Hacker News Reader

Comment by thenerdfiles | Hacker News Reader

Also:

    The riddle does not exist. If a question can be put at all, 
    then it can also be answered.
    —Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus

I'm not saying these things to entertain or prompt a hackers' game of philosophy. I'm showing you the problem. My definition of "felony" is irrelevant, and (again) not the point. — "What is a 'felony' to you?" is not a real question; I am not a legal system.

View on HN

You weren't asked for a definition of "felony" you were asked a reasonable question about what you meant by "negligeable felony" - most likely because most of us would be willing to accept someone done for shoplifting a pack of cigarettes when they were 17 (as an example). Why are you dodging the question? At least to me, it makes you seem like a shifty politician trying to hide her agenda.

In uni a number of young philosophers attempted to sound intelligent by saying nothing in a cryptic manner. It worked pretty well for them.

Oh, I've said that before.

In the end, nothing beats a Classical education.

Classical works are generally quite clear and lucid, once you understand the language.

It's postmodernism you're thinking of.

Clear and lucid. Is that stuff anything like Descartes' "clear" _and_ "distinct" ideas?

Fascinating.

Do you know of posey? It's right good stuff, even on Sundays.

No. "Negiligible felony" and "felony" will incite the same quibble. The point is having a history as a felon, period.

I'm dodging the question because you should be focused on the "shady" characteristic. Even a morally reprehensible felon can appear non-shady. And a "shady" person with "negiligible" felony probably overly skews or augments their own perception of it, which makes them appear even "shadier" than they would without the felony, whatever its stripe.

Whatever the case, "felony", whatever its qualification, has a legal (non-personal) meaning, and it only has a meaning in that sense. Look at GEM Anscombe's distiction of institutional and brute facts. There's no such thing as a "brute fact" of felony.

No, they won't incite the same quibble, because "felony" has a very precise legal definition. A "negligible" felony is going to have a different meaning for each person that uses it, so you're going to need to define what you mean when you use the word. I agree with the other commenters, why are you dodging this so much?

I think the point is that it doesn't matter what the OP's definition of a "negligible felony" is. His question is probably better stated, "would you hire someone who has what you consider a negligible felony on their record?"

What matters is what you think is negligible. The question is intended to tease out whether or not you believe absolutely that felony = no hire, or if there's some nuance to it.

I think there are some mental health issues to be worked on.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com