britain 2012: twitter crime officially more serious than physical violence.....

Original post by Tommyjw

In order for me to have committed that fallacy i have had to suggest something like.. that we shouldnt even try to improve the system because it will never be perfect. That would then be a fallacy. But like i have stated, i havent said anything about improving it or keeping it as it is. You suggested that i implied we shouldnt improve it but i did not. Of course we should try to improve the system in any way (even if simply saying 'we should improve it is a vast over simplification of what or how it can be done).

But you did imply it. I asked you if there was something wrong with our justice system when thieves can go unpunished whilst people who make a few nasty comments are jailed?. You didn't give an answer that question but responded with a comment that was fairly supportive of our current system. It's reasonable, I think, to assume from that that you're perfectly happy with the way things are, otherwise you have taken the opportunity to voice your discontent.

Can you not see how much of a logical fail this thread is?

Could i make a thread and say :

' Men get 20 years in jail for beating a man to death in his car'

and

'Guy gets 56 days in jail for offensive racist comments on a social network site'

See, this proves how fair our whole justice system is, killers get more than racist comments! :smile:

___________________

Can i say that? No? Then what makes it any better to cherry pick in the oppsite direction?

Of course not. I don't agree with the OP's sentiment and he has obviously sensationalised quite a serious issue in order to get replies. But there is something fundamentally wrong with a system which jails people because of a few comments on Twitter but lets thieves and fraudsters like Jacqui Smith walk free.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 23

OP

Original post by dgeorge

Funny how you somehow managed to turn this into a race issue. Shows your true colours.

People of all colours, ethnicities and backgrounds have been unfairly treated by the justice system. You simply chose to choose the few that support your agenda.

the race aspect is just indicative of the broader orwellian direction of the country.

take the race aspect away and what you have is essentially 'thought crime' being punished more severely than actual physical violence.

Reply 24

OP

Original post by Tommyjw

In order for me to have committed that fallacy i have had to suggest something like.. that we shouldnt even try to improve the system because it will never be perfect. That would then be a fallacy. But like i have stated, i havent said anything about improving it or keeping it as it is. You suggested that i implied we shouldnt improve it but i did not. Of course we should try to improve the system in any way (even if simply saying 'we should improve it is a vast over simplification of what or how it can be done).

Can you not see how much of a logical fail this thread is?

Could i make a thread and say :

' Men get 20 years in jail for beating a man to death in his car'

and

'Guy gets 56 days in jail for offensive racist comments on a social network site'

See, this proves how fair our whole justice system is, killers get more than racist comments! :smile:

___________________

Can i say that? No? Then what makes it any better to cherry pick in the oppsite direction?

what would be the point of you saying that? its normal to get 20 years for crime A.

although 20 years for such an act is too low, it is still vastly more proportionate than jailing twitterers but not violent thugs.

Reply 25

Original post by electriic_ink

It's reasonable, I think, to assume from that that you're perfectly happy with the way things are, otherwise you have taken the opportunity to voice your discontent.

Happy with the way things are =/= not believing it can improve.

Reply 26

Original post by roadlesstravelled

what would be the point of you saying that? its normal to get 20 years for crime A.
.

Its equally as pointless as your post :fyi:

. Using two examples to conclude a point whilst ignoring everything else. Just like my example did.

Reply 27

dgeorge

12

Original post by roadlesstravelled

the race aspect is just indicative of the broader orwellian direction of the country.

take the race aspect away and what you have is essentially 'thought crime' being punished more severely than actual physical violence.

Verbal abuse isn't a "thought crime" - but an actual one. Has been for a long time, and has perpetrators and victims of every colour and ethnicity. Again, you're cherry picking to suit your own agenda.

Reply 28

Original post by Tommyjw

Happy with the way things are =/= not believing it can improve.

So, to clear things up, do you think that our justice system with such discrepancies that have already been described is good enough?

Reply 29

Original post by electriic_ink

So, to clear things up, do you think that our justice system with such discrepancies that have already been described is good enough?

Good enough compared to what?

Given good enough is an objective point that comares to other examples, then yes. Its good enough because it does a lot better than a lot of the rest of the world.

Whether it is 'good enough' compared to some imaginary perfect or close-to-perfect legal system that doesnt exist is up whoever wants to think like thats mind.

Reply 30

Original post by Tommyjw

Given good enough is an objective point that comares to other examples

Lolwut? I'll make things easier for you then:

Is it good enough compared to the standard that you can reasonably expect a justice system to achieve?

Reply 31

Original post by electriic_ink

Lolwut? I'll make things easier for you then:

Is it good enough compared to the standard that you can reasonably expect a justice system to achieve?

/yawn.

Very simple English, shouldnt be hard to understand. I actually directly answered your question yet you asked it again?

Reply 32

prog2djent

Tyranny of apathy at its finest.

Reply 33

Original post by Tommyjw

I actually directly answered your question

I wish. Unfortunately, the words "yes" and "no" don't seem to be in your vocabulary.

Reply 34

Original post by electriic_ink

I wish. Unfortunately, the words "yes" and "no" don't seem to be in your vocabulary.

Funny, given my post actually literally said the word yes... ..... ....

Reply 35

OP

Original post by Tommyjw

Its equally as pointless as your post :fyi:

. Using two examples to conclude a point whilst ignoring everything else. Just like my example did.

you didn't have point. if something is faulty then you focus on the faulty aspect. you don't ignore it by focusing on the areas which work.

the british justice system is not 100% broken. but, incidents like the ones i brought up in the OP suggest that it has major problems with rationality and proportionality -- to say the least.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 36

Original post by roadlesstravelled

you didn't have point. if something is faulty then you focus on the faulty aspect. you don't ignore it by focusing on the areas which work.

Faulty defines something is working badly. When a system, for the vast majority, is not working badly, it is not faulty.

If you have a laptop and every 1000th time you turn it on, it goes to a blue and goes off (but it still works the next time). Is it faulty? nope.

Reply 37

OP

Original post by dgeorge

Verbal abuse isn't a "thought crime" - but an actual one. Has been for a long time, and has perpetrators and victims of every colour and ethnicity. Again, you're cherry picking to suit your own agenda.

if verbal abuse is a crime then why is there no one sitting in jail for calling someone a ginger bastard? or a fat slag? or a ugly prick?

i hear these sort of things constantly in debate forums and on twitter.

thought crime is just another way of describing crimes which offend the political orthodoxy of the state -- of course, it has to be expressed somehow. either through language or speech.

Reply 38

Original post by Tommyjw

Funny, given my post actually literally said the word yes... ..... ....

Lol, I wasn't seriously suggesting that they weren't part of your vocabulary, more that you can't give a straight answer. When asked is the justice system good enough, you reply: it's better than most but it's not as good as a hypothetical perfect system.

Given your familiarity with logical fallacies, surely you can see that "X is good enough because it's the best of its type" is a stupid thing to say.

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 39