If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also “want rape to be legal”
You seem to be confused here. Rape is and should be illegal. This however does not conflict with the idea that there are limits to what the state can do to obtain convictions in criminal cases. Laws prohibiting extracting confessions under torture, warrantless searches, the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, etc., are on the books to prevent innocent people from being convicted by overzealous prosecutors (or by an overzealous system). They are in no way an endorsement of the offending behavior.
They are in no way an endorsement of the offending behavior.
Let’s consider two of the lines from Jiro’s post:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also “want rape to be legal”
Normally saying that someone wants X carries the connotation that they like X and don’t believe X causes harm, which isn’t true in this case.
Put together, it seems obvious that Jiro is pointing out a verbal technicality and you’re interpreting him as if he means what he’s explicitly saying he doesn’t mean.
Jiro’s post is highly contextual and makes sense only by taking into account what he’s responding to. You may want to re-read the subthread.
I may be missing Jiro’s point, but it seems to me that he is stating that having limits on what the prosecution can do to achieve a conviction in rape cases is somehow the same as making rape legal. It is exactly that point that I am disagreeing with. Not allowing torture to obtain a conviction for a crime is not the same as making the crime legal.
Allow me to paraphrase the essentials of the conversation in my own words:
Roosh: “We should legalize rape on private property.”
Clarity: “A lot of people are accusing Roosh of wanting to legalize rape. This is libel.”
gjm: “Um, how is it libel to accuse Roosh of wanting to legalize rape when he says that we should legalize rape on private property? Most rapes likely happen on private property, which means he wants to legalize most instances of rape. For example, if I say I want insider trading to be legal but only if you wear a suit while you do it, I want insider trading to be legal.”
Jiro: “But what if you don’t like insider trading, yet you believe that there are so many innocent individuals accidentally convicted that it would be a net benefit to simply legalize it? If you describe that view as ‘you want insider trading to be legal’, we can see how English grammar and dictionary definitions would permit that, but it would be grossly misleading. When we say we ‘want X’, we normally mean that we like and endorse X. This isn’t the case here. Even if we want it to be legalized, we don’t want it.”
To be concise, Roosh said that we should “legalize rape on private property”, various people described that viewpoint as Roosh “wanting to legalize rape”, and Jiro is claiming that such a phrasing is misleading. When we use the phrase “want X”, we usually mean that we like X. But Roosh isn’t saying that he likes rape.
They are in no way an endorsement of the offending behavior.
Jiro drew an analogy to Roosh’s argument, and then advised against describing the content of that analogy with the words “want rape to be legal”, because it makes it sound like the arguer endorses rape. And then your rebuttal included clarifying that putting into effect the law explained in the analogy would not, in fact, be an endorsement of rape.
Put as simply as possible, Jiro used an analogy to suggest against describing Roosh’s argument as X because it causes people to react like Y (which would constitute a misinterpretation), and then in response you wrote a post which was purely a matter of reacting like Y.
Let this be a lesson for how easily words lead to systematic miscommunication.
I suspect that you are taking an expansive interpretation of what it is in the OP that I am objecting to. As I have already stated, I am objecting to exactly one statement:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also want rape to be legal
And, I will repeat and (hopefully) clarify my objection as well:
Making rape legal is not the same as not permitting the state to resort to torture to obtain a conviction in rape cases. Making rape legal is tantamount to a legal endorsement of rape in the sense that the law is stating that it is legally OK to commit a rape, and that the law will not take action against the perpetrator of that rape. Declining to allow torture to be used to obtain a conviction in a rape case is however not an endorsement of rape.
The distinction I am making is a distinction with tangible differences. For example, suppose action X is taken against person Y. Now consider two different scenarios:
X is legal.
X is illegal, but there is insufficient evidence against any suspected perpetrator to allow a conviction without, for example, resorting to torture to obtain a confession.
In scenario 1, legally no crime has been committed (because X is legal). Therefore, person Y is not a victim of a crime. This means that person Y is not entitled to victim’s services. Beyond that, since there is no crime, it is doubtful that the state will even mount an investigation. And, there could be implications for insurance settlements and/or liability resulting from action X as well (e.g. suppose X occurs at a nightclub with lax security. If X is legal, it is less likely that person Y would win a liability settlement against the facility than it would be if X were illegal).
In scenario 2, a crime has been committed. Presumably the state will mount an investigation, update crime statistics to reflect the incident, attempt to bring the perpetrator to justice, etc. Even if no one can be convicted or even brought to trial, person Y is recognized as a victim of a crime and would be eligible for victim’s services (if victims’ services are offered by the state). And, recognition that a crime has occurred can in some cases be beneficial to person Y’s psychological recovery from the incident, and could factor in to liability settlements, etc.
I believe that I understand the point that Jiro is attempting to make with the OP. However the argument presented utilizes a false equivalence between (X being legal) and (X being illegal but not allowing torture to be used to obtain a conviction for X). It is that false equivalence that I am objecting to.
Finally, your comment:
Let this be a lesson for how easily words lead to systematic miscommunication
frankly sounds condescending; IMO comments like that are inappropriate for LW.
As I have already stated, I am objecting to exactly one statement
This is your problem right here. You can’t simply single out a specific statement and attempt to grapple with its internal logic. Again, Jiro’s response is highly contextual and only makes sense when you consider the big picture. Have you read the subthread carefully, going all the way back to Clarity’s question? Have you read Roosh’s article? If you haven’t done these things, then you’re being irresponsible in your attempt to interpret Jiro.
Let’s look again at the statement you’re objecting to:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also want rape to be legal
Oh wait, you misquoted Jiro. Let’s take a look at what Jiro actually said:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also “want rape to be legal”
See the quotation marks?
Jiro’s whole response was an attempt to explain that we shouldn’t use the phrase “want rape to be legal” to describe either Roosh’s position (that rape should be legal on private property) or the analogy (that rape convictions based on evidence obtained by torture should be thrown out) because it makes it sound like Roosh or the hypothetical person in the analogy endorses rape.
If I sound condescending, it’s because it’s tiresome to argue with someone who is taking a single point as literally as possible while neglecting to look into the context of the discussion.
Taking a step back:
Jiro expressed uneasiness about submitting his or her post, probably because he or she knows how likely explicit discussions on these topics are to provoke angry or offended replies. While you didn’t seem offended, you nevertheless began your reply with an emotionally charged claim that Jiro seemed “confused”. I’m sure you’re aware that such phrasing provokes the same kind of emotions that you’re experiencing with my patronizing responses.
I believe that it’s very important for people to speak openly on these kinds of subjects, so when Jiro made what I interpreted as a solid point and then showed uneasiness about being part of the conversation, I found this somewhat alarming. I wrote a reply, and then soon afterwards I discovered your response, which began in a condescending way and then continued into what I considered (and still consider) a misinterpretation which demonstrates lack of care and thoroughness and stands as a frivolous disincentive for Jiro to jump into similar discussions in the future.
I admit that I felt a bit of annoyance right from the beginning. The emotional charge you can feel channeled through my words is a product of status-posturing emotions related to defending Jiro.
Thanks for the lengthy response. I better understand the cause of the disagreement. And, I reread my response to the OP with your comments in mind, and you are 100% correct; I did sound more irritated and dismissive than I had any reason to (when I used the word “confused”). That was not my intention; I apologize for any offense caused.
In addition, I would like to respond to and/or comment on some of your other comments. You asked:
Have you read the subthread carefully, going all the way back to Clarity’s question? Have you read Roosh’s article?
Yes and yes. It was an interesting thread. However the point I was making was not about what Roosh may or may not have meant in his article, nor was it about Clarity’s question, nor about gjm’s comments to Clarity’s question. All of those are interesting topics, and I have opinions on them, but I did not express them. Why not? Because the discussion volume on all of those topics has been large enough that my opinion on each of the main controversial points of the thread has been stated by someone else (in some cases, by multiple people); my stating opinions that have already been stated would add little value to the conversation. However, Jiro’s post did contain a statement that had not been addressed elsewhere and that I thought should be addressed, so I addressed it.
You also said:
You can’t simply single out a specific statement and attempt to grapple with its internal logic.
Actually, you can. Jiro made a propositional statement and it can be evaluated independently without rehashing the entire thread history.
Again, Jiro’s response is highly contextual and only makes sense when you consider the big picture.
Agreed – Jiro’s entire response was multifaceted, nuanced and complex, and were I disagreeing with his/her entire comment, the context of the thread would be relevant. The one statement I was commenting on however was self-standing and could be evaluated as such:
If you don’t want people to be convicted of rape based on evidence obtained by torture, you also “want rape to be legal”
And, no, the quotes in the original do not significantly change the meaning of the sentence; certainly they do not render my objections (stated here) invalid.
So, why did I think that this one statement was important enough to respond to? Two reasons:
The statement is factually incorrect – it expresses a false equivalence, as explained here
The belief is not only factually incorrect, it is actually harmful; if widely held, it would have a pernicious effect on the justice system. If it was widely believed that placing reasonable limits on what the state can do to win a conviction for some offense is the same as making that offense legal, you could expect to see increased demands (and eventually capitulation to those demands) to actually allow torture to obtain convictions, or to reduce the standard of proof from “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” to “guilty by the preponderance of evidence”, or even “guilty by the majority of the evidence”, etc. This is especially true for crimes that tend to evoke strong emotional responses in the public. This is not a theoretical objection – there are currently voices arguing for torture to be used in cases involving terrorism, for example.
If I sound condescending, it’s because it’s tiresome to argue with someone who is taking a single point as literally as possible while neglecting to look into the context of the discussion.
Understood, but as stated, my objection was to a single point; various responses to the bulk of the thread’s controversial points have been discussed at length elsewhere. Therefore, it would have been pointless for me to address the entirety of the thread.
While you didn’t seem offended, you nevertheless began your reply with an emotionally charged claim that Jiro seemed “confused”.
Yes, valid point. I apologize for that.
I admit that I felt a bit of annoyance right from the beginning. The emotional charge you can feel channeled through my words is a product of status-posturing emotions related to defending Jiro.
Understood, and your desire to defend a fellow LWer is noble. My feeling, however, based on Jiro’s history of high-quality, well-argued comments, is that Jiro is in no need of verbal defense. Jiro has a higher karma score than either you or I do, and has (I suspect) a history at LW longer than mine (not sure about yours). None of that of course changes the fact that my initial comment was unduly abrasive, however.
I appreciate the level-headed emotional de-escalation.
And with that, onto the content:
Yes and yes.
Understood. The next thing I’m wondering, then, is whether you’ve read this article. The reason I’m asking is because that’s the full and original explanation of the non-central fallacy, the fallacy that Jiro was claiming was exemplified by saying that Roosh “wants rape to be legal”.
Whatever your answer to that question, I would like to make a request. Can you re-state Jiro’s original argument in your own words? I don’t mean simply repeating the propositional logic inherent in the single statement that you’re objecting to; I mean explaining in full detail what Jiro meant to convey.
Actually, you can. Jiro made a propositional statement and it can be evaluated independently without rehashing the entire thread history.
Oh wait, I guess you may think that my request is irrelevant.
I believe we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of language and epistemology, and I’m not optimistic that we will be able to resolve this dispute within this subthread. I will, however, put your username in my notes and contact you if I put together a sequence on logic which bears on this discussion.
But I might as well give it a brief attempt.
Few things are more common in Less Wrong culture than taking things far too literally. Most people on this website come from a background of social oddity and nerd interests. The source of the average Rationalist’s superpowers is also the source of his weakness: undue attention to the finely delimited moving parts of single isolated statements. Such an orientation of mind allows deep analysis, innovative thinking, and so forth. But the danger is that natural language is too primitive of a tool to expect to be able to scrutinize single statements; arguments must be evaluated as a whole unless we’re in the realm of mathematical logic.
Perhaps it would be easier to explain if I merely claim that your original post was irrelevant and off topic. Whatever the case with the single statement that you’re analyzing, neither I nor Jiro make any claim which rests upon that foundation. Sure, you can find that statement in Jiro’s post. You can discover that sequence of Latin characters lying within the square. But did Jiro think to himself or herself that there exists an equivalence between those two concepts? Absolutely not.
I’m a little bit lost about how to elucidate this clearly. How about you take up this challenge, which I mentioned earlier in this comment: Explain in your own words what Jiro meant, complete with demonstrating an understanding of the nature of the non-central fallacy. You’re going to have to take my word for it, but I believe that completing this exercise will reveal to you why I believe it’s so important that you take the context into account rather than simply pinpointing that one statement and laying out your disagreement.
You seem to be confused here. Rape is and should be illegal. This however does not conflict with the idea that there are limits to what the state can do to obtain convictions in criminal cases. Laws prohibiting extracting confessions under torture, warrantless searches, the principle that the accused is innocent until proven guilty, etc., are on the books to prevent innocent people from being convicted by overzealous prosecutors (or by an overzealous system). They are in no way an endorsement of the offending behavior.
Let’s consider two of the lines from Jiro’s post:
Put together, it seems obvious that Jiro is pointing out a verbal technicality and you’re interpreting him as if he means what he’s explicitly saying he doesn’t mean.
Jiro’s post is highly contextual and makes sense only by taking into account what he’s responding to. You may want to re-read the subthread.
Upvoted for skillful use of diplomacy.
I may be missing Jiro’s point, but it seems to me that he is stating that having limits on what the prosecution can do to achieve a conviction in rape cases is somehow the same as making rape legal. It is exactly that point that I am disagreeing with. Not allowing torture to obtain a conviction for a crime is not the same as making the crime legal.
Allow me to paraphrase the essentials of the conversation in my own words:
To be concise, Roosh said that we should “legalize rape on private property”, various people described that viewpoint as Roosh “wanting to legalize rape”, and Jiro is claiming that such a phrasing is misleading. When we use the phrase “want X”, we usually mean that we like X. But Roosh isn’t saying that he likes rape.
From your original reply:
Jiro drew an analogy to Roosh’s argument, and then advised against describing the content of that analogy with the words “want rape to be legal”, because it makes it sound like the arguer endorses rape. And then your rebuttal included clarifying that putting into effect the law explained in the analogy would not, in fact, be an endorsement of rape.
Put as simply as possible, Jiro used an analogy to suggest against describing Roosh’s argument as X because it causes people to react like Y (which would constitute a misinterpretation), and then in response you wrote a post which was purely a matter of reacting like Y.
Let this be a lesson for how easily words lead to systematic miscommunication.
I suspect that you are taking an expansive interpretation of what it is in the OP that I am objecting to. As I have already stated, I am objecting to exactly one statement:
And, I will repeat and (hopefully) clarify my objection as well:
Making rape legal is not the same as not permitting the state to resort to torture to obtain a conviction in rape cases. Making rape legal is tantamount to a legal endorsement of rape in the sense that the law is stating that it is legally OK to commit a rape, and that the law will not take action against the perpetrator of that rape. Declining to allow torture to be used to obtain a conviction in a rape case is however not an endorsement of rape.
The distinction I am making is a distinction with tangible differences. For example, suppose action X is taken against person Y. Now consider two different scenarios:
X is legal.
X is illegal, but there is insufficient evidence against any suspected perpetrator to allow a conviction without, for example, resorting to torture to obtain a confession.
In scenario 1, legally no crime has been committed (because X is legal). Therefore, person Y is not a victim of a crime. This means that person Y is not entitled to victim’s services. Beyond that, since there is no crime, it is doubtful that the state will even mount an investigation. And, there could be implications for insurance settlements and/or liability resulting from action X as well (e.g. suppose X occurs at a nightclub with lax security. If X is legal, it is less likely that person Y would win a liability settlement against the facility than it would be if X were illegal).
In scenario 2, a crime has been committed. Presumably the state will mount an investigation, update crime statistics to reflect the incident, attempt to bring the perpetrator to justice, etc. Even if no one can be convicted or even brought to trial, person Y is recognized as a victim of a crime and would be eligible for victim’s services (if victims’ services are offered by the state). And, recognition that a crime has occurred can in some cases be beneficial to person Y’s psychological recovery from the incident, and could factor in to liability settlements, etc.
I believe that I understand the point that Jiro is attempting to make with the OP. However the argument presented utilizes a false equivalence between (X being legal) and (X being illegal but not allowing torture to be used to obtain a conviction for X). It is that false equivalence that I am objecting to.
Finally, your comment:
frankly sounds condescending; IMO comments like that are inappropriate for LW.
This is your problem right here. You can’t simply single out a specific statement and attempt to grapple with its internal logic. Again, Jiro’s response is highly contextual and only makes sense when you consider the big picture. Have you read the subthread carefully, going all the way back to Clarity’s question? Have you read Roosh’s article? If you haven’t done these things, then you’re being irresponsible in your attempt to interpret Jiro.
Let’s look again at the statement you’re objecting to:
Oh wait, you misquoted Jiro. Let’s take a look at what Jiro actually said:
See the quotation marks?
Jiro’s whole response was an attempt to explain that we shouldn’t use the phrase “want rape to be legal” to describe either Roosh’s position (that rape should be legal on private property) or the analogy (that rape convictions based on evidence obtained by torture should be thrown out) because it makes it sound like Roosh or the hypothetical person in the analogy endorses rape.
If I sound condescending, it’s because it’s tiresome to argue with someone who is taking a single point as literally as possible while neglecting to look into the context of the discussion.
Taking a step back:
Jiro expressed uneasiness about submitting his or her post, probably because he or she knows how likely explicit discussions on these topics are to provoke angry or offended replies. While you didn’t seem offended, you nevertheless began your reply with an emotionally charged claim that Jiro seemed “confused”. I’m sure you’re aware that such phrasing provokes the same kind of emotions that you’re experiencing with my patronizing responses.
I believe that it’s very important for people to speak openly on these kinds of subjects, so when Jiro made what I interpreted as a solid point and then showed uneasiness about being part of the conversation, I found this somewhat alarming. I wrote a reply, and then soon afterwards I discovered your response, which began in a condescending way and then continued into what I considered (and still consider) a misinterpretation which demonstrates lack of care and thoroughness and stands as a frivolous disincentive for Jiro to jump into similar discussions in the future.
I admit that I felt a bit of annoyance right from the beginning. The emotional charge you can feel channeled through my words is a product of status-posturing emotions related to defending Jiro.
Thanks for the lengthy response. I better understand the cause of the disagreement. And, I reread my response to the OP with your comments in mind, and you are 100% correct; I did sound more irritated and dismissive than I had any reason to (when I used the word “confused”). That was not my intention; I apologize for any offense caused.
In addition, I would like to respond to and/or comment on some of your other comments. You asked:
Yes and yes. It was an interesting thread. However the point I was making was not about what Roosh may or may not have meant in his article, nor was it about Clarity’s question, nor about gjm’s comments to Clarity’s question. All of those are interesting topics, and I have opinions on them, but I did not express them. Why not? Because the discussion volume on all of those topics has been large enough that my opinion on each of the main controversial points of the thread has been stated by someone else (in some cases, by multiple people); my stating opinions that have already been stated would add little value to the conversation. However, Jiro’s post did contain a statement that had not been addressed elsewhere and that I thought should be addressed, so I addressed it.
You also said:
Actually, you can. Jiro made a propositional statement and it can be evaluated independently without rehashing the entire thread history.
Agreed – Jiro’s entire response was multifaceted, nuanced and complex, and were I disagreeing with his/her entire comment, the context of the thread would be relevant. The one statement I was commenting on however was self-standing and could be evaluated as such:
And, no, the quotes in the original do not significantly change the meaning of the sentence; certainly they do not render my objections (stated here) invalid.
So, why did I think that this one statement was important enough to respond to? Two reasons:
The statement is factually incorrect – it expresses a false equivalence, as explained here
The belief is not only factually incorrect, it is actually harmful; if widely held, it would have a pernicious effect on the justice system. If it was widely believed that placing reasonable limits on what the state can do to win a conviction for some offense is the same as making that offense legal, you could expect to see increased demands (and eventually capitulation to those demands) to actually allow torture to obtain convictions, or to reduce the standard of proof from “guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” to “guilty by the preponderance of evidence”, or even “guilty by the majority of the evidence”, etc. This is especially true for crimes that tend to evoke strong emotional responses in the public. This is not a theoretical objection – there are currently voices arguing for torture to be used in cases involving terrorism, for example.
Understood, but as stated, my objection was to a single point; various responses to the bulk of the thread’s controversial points have been discussed at length elsewhere. Therefore, it would have been pointless for me to address the entirety of the thread.
Yes, valid point. I apologize for that.
Understood, and your desire to defend a fellow LWer is noble. My feeling, however, based on Jiro’s history of high-quality, well-argued comments, is that Jiro is in no need of verbal defense. Jiro has a higher karma score than either you or I do, and has (I suspect) a history at LW longer than mine (not sure about yours). None of that of course changes the fact that my initial comment was unduly abrasive, however.
I appreciate the level-headed emotional de-escalation.
And with that, onto the content:
Understood. The next thing I’m wondering, then, is whether you’ve read this article. The reason I’m asking is because that’s the full and original explanation of the non-central fallacy, the fallacy that Jiro was claiming was exemplified by saying that Roosh “wants rape to be legal”.
Whatever your answer to that question, I would like to make a request. Can you re-state Jiro’s original argument in your own words? I don’t mean simply repeating the propositional logic inherent in the single statement that you’re objecting to; I mean explaining in full detail what Jiro meant to convey.
Oh wait, I guess you may think that my request is irrelevant.
I believe we have a fundamental disagreement on the nature of language and epistemology, and I’m not optimistic that we will be able to resolve this dispute within this subthread. I will, however, put your username in my notes and contact you if I put together a sequence on logic which bears on this discussion.
But I might as well give it a brief attempt.
Few things are more common in Less Wrong culture than taking things far too literally. Most people on this website come from a background of social oddity and nerd interests. The source of the average Rationalist’s superpowers is also the source of his weakness: undue attention to the finely delimited moving parts of single isolated statements. Such an orientation of mind allows deep analysis, innovative thinking, and so forth. But the danger is that natural language is too primitive of a tool to expect to be able to scrutinize single statements; arguments must be evaluated as a whole unless we’re in the realm of mathematical logic.
Perhaps it would be easier to explain if I merely claim that your original post was irrelevant and off topic. Whatever the case with the single statement that you’re analyzing, neither I nor Jiro make any claim which rests upon that foundation. Sure, you can find that statement in Jiro’s post. You can discover that sequence of Latin characters lying within the square. But did Jiro think to himself or herself that there exists an equivalence between those two concepts? Absolutely not.
I’m a little bit lost about how to elucidate this clearly. How about you take up this challenge, which I mentioned earlier in this comment: Explain in your own words what Jiro meant, complete with demonstrating an understanding of the nature of the non-central fallacy. You’re going to have to take my word for it, but I believe that completing this exercise will reveal to you why I believe it’s so important that you take the context into account rather than simply pinpointing that one statement and laying out your disagreement.