Forum
#Topics
+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
-Register
Shame on the Swiss
Log In to post a reply
Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 17 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ]

View: flat \ threaded
________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

hito
hito
1745 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

Cheeso wrote:
hito wrote:


1. I don't know if any deductively valid argument can be made for Polanski going to jail.

He's a convicted felon. He fled justice. Felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment.

No one can or has made a deductively valid argument to refute those facts.


if you included the rest of my post "nobody will make a watertight case unless everyone becomes absolutists when it comes to jailing criminals". You and many people obviously are an absolutist when it comes to jail.
As I said earlier, for many people there are four things to consider: reform, retribution, restraint and deterrent. Read the earlier posts for the discussion about this.

So, if you ignore those four principles and are an absolutist then for your argument to be deductively valid it would have to be:
- He's a convicted felon
- All felons must go to jail
therefore
- He must go to jail

premise 1 is true
premise 2 is not always true and some would not accept such a strict premise
therefore
the conclusion is not deductively valid

Jul 18, 2010, 01:44


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Squirrel M. Nutter
890 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

hito wrote:
Cheeso wrote:
hito wrote:


1. I don't know if any deductively valid argument can be made for Polanski going to jail.

He's a convicted felon. He fled justice. Felony is a crime punishable by imprisonment.

No one can or has made a deductively valid argument to refute those facts.


if you included the rest of my post "nobody will make a watertight case unless everyone becomes absolutists when it comes to jailing criminals". You and many people obviously are an absolutist when it comes to jail.
As I said earlier, for many people there are four things to consider: reform, retribution, restraint and deterrent. Read the earlier posts for the discussion about this.

So, if you ignore those four principles and are an absolutist then for your argument to be deductively valid it would have to be:
- He's a convicted felon
- All felons must go to jail
therefore
- He must go to jail

premise 1 is true
premise 2 is not always true and some would not accept such a strict premise
therefore
the conclusion is not deductively valid


There is an outstanding US warrant and an outstanding international warrant for his arrest. The charges were not dropped, conviction not overturned, warrants still outstanding. Unless those change, there is no reason not to bring him in.

Jul 18, 2010, 02:07


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Squirrel M. Nutter
890 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

And let's not be coy. He knew he was going to jail, why else would he have fled?

Jul 18, 2010, 02:36


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

JS
JS
489 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

Cheeso wrote:

For a person who stopped posting to this thread, you sure post a lot here! But thats good, keep the dialect going.

And talk about "dishonest dialectic dishonesty," JS entered this thread for no reason other than to be a troll and attack me. His first post did not address the topic at all. He only talked about the subject matter after I called him out for being a troll.

And even then, he ignored the facts and twisted things around to make it look like I attacked him (as I predicted he would).

Look at his post that you quoted, he says, "You say in the title 'General question for those supporting Polanski...This is dishonest, and a flaw of logic. You stupidly assume..." Except, that was Vivakomeda's subject heading, I just responded to it. JS is not interested in discussing this topic, that's why he has not made any reasonable arguments in this thread at all. He is so bizarrely obsessed with me and attacking me, that he doesn't even pay attention to who is posting what.

Side with JS all you want, but its obvious to everyone that he is nothing but a troll.

As for Polanski, he is a convicted felon who fled justice. No one has presented a legal argument for why he should not face justice.



JS this, JS that, you recently said you were done with me, you also said you weren't obsessed by me.

I said you couldn't keep ignoring me for very long. I was right again. Poor Cheeso. I maintan that what's best for you is to really ignore me. This mad obsession you have for me is not sane.

Jul 18, 2010, 20:43


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

JS Stop trolling

I was ignoring you, you came into my thread, you fucking idiot.

Jul 18, 2010, 21:31


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

JS
JS
489 posts

Re: JS Stop trolling

Cheeso wrote:
I was ignoring you, you came into my thread, you fucking idiot.


What a pathetic excuse.

Why can't you ignore me in your threads? Are you that weak? You can't resist me? I have this much power over you?

It's time to grow-up, Cheeso.

Ignoring me may not be enough. You should stop reading everything I write. Stop it before it's too late, your mental health is at stake.

Jul 19, 2010, 01:29


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

s_lush_s
s_lush_s
7383 posts

Re: Second general question...

no. It's ridiculous. In Switzerland where every household owns a gun. well unlike Switzerland, contrary to popular to belief, we don't own as many guns here per capita. I recently found out my ancestors were Swiss. on ancestry.com. we thought we were French.

Jul 19, 2010, 03:10


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

s_lush_s
s_lush_s
7383 posts

Re: Second general question...

Completely ridiculous. I would harm anyone who violated my child like, that. Ron Howard, the Fonz, Kubrick. I would beat him to death with my hands and weapons if he raped one of my daughters. then I'd leave him still alive a little, then I'd set him on fire and make her watch. That's what I do to anyone who touches me or my family.

Jul 19, 2010, 03:14


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

s_lush_s
s_lush_s
7383 posts

Re: Second general question...

Then I watch Tom Cruise movie...you know where this is going.

Jul 19, 2010, 03:18


________________\________________________________________________\______________________________________

Cheeso
Cheeso
642 posts

Don't ignore me, js

its obvious to everyone that its impossible for you to ignore me.

Jul 19, 2010, 04:03

Pages: 12 – [ Previous | 17 8 9 10 11 12 | Next ]

add a reply to this topic
________________________________________________________________\______________________________________
stereolab table Index