▲ 859 ▼ 20% of the worlds prison population (lemmy.ml) submitted 1 year ago by veganbtw@lemmy.ml to c/memes@lemmy.ml 97 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 year ago (3 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Had the original post simply pointed out that America's incarceration rate is horrible, I would have no disagreement with it, but instead it chose to make a direct comparison between present-day America and China during the Cultural Revolution. My primary disagreement with this comparison is not with that fact that present-day America has a higher reported incarceration rate than China during the Cultural Revolution, it is the fact that to an audience that may not study history, it helps craft the narrative that China during the 1960s was a much nicer place to live than present-day America because the incarceration rate was significantly lower. I thought it was worth mentioning that, regardless of why it happened, or if anyone was at fault, one of the largest famines in human history occurred in China immediately preceding this time period, which made it not a very nice place to live. There are things worse than incarceration, and most people, myself included, would choose life in a U.S. prison over starvation. Not that either choice is a good once. My secondary disagreement was with the implication that I don't know how basic statistics work. I suggested that a massive removal of poor-people from a population could have reduced the overall incarceration rate. You said that this was "nonsense". Not that there is insufficient data, or that it wouldn't be a very significant change. My burden of proof is not, probable, or possible, it is just above the level of nonsense. Or do you retract your previous statement that I made a nonsensical argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death. Nah, I don’t retract my statement Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse. I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago (2 children) Had the original post simply pointed out that America's incarceration rate is horrible, I would have no disagreement with it, but instead it chose to make a direct comparison between present-day America and China during the Cultural Revolution. My primary disagreement with this comparison is not with that fact that present-day America has a higher reported incarceration rate than China during the Cultural Revolution, it is the fact that to an audience that may not study history, it helps craft the narrative that China during the 1960s was a much nicer place to live than present-day America because the incarceration rate was significantly lower. I thought it was worth mentioning that, regardless of why it happened, or if anyone was at fault, one of the largest famines in human history occurred in China immediately preceding this time period, which made it not a very nice place to live. There are things worse than incarceration, and most people, myself included, would choose life in a U.S. prison over starvation. Not that either choice is a good once. My secondary disagreement was with the implication that I don't know how basic statistics work. I suggested that a massive removal of poor-people from a population could have reduced the overall incarceration rate. You said that this was "nonsense". Not that there is insufficient data, or that it wouldn't be a very significant change. My burden of proof is not, probable, or possible, it is just above the level of nonsense. Or do you retract your previous statement that I made a nonsensical argument? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death. Nah, I don’t retract my statement Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse. I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies) load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (2 children) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death. Nah, I don’t retract my statement Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse. I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[–] p3n@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 child) I think it’s rather chauvanistic to try to say it’s better to live imprisoned in a developed country than non-imprisoned in a developing country That's not what I said. I said it is better to live imprisoned in the U.S. than to starve to death. Nah, I don’t retract my statement Ok, well if you aren't even going to concede that a rational argument, as incorrect as it might be, isn't nonsense, then I don't think we will be able to have any meaningful discourse. I wish you well. Good luck with your Marxist endeavors. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent load more comments (-1 replies)
[+] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 point 1 year ago (1 child) [removed by mod] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] p3n@lemmy.world 1 point 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) A rational argument is an argument that follows some sort of logical thought process, it has nothing to do with whether the conclusion is correct or not. This is a rational argument: Premise 1: The Earth is a planet. Premise 2: The Earth is flat. Premise 3: All flat planets have edges. Conclusion: The Earth has edges. Premise 2 is false, and premise 3 is unknown, so the conclusion is false, but it follows a logical thought process and isn't nonsense. This is nonsense and irrational: Premise 1: Apples are round. Premise 2: Pyramids exist. Premise 3: Unicorns have horns. Conclusion: Aliens! There is no discernible logic or rational thought process. It is just apparently random statements with no connection. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/reason https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/nonsense https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_false_premises https://thelogicofscience.com/2017/03/27/the-fallacy-fallacy-reject-the-argument-not-the-conclusion/ Again, since we can't even agree on commonly accepted definitions for basic concepts, we just aren't going to be able to have any kind of productive conversation. Good day. permalink fedilink source parent