NetQuarterLatte t1_jajf08a wrote
Reply to comment by ShadownetZero in Pols target NYC’s violent, repeat shoplifters with bill to protect retailer workers just like cops, firefighters by NYY657545
>Arguing that it isn't assault because the offense isn't named "___ assault" in NY is pedantic.
It's not pedantic.
It's actually quite relevant to this news, because they are proposing changes to assault when committed against retail works.
They are not proposing changes to offenses that are not assault under NY Law.
ShadownetZero t1_jajfrit wrote
>It's not pedantic.
The slogan of the pedant.
The umbrella of "assault" covers several different offenses. While you are correct that the specific offense being referred to by the proposal requires serious injury, the comment you originally replied to was:
>It’s odd to me that any assault isn’t a felony.
To which arguing the point about serious injury is pedantic to point of almost being irrelevant.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jajjb7j wrote
>To which arguing the point about serious injury is pedantic to point of almost being irrelevant.
You're correct that comment I replied referred to "any assault".
However, that's not the point I was replying to (and indeed it's not what I quoted in my reply).
My reply was aimed at the bad examples of "assault" that were provided. Those bad examples would be misleading and missinformative to the reader.
They would be misleading because these are not automatically assault under NY Law, and thus such conducts would not be impacted in any way by the bill proposal from the news.
>Sorry sir, I fell over and my fist fell into her face.
​
>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.
ShadownetZero t1_jajluuu wrote
>Any intentional physical touch can be considered assault.
This is 100% correct, and your response of "serious injury is needed!" is pedantic and not relevant to the point.
Any intentional physical touch can be considered a form of assault in New York. Even if the offense doesn't have the word "assault" in it.
NetQuarterLatte t1_jajuo5f wrote
>Any intentional physical touch can be considered a form of assault in New York. Even if the offense doesn't have the word "assault" in it.
In your argument, "can" is doing a lot of lifting here. Sure it's 100% correct in a logician's pedantic sense, after all "can" doesn't imply it "must". It's not hard to conceive scenarios of intentional physical touch that must be considered assault which would validate the "can" assertion.
But that's not a gotcha, because that doesn't contradict with anything I wrote. I didn't claim the statement was incorrect. I called it a "bad example" and added more context to it because on its own that statement is misleading in this context.
My clarification that in NY they are "not automatically assault" is still 100% correct and adds relevant context.
So your point is not only pedantic itself, it tries to be obtuse and redirect away from the stink that those those examples are misleading.
Public debate doesn't benefit much from out-of-context statements that are misleading, even if those out-of-context statements are 100% correct in a pedantic sense.
ShadownetZero t1_jajuw01 wrote
Christ, imagine writing so much and saying litterally nothing.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments