+Start a topic
?Search __________________________________

-Log In
Shame on the Swiss
Log In to post a reply
118 messages
View: flat \ threaded

1745 posts

Re: General question for those supporting Polanski...

Squirrel M. Nutter wrote:
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
- He must go to jail

premise 1 is true
premise 2 is not always true and some would not accept such a strict premise
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.

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

Generally, I would recommend reading a person's posts before you reply. Some of the benefits include:
- responding to the points made.
- avoiding false assertions.
- knowing rather than assuming.
- learning.
- keeping the discussion movement in a forward motion.
- focusing on the specifics and subtleties of a person's argument rather than making general remarks against "the opposition".

Perhaps you could read what I have written before saying: "there is no reason not to bring him in" (dealt with at length. Please read the point about a "deductively valid argument" then compare it with your "very good reason" for bringing him in. I believe you will find that your reply was generally pointless as I know all that you said, agree with much of it but simply have the intellectual capacity to recognise opposing reasons - as I am sure you do too - and therefore could not say that "there is no reason not to bring him in"), "let's not be coy" (I am not, as my posts demonstrate) or "why else would he have fled?" (Again, dealt with at length and I certainly don't support him fleeing).

If you have anything useful to add, I would be genuinely interested in hearing it. Seriously.

Jul 20, 2010, 10:56


Topic Outline: