Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Broken_Hippo 3068 days ago
People commit horrible crimes. That's one of those things that happen. It doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime, even if they are a horrible, detestable human in many senses of the word.

I'd nearly argue that it would be in his worst interest to participate in defrauding something since it might have revealed his horrible offenses.
2 comments
posterboy 3068 days ago
> It doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime

But only because that'd be pretty hard to pull off.

link
rubicon33 3068 days ago
> doesn't actually mean that everything they did was a lie or a crime

Nobody said that

> they are a horrible, detestable human

Nobody said that either

All that's being said is that it's more likely he would do something nefarious, given his background.

link
tsumnia 3068 days ago
The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".

No one is arguing a child rapist is okay; the issue other posters are having is that it is a incorrect argument.

Any further "but what if's..." are simply assumptions that do not have proof.

link
dgjj 3068 days ago
I don't follow your logic, I could see either

1. The issue is that "child rapist" implies "poor judgment of character". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "child rapist" have "good judgement of character".

or

2. The issue is that "poor judgment of character" implies "child rapist". This implication cannot be made because there are plenty of accounts where "non-child rapist" have "poor judgement of character".

being at least a logical (regardless of correctness) statement

link
tsumnia 3068 days ago
My apologies, you are correct. I suppose what I was attempting to say was that the connection between video game referee and child rapist was a weak connection due to the relation of "judgement of character".

The statements "child rapist" implies "poor judgement of character" and "poor judgement of character" implies "poor ability to be a referee" can be negated if the person turned out to be a qualified referee. The gray area is what people agree to be what constitutes good/poor "judgement of character". This is where I believe what AdmiralAsshat is attempting to argue in his post "While that's deplorable, it does not logically follow that a child molester is necessarily an unreliable referee."

link