Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The past is not true

sive.rs

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

351–360 of 362 posts

Re: The past is not true

#351

Post by bhelkey »

lr4444lr wrote: post #297
brightlancer wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we need some social mechanism where you can do your best to make amends and get some measure of closure. It's called prison. > This probably should follow you around forever, but maybe it shouldn't dominate every moment of the rest of your life. Prison (and convictions generally) shouldn't follow folks forever because it disincentivizes rehabilitation, it incentivizes recidivism, it labels someone based upo…

It's absolutely impossible for prison to morally absolve prisoners: most do not enter there willingly (i.e., they plead not guilty) and their entire freedom to do anything, much less make amends, is stripped away. Rehabilitation does nothing for the flesh and blood victim they're in there for hurting.

> most do not enter there willingly (i.e., they plead not guilty)

The idea that most incarcerated people pled not guilty, were tried and found guilty, and are now incarcerated is not true in the US.

Many of incarcerated are still awaiting trial. The DOJ reports that a quarter of those in US jail and prison are awaiting trial [1]. I suspect most of those cannot afford bail.

In terms of after trial, npr reports, "98% of criminal cases in the federal courts end with a plea bargain" [2].

[1] https://www.ojp.gov/files/archives/pressreleases/2022/us-jai....

[2] https://www.npr.org/2023/02/22/1158356619/plea-bargains-crim....

Re: The past is not true

#352

Post by dack »

pdonis wrote: post #231
gochi wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>actual facts You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? That's how quickly they were to believe their "actual facts" as well. That is the story. Not the facts. What we tell ourselves, what we tell others. This is why they brought up memories, an unstable collection of flashes in our mind, and we use these to craft a story. The story has changed, and will continue to change, you're in the pr…

> You see how quickly you are to believe these are the "actual facts"? I am taking the author at his word that when he reports something as fact, he is not lying. If you think he's lying, then obviously we're not going to find any common ground here. > We aren't talking about observed realities (she is going to the park, I am eating an ice cream) Um, yes, we are. The woman was not permanently disabled, although he pr…

> I am taking the author at his word that when he reports something as fact, he is not lying

They aren't claiming that the author is lying, but that they might _still_ have the facts incorrect.

For example, as you said, the woman was _not_ permanently disabled (since he could see that from meeting up with her in the present). However, what was the exact extent of her injuries? Maybe he assumed she is 100% fine now but she didn't mention that she actually does have persistent back pain ever since the crash. Maybe they didn't talk about that.

In that case, he may tell himself a story that she wasn't permanently hurt at all, and think that is a fact, which it actually isn't.

I think everyone is agreeing that there is an objective truth to what happened. It's that we never have perfect information to know the objective truth down to infinite detail. Even your eyes and ears can deceive us - all we can know is what we perceive via electrical signals to our brain sitting in our dark skull.

Therefore, our fallible minds will very easily get details wrong for many reasons, and then draw conclusions based on that not realizing that there could be other ways of interpreting the information, or that a minor detail we missed (or have forgotten) changes things immensely.

I think the lesson is that we should just be aware of this, and not assume our perception was 100% correct.

Re: The past is not true

#353

Post by Sammi »

Jiro wrote: post #216
stronglikedan wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Accepting those things seems like a miserable way to live. No thanks. I prefer to move on with my life, even when I was wronged.

This is about if you have wronged someone else, not if you are wronged, If you've wronged someone else, maybe you should live miserably if you can't possibly make up for the wrong.

That just breeds more misery and does noone any good.

If you've done something bad, then forgive yourself and be kind to yourself, because you need to do better in the future. This is a better lesson that will do everyone more good.

Re: The past is not true

#354

Post by Sammi »

mrguyorama wrote: post #198
amp108 wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know what's inside Mark Wahlberg's heart, but let's suppose it's someone whom, for the sake of argument, we know truly regrets their actions: what are they supposed to do if another person doesn't forgive them?

Accept that sometimes when you do a bad thing that permanently harms someone else you don't deserve forgiveness (not everyone is christian FFS) and it's not wrong for that to follow you around forever. If that makes you uncomfortable, too fucking bad, don't irreversibly blind someone.

That just breeds more misery and does noone any good.

If you've done something bad, then forgive yourself and be kind to yourself, because you need to do better in the future. This is a better lesson that will do everyone more good.

Re: The past is not true

#355

Post by DoctorOetker »

robotresearcher wrote: post #348
DoctorOetker wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Clearly everyone possesses the capacity for bitterness, as they are able to agree on its meaning. Otherwise they couldn't possibly know what the word means. Clearly natural selection has selected for this capacity. You pretend to disprove the adaptive nature of a trait by trotting forth "fatal cancer in infants" which clearly natural selection would not systematically select for without good reason. Perhaps artificia…

You haven’t met many people who died of cancer as infants? Me neither. Perhaps you and I don’t hang out in the same places as those who died in infancy.

be reasonable, you tried to insinuate that natural selection selects for fatal infant cancer, instead of against it.

the rate of incidence of "fatal cancer in infants" is extremely low compared to the rate of incidence of the capacity to feel bitter.

Re: The past is not true

#356

Post by robotresearcher »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #355
robotresearcher wrote: post #348

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You haven’t met many people who died of cancer as infants? Me neither. Perhaps you and I don’t hang out in the same places as those who died in infancy.

be reasonable, you tried to insinuate that natural selection selects for fatal infant cancer, instead of against it. the rate of incidence of "fatal cancer in infants" is extremely low compared to the rate of incidence of the capacity to feel bitter.

I didn’t insinuate that at all. If I thought it was adaptive, why would I use it as an example of a non-adaptive property?

Re: The past is not true

#357

Post by DoctorOetker »

robotresearcher wrote: post #356
DoctorOetker wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

be reasonable, you tried to insinuate that natural selection selects for fatal infant cancer, instead of against it. the rate of incidence of "fatal cancer in infants" is extremely low compared to the rate of incidence of the capacity to feel bitter.

I didn’t insinuate that at all. If I thought it was adaptive, why would I use it as an example of a non-adaptive property?

So you then finally agree evolution removes fatal cancers in infants (at least to the point of rare events) instead of producing it as you claimed earlier.

unlike the statistics for "fatal cancer in infants" the capability to feel bitter is essentially universal, so clearly it serves some purpose.

Re: The past is not true

#358

Post by theoriginaldog »

lr4444lr wrote: post #297
brightlancer wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think we need some social mechanism where you can do your best to make amends and get some measure of closure. It's called prison. > This probably should follow you around forever, but maybe it shouldn't dominate every moment of the rest of your life. Prison (and convictions generally) shouldn't follow folks forever because it disincentivizes rehabilitation, it incentivizes recidivism, it labels someone based upo…

It's absolutely impossible for prison to morally absolve prisoners: most do not enter there willingly (i.e., they plead not guilty) and their entire freedom to do anything, much less make amends, is stripped away. Rehabilitation does nothing for the flesh and blood victim they're in there for hurting.

Of course rehabilitation does nothing for the victim, its a process that is concerned about the offender.

Re: The past is not true

#359

Post by theoriginaldog »

mike_hock wrote: post #268
bittercynic wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you make a mistake like this, where you owe a debt that can never be repaid, I think we need some social mechanism where you can do your best to make amends and get some measure of closure. This probably should follow you around forever, but maybe it shouldn't dominate every moment of the rest of your life.

I'm gonna be a bitter cynic here and say that blindness also dominates every moment of the rest of the victim's life, so why shouldn't the perpetrator suffer the same fate?

The only place where you find this mirror Talion punishment today are islamistic countries that implement the sharia. Do you really think they are paragons of fair justice?

Re: The past is not true

#360

Post by robotresearcher »

DoctorOetker wrote: post #357
robotresearcher wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I didn’t insinuate that at all. If I thought it was adaptive, why would I use it as an example of a non-adaptive property?

So you then finally agree evolution removes fatal cancers in infants (at least to the point of rare events) instead of producing it as you claimed earlier. unlike the statistics for "fatal cancer in infants" the capability to feel bitter is essentially universal, so clearly it serves some purpose.

If evolution isn't producing cancer in infants, what is?

Your debate approach of declaring my position to be the opposite of what I say is no fun. I'm not going to continue.

Post reply on HN