Peter Aitken wrote:

>> >> So, because I have a different opinion that you or Dave, my research
>> >> couldn't possibly be serious, well thought out of persuasive? That's
>> >> quite a leap there, mate.
>> >
>> > I said nothing of the sort.
>>
>> You said precisely what I suggested. If not, then please explain what you
>> *did* mean by your statement. You explicitly suggest that it's not an
>> impartial paper, and that it's only purpose is to prop up my personal
>> opinions?
>
> Look, Darryl, I have said this before but here's one more try. You said
> that your paper "explored the myth that prison is a deterrent" (or words
> to that effect). Already it's a myth - see my point?

Yeah. So? The thesis has been discussed by me before, and it is supported.
Do you see that you're committing the genetic fallacy?

> You did not say that
> your paper "explored the question of whether prison is a deterrent or is
> not a deterrent." This suggests to me that from the beginning your paper
> was a polemic, designed to advance a specific opinion.

So, you jumped to a conclusion, in other words? Yeah, the paper *does*
explore whether the claim that prison is a deterrent. It concludes that
it's *not* and that conclusion is supported by evidence.

> But your paper aside, the fact is that you have not presented any evidence
> that prison is not a deterrent.

You're right, you can't. It's logically impossible to prove a negative. But
you *can* show evidence that shows the positive claim that it *is* a
deterrent to be incorrect.

> Statistics that the prison population is
> rising are irrelevant.

No, it's quite on target. The prison population grows disproportionately to
the general population growth. I never said that that was *conclusive*. I
actually said that that's only *part* of the information used to show the
positive claim to be wrong.

> Also, your claims about not proving a negative are
> way off base. It is a negative only because of how it is phrased.

Oh, spare me your ignorance, okay? It is not a positive or a negative claim
based on phrasing. It (the assertion "prison is a deterrent") is a positive
claim because it asserts the *existence* of some thing, in this case that
the prison system acts as a deterrent to criminals. The onus for supporting
such a claim falls squarely on the shoulders of the person making the
positive claim, with the default position (the one my paper takes) being to
reject the claim until such a time as it is proven. Don't believe me? Go do
a google on positive claims and the burden of proof.

> One
> could phrase your position as "the rate of criminal activity remains
> unchanged by the threat of prison" with the counter-position being "the
> rate of criminal activity does not remain unchanged by the threat of
> prison." Now your theory is the positive and you have to prove it.

You're demonstrated a marked lack of ignorance concerning logic.

> And, as this and previous messages from you have shown, you cannot or will
> not understand what I say. You repeatedly misinterpret my statements and
> drag the discussion off into tangents. You obscure the issue by turning
> the discussion into my perceived disrespect for your paper (which we
> *still* have not seen).

Yeah. Putting "paper" into quotes and suggesting that it's not impartial is
really showing respect, eh? Tell me, what if it *were* a freshman paper? Do
you think that automatically makes it not convincing; i.e., do you commit
the genetic fallacy there as well?

> Finally, your stateemt:
>
>>I've stated that the belief that it's a
>>deterrent is a myth, and your statement "not enough of a deterrent"
>>supports that.
>
> is really mind-boggling. Can you possible think "not a deterrent" and "not
> enough of a deterrent" are the same thing?

Effectively, yes. They *are* the same thing. If something does not deter, it
does not deter. Why do you find it mind-boggling?

> I suspect we are in agreement that too many people are imprisoned for
> trivial crimes - primarily drug possession IMO. But I believe this because
> drug possession does not harm society at large, *not* because I think that
> it does not deter people.

I think people should not be imprisoned for non-violent crimes or who have
not been shown to be a physical threat to others. Drug possession in and of
itself is not a violent act and jailing non-violent offenders is barbarism.

> On the other hand, what Martha did *does* harm
> society.

How has she harmed society? She *may* have harmed other investors, but that
is hardly "society".

> All too many people do this sort of thing as it is. I'd hate to
> think what it would be like if there was no threat of prison.

Arguments from incredulity aside, the threat of being shot in the head for
commiting the crime would have a bit more of an effect, so why not take
that route? I'm sure even *more* people would be deterred.

> Your opinion
> is that things would not change at all

No. My opinion (based on the facts I've found) is that things *HAVE NOT*
changed. Perhaps that's your problem, you don't understand what I *AM*
saying.

> - but yuo need to support that
> opinion with more than tenuous correlations and speculation.

You make alot of assumptions about what I've written, speaking of
speculation...