So whataboutism, distorting my words to suit your point and strawmen are your answers. Good to know rather early this conversation isn’t going anywhere, since both of us will always be right and wrong at the same time, according to each other.
One crook or two facing consequences does not excuse all the others that consistently get away. Specially the ones we don’t even know about. She’s just “the one that was caught this time”, with plenty more in line like her waiting for their chance to succeed where she could not. And your willingness to see her “not-reward” as if it was an actual punishment written in the law for her crimes speaks volumes - to the point it makes me wonder what potential role or benefit you’re getting (or hoping to get) from such a system. And before you twist my words to say you’re “not french”, or “not a politician”, know that what I’m saying goes way beyond one person, one position or one nation, so that logic won’t cut it.
Almost makes me think you’re primed to automatically defend scum like her no matter how corrupt she was. Anyways I don’t think this will be a productive discussion for either of us, so forgive me for not participating further.
It’s your prerogative, but I will clarify the point.
For one thing, her “not reward” is not a “not reward”, it is an actual punishment, codified in the criminal code of many democratic countries, where the penalty is the removal of the right to participate in elections or hold public office. This is a right all citizens have that is removed for a period of time as a punishment for a crime. It is a literal punishment. You are factually wrong.
Second, naming fallacies doesn’t meant hey happened. I did not bring up anybody else into this conversation, so not whataboutism, I did not misquote or rephrase your argument, so no strawman and the fact that I pointed out an inconsistency in your point doesn’t mean I “distorted” it.
And finally, I am not primed to “defend scum like her”. I have not, in fact, defended her at any point. She’s been found guilty of a crime, which makes her a criminal. What I am not is a demagogue willing to argue that harsher penalties, and specifically harsher penalties for people I don’t like, are the correct solution when every piece of serious research and information I have says they’re not. If it doesn’t help when the US does it to poor people for racist reasons it doesn’t help when aimed at politicians. Criminal penalties must be dissuasive, but that bar is pretty low and there is no proof that harsher penalties lead to more compliance.
So whataboutism, distorting my words to suit your point and strawmen are your answers. Good to know rather early this conversation isn’t going anywhere, since both of us will always be right and wrong at the same time, according to each other.
One crook or two facing consequences does not excuse all the others that consistently get away. Specially the ones we don’t even know about. She’s just “the one that was caught this time”, with plenty more in line like her waiting for their chance to succeed where she could not. And your willingness to see her “not-reward” as if it was an actual punishment written in the law for her crimes speaks volumes - to the point it makes me wonder what potential role or benefit you’re getting (or hoping to get) from such a system. And before you twist my words to say you’re “not french”, or “not a politician”, know that what I’m saying goes way beyond one person, one position or one nation, so that logic won’t cut it.
Almost makes me think you’re primed to automatically defend scum like her no matter how corrupt she was. Anyways I don’t think this will be a productive discussion for either of us, so forgive me for not participating further.
Cheers.
It’s your prerogative, but I will clarify the point.
For one thing, her “not reward” is not a “not reward”, it is an actual punishment, codified in the criminal code of many democratic countries, where the penalty is the removal of the right to participate in elections or hold public office. This is a right all citizens have that is removed for a period of time as a punishment for a crime. It is a literal punishment. You are factually wrong.
Second, naming fallacies doesn’t meant hey happened. I did not bring up anybody else into this conversation, so not whataboutism, I did not misquote or rephrase your argument, so no strawman and the fact that I pointed out an inconsistency in your point doesn’t mean I “distorted” it.
And finally, I am not primed to “defend scum like her”. I have not, in fact, defended her at any point. She’s been found guilty of a crime, which makes her a criminal. What I am not is a demagogue willing to argue that harsher penalties, and specifically harsher penalties for people I don’t like, are the correct solution when every piece of serious research and information I have says they’re not. If it doesn’t help when the US does it to poor people for racist reasons it doesn’t help when aimed at politicians. Criminal penalties must be dissuasive, but that bar is pretty low and there is no proof that harsher penalties lead to more compliance.