, seem to have a brain that you just don’t bother to exercise

Here we go again. Ad hominems pop out. Ad hominems display weakness.

And this:

And I was correct in my challenge ... because what I challenged wasn’t that there is no recidivism ... but that your statement does not provide a proper foundational set of premises for a logical deduction.

Whaaat in the heck are you even trying to say?

Do you understand statistics?

Your declaration as you wrote it presented an absolute set, when the deduction calls for multiple sets to be considered. Facts are, some crimes / criminals have high rates of recidivism ... others have rates of nearly zero. Thus it depends on what subset of criminals being released results in more crime or no increase.

Ad hominems do not necessarily display weakness. Another foolish fallacy. Ad hominems can be correct and can be applied to even the strongest position, simply displaying disdain. Do you ever think before you blurt these things out?

Furthermore, what you label ‘ad hominems’ from me are frequently not. Sometimes they are direct rebuttal to claims of validation. Sometimes they are instructive, even.

Now, read Exitus’ original claim again ... and tell me how many errors of premises there are in this one sentence:

Originally Posted by Exitus Acta Probat

it's simply a matter of logical induction to assume that, when you let criminals out of prison, crime is going to increase since the whole point of putting criminals in prison is to prevent them from committing crimes since their criminal behavior indicates that they have a proclivity to commit crime.

Hint: Each of the three premises are faulty.

Exitus has reported he is college educated.
Exitus has framed his statements as logical premises.
Each of the three parts of his statement fails to meet the standard of truth required to be used as an agreed premise.

The possibility of lazy intellect rears its head.

ALL of those three statement parts require specificity to be true ... no such specificity has been supplied ... which renders statistics useless.