TLHLIM

acesfull86 said:
Maybe Grok can help

Prompt: Person A says- "Black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by police."

Person B responds - "Oh, so you think black people don't value their safety and security."

Is this a logical fallacy?

Grok: Yes, Person B's response is a logical fallacy, specifically a **strawman fallacy**. Person A expresses a concern about racial profiling by police, which implies a desire for fair treatment and freedom from discriminatory practices. Person B misrepresents this by suggesting that Person A is implying black people don't care about safety and security, which is not what Person A said or implied. By distorting Person A's argument into a weaker or unrelated claim, Person B creates a "strawman" to attack, rather than addressing the actual issue of racial profiling.
Click to expand...

Sure, when you enter in a portion of the argument you'll get the results that you wanted.

But that is not the entirety of what happened and you know it but are using a quasi strawman to stray away from that fact.
 
acesfull86 said:
Sure thing
Click to expand...

You can pretend otherwise but it wasn't ONE COMMENT

It was two and you implied they were internally inconsistent which further implies thinking that virtue signaling is more important than safe streets. But hey - You continue entering partial arguments to get the computer to give you what you want to hear.
 
acesfull86 said:
Maybe Grok can help

Prompt: Person A says- "Black people do not want to be subjected to racial profiling by police."

Person B responds - "Oh, so you think black people don't value their safety and security."

Is this a logical fallacy?

Grok: Yes, Person B's response is a logical fallacy, specifically a **strawman fallacy**. Person A expresses a concern about racial profiling by police, which implies a desire for fair treatment and freedom from discriminatory practices. Person B misrepresents this by suggesting that Person A is implying black people don't care about safety and security, which is not what Person A said or implied. By distorting Person A's argument into a weaker or unrelated claim, Person B creates a "strawman" to attack, rather than addressing the actual issue of racial profiling.
Click to expand...
👏
 
So you agree this person should have been expelled from society for life?

And fewer than 45 is a big range. Give me an actual number. When should we stop giving them chances?
 
sturg33 said:
So you agree this person should have been expelled from society for life?

And fewer than 45 is a big range. Give me an actual number. When should we stop giving them chances?
Click to expand...
Yeah, he doesn’t seem like society’s best. But I find this game particularly exhausting because I don’t know what the number is. Once that number is comparable to the number of US Presidents we’ve taken a wrong turn, but if it’s all petty theft or something like that, I also wouldn’t say it’s 3.

In terms of sentencing guidelines for habitual offenders, I would certainly question how someone can even be charged with a crime 45 times without that minimum sentence going up to a point where he isn’t already in prison, even if it were less serious offenses. I’d think a system wherein the minimum sentence scales up based on number of offenses is where I’d look. So while it wouldn’t be an “X strikes and you’re out” policy, each progressive offense having a mandatory kicker that adds additional years to your sentence might be a solution?

I’m also pretty pro-longer sentences for violent crimes like aggravated assault or armed anything.
 
mqt said:
Yeah, he doesn’t seem like society’s best. But I find this game particularly exhausting because I don’t know what the number is. Once that number is comparable to the number of US Presidents we’ve taken a wrong turn, but if it’s all petty theft or something like that, I also wouldn’t say it’s 3.

In terms of sentencing guidelines for habitual offenders, I would certainly question how someone can even be charged with a crime 45 times without that minimum sentence going up to a point where he isn’t already in prison, even if it were less serious offenses. I’d think a system wherein the minimum sentence scales up based on number of offenses is where I’d look. So while it wouldn’t be an “X strikes and you’re out” policy, each progressive offense having a mandatory kicker that adds additional years to your sentence might be a solution?

I’m also pretty pro-longer sentences for violent crimes like aggravated assault or armed anything.
Click to expand...
Just give me an answer. I understand you want to bring nuance into this. I don't

Ive been arrested zero times. Im not even sure how to get arrested if I tried. Have you?

Why do we even need nuance here? Get arrested 10 times??? Goodbye. I dont care about your college or yiur dreams. You statistically certain to create a new victim.

Do you treat your kids this way? Can they do whatever they want with zero consequences?
 
sturg33 said:
Just give me an answer. I understand you want to bring nuance into this. I don't

Ive been arrested zero times. Im not even sure how to get arrested if I tried. Have you?

Why do we even need nuance here? Get arrested 10 times??? Goodbye. I dont care about your college or yiur dreams. You statistically certain to create a new victim.

Do you treat your kids this way? Can they do whatever they want with zero consequences?
Click to expand...
Underage drinking in Ohio. Please don’t send me to the Gulag if I get arrested again.

But I answered your question. A number alone doesn’t work for me because you can be arrested for things ranging from disorderly conduct up to murder. At ten convictions, I’d think someone should be sentenced for long enough that they can’t reasonably commit that many more crimes in their lifetime because they’d run out of years. The guy with 45 priors wouldn’t be on the street unless he was a couple hundred years old.
 
thethe said:
Yes - The convictions of the people we are talking about are of the level of 'underage drinking'.
Click to expand...
They’re not, I simply answered his question. But it does provide some context to why a number alone is insufficient for me in this discussion. Criminal justice is more complicated, and yes, nuanced than that. There’s still no world in which a person convicted of 45 crimes should be on the streets, but you guys want me to pick a number in a situation where a number doesn’t work. If I say a number like 3, you’ll pat me on the back for being reasonable. If I say a number like 7, you’ll accuse me of murdering future innocent women on trains. But the crimes themselves do matter. I’d err much higher than most of today’s left on sentencing for violent crimes, but I’m not willing to send someone away for life for 3 drug offenses.
 
mqt said:
They’re not, I simply answered his question. But it does provide some context to why a number alone is insufficient for me in this discussion. Criminal justice is more complicated, and yes, nuanced than that. There’s still no world in which a person convicted of 45 crimes should be on the streets, but you guys want me to pick a number in a situation where a number doesn’t work. If I say a number like 3, you’ll pat me on the back for being reasonable. If I say a number like 7, you’ll accuse me of murdering future innocent women on trains. But the crimes themselves do matter. I’d err much higher than most of today’s left on sentencing for violent crimes, but I’m not willing to send someone away for life for 3 drug offenses.
Click to expand...
Have you seen enough from leftist criminal justice policy to make you question your voting habits?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top