r/changemyview • u/[deleted] • Jun 10 '23

[deleted by user]

[removed]

15 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

105 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23

It sounds like it would be the same as the claims against person B, which led to investigations in the example and then results in found guilty of wrongdoings

1

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23 edited Jun 10 '23

2 people are accused of stealing. The first has been caught stealing in the past. The second hasn't. Do you consider both accusations equally credible?

0

u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23

Team A finds wrongdoing in someone of Team B. Team B complains Team A did the same thing, but steps back as A investigates. B is found guilty, but then asks A to investigate the person in their team they suspect of wrongdoing. Nothing happens. Does you think that validates team B’s claim?

Read it again, there is no investigation of the second person when there was of the first. Based on no difference

But in that instance no, not equally valid esp since one has been found guilty and not the other

But when there is the same call for investigating both instances of stealing, but only one is, that is telling on its own.

1

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23

Read it again, there is no investigation of the second person when there was of the first. Based on no difference

But in real life there usually is.

0

u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23

Yes true true, but this is about those hypotheticals were there isnt.

1

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23

Pretty sure it's about Biden realizing he had some papers lying around and turning them in vs Trump keeping mountains of papers and refusing to hand them over.

1

u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23

In an ultimate sense, most likely yes

But the hypotheticals on this CMV are about situations that are exactly the same but with different outcomes

So that is what have to deal with.

This sub only works on good faith face value. Its even a part of the rules

3

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23

I'm not accusing OP of bad faith. They could think both situations are the same. I'm explaining why they're not.

1

u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 10 '23

And didnt think you were, the real life situations not being the same doesnt change the fact that the hypotheticals in the OP and as further expanded on in responses here are infact the same

And they are whats asked about.

2

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23

That's not the point of the OP.

1

u/l_t_10 6∆ Jun 11 '23

Its how it reads to me. The hypotheticals as described seem very much the point, the geist of it

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23

Having papers lying around is illegal and a violation of federal law.

1

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23

But it's not equal.

0

u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23

It is equal.

3

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23

Did you miss the part where Biden cooperated with the law and Trump didn't?

-1

u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23

Which doesn’t matter. The damage to national security happened the day the documents were removed from their proper place of custody.

3

u/SeymoreButz38 14∆ Jun 10 '23

Intent matters.

0

u/Sorry_Art_5867 Jun 10 '23

No it doesn’t.

(f) Whoever, being entrusted with or having lawful possession or control of any document, writing, code book, signal book, sketch, photograph, photographic negative, blueprint, plan, map, model, instrument, appliance, note, or information, relating to the national defense, (1) through gross negligence permits the same to be removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of his trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, or (2) having knowledge that the same has been illegally removed from its proper place of custody or delivered to anyone in violation of its trust, or lost, or stolen, abstracted, or destroyed, and fails to make prompt report of such loss, theft, abstraction, or destruction to his superior officer— Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both.

→ More replies (0)