Iām okay with losing the parts of the audience who didnāt read the whole page:
The criminalization of private debt happens when judges, at the request of collection agencies, issue arrest warrants for people who failed to appear in court to deal with unpaid civil debt judgments. In many cases, the debtors were unaware they were sued or had not received notice to show up in court. Tens of thousands of these warrants are issued annually.
Like I get that the ACLU could have capitalized that, bolded it, and stuck it at the top of the page, but you only have to make it to like the second paragraph to read it.
Edited to add ā thanks for this. I havenāt had a pointless argument on the internet with someone who already mostly agrees on the important points but canāt quite get past pointless minutiae in awhile.
Like I get that the ACLU could have capitalized that, bolded it, and stuck it at the top of the page, but you only have to make it to like the second paragraph to read it.
Oh I read that too, and again youāre making an additional logical leap with your idea that isnāt always true.
In many cases, the debtors were unaware they were sued or had not received notice to show up in court. Tens of thousands of these warrants are issued annually.
They arenāt sent to jail for having debt. They (could possibly) be sent to jail for failing to appear in court. You keep saying we āliterally have debtors prisonsā, but at best we might have effectively debtors prisons and Iām squinting really hard and giving you every benefit of the doubt to even say that.
If debt was illegal (as the OP post claims), everyone not paying debt would be in prison. That simply isnāt true. Presenting it like it is reality makes you come off as a crackpot, dismissable, and your otherwise important message is lost.
Edited to add ā thanks for this. I havenāt had a pointless argument on the internet with someone who already mostly agrees on the important points but canāt quite get past pointless minutiae in awhile.
I wish I could say its been a while since Iāve had a conversation with someone on the internet that has a good overall message, but is so urgent to make an additional point for rhetorical value that they de-value their entire message. If you want to change minds, which ostensibly is the reason for organizing around the problem, you have to look at your own messages through the eyes of others, not just your own. Good luck!
Oh I read that too, and again youāre making an additional logical leap with your idea that isnāt always true.
Weird, because I feel like youāre jumping past the point because it isnāt technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you donāt make enough money.
If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but itās literally the same result.
I understand that sometimes people get notice and might have the ability to show up in court and they do, but the OPās point isnāt that every poor person is in jail. The point is that theyāre put there when rich people arenāt.
That the OP canāt cite a PL that says being poor is illegal doesnāt exculpate society from putting them in prison because theyāre poor. Iām sorry that itās insidious and underhanded, but it is literally happening.
I also donāt think the OP is trying to change anyoneās mind. Iām not either. I donāt think the people who criminalize being poor are worth the effort. The point of these types of posts isnāt to change minds. Itās to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know itās wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.
Weird, because I feel like youāre jumping past the point because it isnāt technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you donāt make enough money.
I think its very weird youāre willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but itās literally the same result.
IF you have a debt andā¦
IF the creditor chooses to sue andā¦
IF you do not get notified andā¦
IF you donāt appearā¦
THEN MAYBE the judge will have an arrest warrant issued against you and ā¦
If you commit an ADDITIONAL crime, which puts you in contact with law enforcement, the warrant from the no-show would cause you to be jailed.
Thats A LOT of āifā to make your statement true, but youāre passing it off as its always the case. Complete different with drugs and homelessness. You can be arrested (and jailed) in the very first act.
Being in debt doesnāt put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
I also donāt think the OP is trying to change anyoneās mind. Iām not either. The point of these types of posts isnāt to change minds.
Hmm, okay youāre not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
Itās to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know itās wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someoneās mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of āchanging a mindā means now?
I think its very weird youāre willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. Itās not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough youāll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if theyāre caught and if itās worth enough to the prosecutor and if theyāre convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. Youāre okay with those āifsā in your definition, but not the chain belowā¦why?
Thats A LOT of āifā to make your statement true, but youāre passing it off as itās always the case.
I mean, yeah, thatās kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know? The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because theyāre poor and itās wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Being in debt doesnāt put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
Maybe this is where youāre confused. No one is saying that everyone with debt is being put in prison. Or maybe someone is, but they arenāt in this conversation. Iām saying that this set of circumstances should not be criminal, and it only happens to poor people. Apparently, according to the ACLU, it happens to tens of thousands of them. Iām pretty sure the OP is saying that, too.
Hmm, okay youāre not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
Iād classify it more as a call to action for likeminded people. I generally read things like this and think I should do something about it, so I do what I can think of. If thatās an echo chamber for you, knock yourself out, I guess.
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someoneās mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of āchanging a mindā means now?
I mean, no; youāre arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I donāt care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out whatās happening, and somehow not think thatās wrong, I donāt think any words are going to change their mind.
Itās doesnāt matter, though, because the majority already know itās wrong. They either know itās wrong and didnāt realize it was a thing, or they know itās a thing but they think theyāre powerless to change it.
I (and, I assume, the OP) want those who arenāt currently doing something to realize they arenāt alone in thinking what theyāre thinking, so theyāll be more inclined to do things about it. They already want to do those things; their minds donāt need to be changed.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
āFederal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC Ā§844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm
Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison
and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both.ā
āIt shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such personās own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof.ā = an example of texas law
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. Itās not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough youāll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if theyāre caught and if itās worth enough to the prosecutor and if theyāre convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. Youāre okay with those āifsā in your definition, but not the chain belowā¦why?
Youāre right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldnāt be illegal. The reason Iām not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isnāt going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
Thats A LOT of āifā to make your statement true, but youāre passing it off as itās always the case.
I mean, yeah, thatās kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know?
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isnāt breaking a law.
The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because theyāre poor and itās wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
I mean, no; youāre arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
I donāt care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out whatās happening, and somehow not think thatās wrong, I donāt think any words are going to change their mind.
Let me clarify. I used the word āneutralā before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to āno opinionā. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. Iām glad you made this point though, because it furthers mineā¦being poor isnāt specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless arenāt.
Itās circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking itās okay to do it.
Maybe I havenāt articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
The law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
Youāre right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldnāt be illegal. The reason Iām not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isnāt going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
We definitely differ; I donāt see why itās hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldnāt be a reason for imprisoning someone. Itās really hard for me to understand why you canāt see the obvious similarity just because thereās a few more steps.
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isnāt breaking a law.
Ah thatās fair, Iām overstepping into hyperbole.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but Iām definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldnāt.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).
Let me clarify. I used the word āneutralā before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to āno opinionā. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. Iām more of the mind that if you havenāt figured this out and arenāt on board yet, Iām not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. Iām glad you made this point though, because it furthers mineā¦being poor isnāt specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless arenāt.
Itās circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking itās okay to do it.
I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into āslippery slope fallacyā territory. As I said on this before, Iām not accusing you of āslippery slopeā here yet, but youāre well on your way and not too far off.
Maybe I havenāt articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
āThe law, in its majestic equality, forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal their bread.ā
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
Weāre in agreement on homelessness, but again, youāre making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?
We definitely differ; I donāt see why itās hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldnāt be a reason for imprisoning someone. Itās really hard for me to understand why you canāt see the obvious similarity just because thereās a few more steps.
Youāre moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of āillegal vs legalā. Youāre now moving the argument to āthe circumstances that ariseā from these conditions. Youāre welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didnāt say that. I understand why it didnāt. It doesnāt hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.
Let me clarify. I used the word āneutralā before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to āno opinionā. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. Iām more of the mind that if you havenāt figured this out and arenāt on board yet, Iām not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I donāt think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. Youāre perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.
I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.
Iām okay with losing the parts of the audience who didnāt read the whole page:
Like I get that the ACLU could have capitalized that, bolded it, and stuck it at the top of the page, but you only have to make it to like the second paragraph to read it.
Edited to add ā thanks for this. I havenāt had a pointless argument on the internet with someone who already mostly agrees on the important points but canāt quite get past pointless minutiae in awhile.
Oh I read that too, and again youāre making an additional logical leap with your idea that isnāt always true.
They arenāt sent to jail for having debt. They (could possibly) be sent to jail for failing to appear in court. You keep saying we āliterally have debtors prisonsā, but at best we might have effectively debtors prisons and Iām squinting really hard and giving you every benefit of the doubt to even say that.
If debt was illegal (as the OP post claims), everyone not paying debt would be in prison. That simply isnāt true. Presenting it like it is reality makes you come off as a crackpot, dismissable, and your otherwise important message is lost.
I wish I could say its been a while since Iāve had a conversation with someone on the internet that has a good overall message, but is so urgent to make an additional point for rhetorical value that they de-value their entire message. If you want to change minds, which ostensibly is the reason for organizing around the problem, you have to look at your own messages through the eyes of others, not just your own. Good luck!
Weird, because I feel like youāre jumping past the point because it isnāt technically spelled out in the USC that someone will arrest you if you donāt make enough money.
If someone sues you civilly, you receive no notice of it, and then they arrest you and put you in prison, I get that there are intervening steps, but itās literally the same result.
I understand that sometimes people get notice and might have the ability to show up in court and they do, but the OPās point isnāt that every poor person is in jail. The point is that theyāre put there when rich people arenāt.
That the OP canāt cite a PL that says being poor is illegal doesnāt exculpate society from putting them in prison because theyāre poor. Iām sorry that itās insidious and underhanded, but it is literally happening.
I also donāt think the OP is trying to change anyoneās mind. Iām not either. I donāt think the people who criminalize being poor are worth the effort. The point of these types of posts isnāt to change minds. Itās to overcome the apathy of the majority of people who already know itās wrong to do this and use that majority to forcibly remove power from those people whose minds you want to change.
I think its very weird youāre willing to jump past the fact its not illegal to call it illegal when the OP post is putting in context with two other things which are unequivocally illegal. Putting all three together is creating a false equivalency.
Thats A LOT of āifā to make your statement true, but youāre passing it off as its always the case. Complete different with drugs and homelessness. You can be arrested (and jailed) in the very first act.
Being in debt doesnāt put you in jail which is what your statement should mean happens. We have literally tens of millions of people in debt and millions of them are poor that are walking the streets without warrants against them.
Hmm, okay youāre not interested in changing minds of others. Nothing wrong with that I suppose, but does that mean this just food for an echo chamber then?
So you want to change the mind of someone that is neutral on the subject to being supporting of different policy? How is that not changing someoneās mind? Are we now arguing what the definition of āchanging a mindā means now?
This is so much fun, thank you again.
Is this some new definition of unequivocal I was previously unaware of?
The OP mentioned being homeless, being a drug addict, and being poor. Itās not illegal to be a drug addict, either. Oddly enough youāll find a lot of people put in prison for it, if they buy drugs illegally and if theyāre caught and if itās worth enough to the prosecutor and if theyāre convicted or if they accept a plea bargain. Youāre okay with those āifsā in your definition, but not the chain belowā¦why?
I mean, yeah, thatās kinda how it works. Not all bank robbers go to prison either, you know? The point is that this only happens to poor people and it only happens because theyāre poor and itās wrong that it happens. The point is not every poor person goes to prison.
Maybe this is where youāre confused. No one is saying that everyone with debt is being put in prison. Or maybe someone is, but they arenāt in this conversation. Iām saying that this set of circumstances should not be criminal, and it only happens to poor people. Apparently, according to the ACLU, it happens to tens of thousands of them. Iām pretty sure the OP is saying that, too.
Iād classify it more as a call to action for likeminded people. I generally read things like this and think I should do something about it, so I do what I can think of. If thatās an echo chamber for you, knock yourself out, I guess.
I mean, no; youāre arguing against something no one said (again), but I guess I can address that now, too.
I donāt care about changing the minds of someone neutral on the subject, either. If someone manages to read something like this, find out whatās happening, and somehow not think thatās wrong, I donāt think any words are going to change their mind.
Itās doesnāt matter, though, because the majority already know itās wrong. They either know itās wrong and didnāt realize it was a thing, or they know itās a thing but they think theyāre powerless to change it.
I (and, I assume, the OP) want those who arenāt currently doing something to realize they arenāt alone in thinking what theyāre thinking, so theyāll be more inclined to do things about it. They already want to do those things; their minds donāt need to be changed.
āFederal Drug Possession Penalties (21 USC Ā§844) www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/21cfr/21usc/844.htm Persons convicted of illegally possessing any controlled substance face penalties of up to 1 year in prison and a minimum fine of $1,000, or both.ā
āIt shall be unlawful for any person to be found loitering, concealed or sleeping at night, or other inappropriate time, in, or about any public building or private premises not such personās own, under suspicious circumstances, and not being able to give a satisfactory account thereof.ā = an example of texas law
Is there any ambiguity in your mind these are laws on the books? In what way is it not unequivocal that these are illegal? Do you have a different definition of the word?
Youāre right that if I was an absolute stickler I could even challenge this part of the post. Technically a drug addict could exit the country, do drugs, and reenter the country and because they neither bought nor possessed drugs in the USA, they could indeed be a drug addict, and it wouldnāt be illegal. The reason Iām not taking that stance is because I do allow for some logical leaps that realistically a drug addict isnāt going to do that. There are limits to that allowance of thought. Your view seems to all many many more logical leaps yet still feel its not too far a departure. We clearly differ in this.
All bank robbers are breaking the law. Thats the difference. Being poor isnāt breaking a law.
Using your logic from above, all poor people would be breaking some law by being poor, yet just lucky enough to escape capture or detection. Thats why that line of thinking falls apart.
I raised the question of why the OP (and by proxy you) were voicing the message. It was my assumption that you wanted to change minds from one point to another.
Let me clarify. I used the word āneutralā before. My mistake from your interpretation of it. Let me change that to āno opinionā. Am I correct from your responses that you would like to take someone that currently has no position on this (because of lack of exposure/ignorance to it) to someone that does have an opinion supporting change?
I suppose in the way that neither of the things you listed are the definition of being a drug addict or homeless. Iām glad you made this point though, because it furthers mineā¦being poor isnāt specifically in the law, just like being a drug addict and being homeless arenāt.
Itās circumstances that result from being a drug addict, being homeless, and being poor that they criminalize, because for some reason that seems to fool some people into thinking itās okay to do it.
Maybe I havenāt articulated this well enough for you to see it yet. Maybe someone else can do it better:
Sure, he was French, but he was right.
We definitely differ; I donāt see why itās hard for you to see that the circumstances that arise from being a drug addict or homeless or poor shouldnāt be a reason for imprisoning someone. Itās really hard for me to understand why you canāt see the obvious similarity just because thereās a few more steps.
Ah thatās fair, Iām overstepping into hyperbole.
Yeah this is on me for the hyperbole with bank robbers, but Iām definitely not trying to say that all poor people have this happen to. Again, the point is that it only happens to poor people and it shouldnāt.
No worries, we all make mistakes (see me above with the hyperbole).
Here I think the OP and I differ, actually. The OP probably does want that. Iām more of the mind that if you havenāt figured this out and arenāt on board yet, Iām not the right person to help you get there. The OP might be, though.
I addressed that in my post immediately prior to this one. One or maybe two logical leaps I find mostly acceptable (as each leap lowers likelihood or confidence). Blindly accepting infinite logical leaps drives us right into āslippery slope fallacyā territory. As I said on this before, Iām not accusing you of āslippery slopeā here yet, but youāre well on your way and not too far off.
Weāre in agreement on homelessness, but again, youāre making logical leaps to try and tie, in this case theft, to simply the state of being poor illegal. Are you moving your claim that we have an epidemic of people in jail for stealing basic foodstuffs?
Youāre moving the goalposts here. This has always been a discussion of āillegal vs legalā. Youāre now moving the argument to āthe circumstances that ariseā from these conditions. Youāre welcome to take that stance, but thats a different discussion. However, the OP post didnāt say that. I understand why it didnāt. It doesnāt hit as hard rhetorically, and the poster was trying for eloquence. They were largely successful if partially inaccurate.
I appreciate your candor and respect your position. Its also helpful to understand you and the OP post are going in different directions with your goals. With this understanding I donāt think I have any more argument with you in defense of the OP Post. You are taking a decidedly different position from the OP post. Youāre perfectly free to do so, and do so with whatever language and goal you have in mind.
I appreciate you taking the time to share you position. I think your goal is a good one even if I disagree with the slight nuance of the message or the means.