Pensive the Ludicrous wrote:
Quote:
Do you honestly believe this woman decided to do this on her own? Or do you think she was just following procedures as she was taught?
I honestly believe in substantiating inductive claims with inductive evidence. I don't believe anything about her state of mind right now because I'm
not making a judgment about it. Go ahead and investigate acorn. It's all kinds of stupid to already have a verdict in your mind though with absolutely no evidence of categorical corruption.
Ok. Then why she did it?
Then... Tell me why the other woman in a different city did the exact same thing, when presented with the same scenario.
One you could dismiss as some whacko person doing something completely out there. Two people? At two different locations? In two different cities? The only thing they have in common is that they work for the same organization.
The evidence is that this happened in two different locations by two different people. How many times do you think this guy went to different acorn locations to try this sting? 5? 10? 20? 100? What percentage of those would you think is "normal" to have something like this happen?
What's the acceptable rate of employees helping people set up child prostitution rings? I'm honestly curious here. Cause it seems like "look the other way cause it's a liberal organization" is in the air today, and I want to know just how willing you are to look the other way.
Quote:
Quote:
She's not a one-off. She's what the organization trains their workers to be.
Then
prove it you freaking fearmonger.
She's not the only one who did it. Thus, she's not a "one-off". See how that works? Or did you miss that there are two cases of this going on right now?
Quote:
This is exactly the kind of sh*t that I applauded Obama for being frank about. I don't think I've ever heard such a transparently ad hoc'd conclusion in my entire life as the conclusion that acorn has institutional support for child prostitution because two people failed to hold aesthetic value in accordance with the public eye. You can't think of any other explanation, one of millions of simpler explanations than that acorn taught them to deal with child pimps?!
Acorn taught them a set of procedures to follow to provide assistance, but failed to provide adequate training or oversight to prevent events like this.
Look. I'm not saying that the leaders of acorn specifically planned to help this couple start up a child prostitution ring, and it's irrelevant anyway. The point is that the institutional structure of acorn allows such things to happen, and it uses taxpayer dollars to do it.
They seem to be "looking the other way" just as you are. Someone has to be held accountable, right? That's all I'm asking for here. Yet somehow I'm a bad person for thinking that maye we should look at this organization a bit more closely? Really?
Whatever the objectives, it's clear that what is happening is that public money is being used to enable criminals to commit felonies. The idea that these two women are the only two in the entire organization doing something like this is absurd. This guy happened to stumble upon the only two? Statistically impossible.
Your whole anti-inductive argument is stupid and misses the point BTW. I'm not arguing that every single person working at acorn is engaged in helping people run a child prostitution ring, so feel free to disprove that strawman all you want. It's irrelevant. I am arguing that having discovered two such examples of such extreme cases of Acorn workers willing to overlook illegality when providing financial aid and advice is indicative of policies which either encourage such things, or at a minimum do not act strongly enough to prevent them.
The proof is that it happened twice in a relatively short amount of time. The proof is that what happened was not a minor thing, but something most people should find abhorrent to the point of turning them in the second their backs were turned. If there were two examples of someone helping a drug dealer get low income housing, you'd have a point. But these stings were designed to aim for pretty much the worst situation. If he was able to get two of those, it's a reasonable bet that lesser crimes are being ignored and/or aided at a much higher rate.
More to the point, it absolutely points to a culture within the organization that criminal behavior is to be ignored when dealing with their customers. You're correct that you can't make absolute claims with inductive arguments. You can, however, make relative claims. I can state that if there's a higher rate of X within one group than another, that there must be something about that group that increases the rate of X. I don't need to know what that is, but I can absolutely infer that it must exist.
Tell you what. I'll make another completely wild guess inference. If you were to send the same sting to a Church based charity which provides the same services these Acorn office do, how many times would you need to run the sting before you'd find someone willing to do what these two women did?
Would you guess that number to be higher or lower than the rate of attempts to successes against Acorn?