[thunderfork]

The person you replied to didn't say "criminals are victims", either, so comprehending your post requires some inference.

Feel free to clarify what you did mean, it's a lot more helpful than insisting on what you didn't mean.

[sejje]

It's not helpful. You put a lot of words into my mouth, I deny them. I already made my point in my own words. I don't have to deny every position you make up for me.

If you read his comment, he refers to everyone going through the system as victims of the colluding judges and LEO. Almost none of them are. The victims are the people whom they committed crimes against, of course.

This isn't my position, it's just the language we use to describe reality.

[thunderfork]

You're putting words into the other user's mouth, though, by assuming they mean "everyone" and not just "the innocent proportion of accused people".

So this seems like a good place to take your own advice, right?

[sejje]

No, I responded to their comment as-is. It's you putting words in someone's mouth again, not I.

The way you can tell what they mean is this line: "More you punish the victims better you make out." Nobody in America thinks that judges make out for punishing actually-innocent people. That's not what "victims" means here.

[thunderfork]

They didn't say "judges". I think the American justice system has a grandiose disregard for its impacts on the falsely accused.

You're doing the thing again, even now.

[sejje]

I agree, I think it does as well. That's not what the guy said, though.

I think I'm just reading what his comment says, but maybe I am doing the same thing as you. I'm just better at it. I got his position correct, you got it wrong.

You told me what I believe, you got that wrong, too.

[thunderfork]

I didn't tell you, I asked :)

From my POV you seem to be making a lot of inferences and then declaring them correct, based on some information about the original intent that I must not be privy to?