Comment by hnarn

3 years ago

“If it’s good for you, it shouldn’t be free” is a very strange hill to die on, even if we weren’t even specifically talking about attempting to rehabilitate criminals.

7 comments

hnarn

Reply
up2isomorphism  3 years ago

Can you find a “shouldn’t“ part in my response?

  • hn_acker  3 years ago

    In an earlier comment you wrote:

    > In fact it should likely cost prisoners something if it is good for them.

    Which is equivalent to "if it is good for them it should likely cost prisoners something" i.e. "if it is good for them it likely should not be free for prisoners".

    I'm aware that the hnarn's comment said "you" instead of "prisoners", but the principle of charity leads me to assume that hnarn meant specifically a prisoner rather than any person. And regardless, the answer to the question "Can you find a “shouldn’t“ part in my response?" is yes.

    • up2isomorphism  3 years ago

      >“Which is equivalent to "if it is good for them it should likely cost prisoners something" i.e. "if it is good for them it likely should not be free for prisoners".”

      You will have the same conclusion if there is no “likely” in the sentence, so you are obviously trying to pretend it is not there or you likely need basic logic course. (Don’t ignore likely here again, though)

      2 replies →