Bricker's betting gambit

[Bricker]

@Left_Hand_of_Dorkness

A decrease in domestic violence prosecution statistics is not the same thing as an increase in domestic violence, nor is it the same thing even as a decrease in people being protected from domestic violence.

Neither a gain nor a loss was in play. Instead, the claim was:

@monica

Now, let’s talk about Dave and Alice, who are not married but living together and have been doing so for many years. If Dave physically abuses Alice, it would not be domestic violence, it would be battery, which is a lesser charge. Thus, Dave would face fewer penalties for beating up the woman he’s been living with for years than he would have had they been married. Unless you’re married or related to a person, legally, you’d beconsidered no more than strangers on the street.

This claim was adopted by other posters.

Many things can confound the data-gathering process, such as different attitudes of victims toward legal protection, new state initiatives to protect victims, cultural trends, an aging populace, and so forth. And a person saying such an effect might emerge may well be suggesting that there’s an unacceptable risk of such a trend, not saying the trend is certain. (Of course, without a link to the thread in question, it’s hard to say which of these factors applies.) Reducing everything to a bet over a statistic ignores all of these confounding factors.

Wasn’t about a statistic. It was about whether the new provision would have the legal effect of making it impossible to prosecute domestic violence “…unless you’re married or related to a person.”

Third: if your goal is to get people to introduce caveats into their hitherto overconfident assertions, you’ve got some more effective alternatives. You could, for example, suggest clarifications: “Bob, are you saying that domestic violence prosecutions will absolutely go down, or simply that there’s an unacceptable risk that they’ll go down?” You could parse their post, saying which parts you agree with and which ones you don’t.

Good idea. I thought of it:

@Bricker

Do you have a good-faith belief that the ultimate result of the passage of the marriage amendment in Virginia will be the loss, as a matter of law, of the protections of Virginia Code 18.2-57.2, for unmarried family or household members as defined in Virginia Code 16.1-228?

Fourth: in what way is the result of betting people actually turned board opinion in a direction you like? You say it levels the playing field, and fine, that works in theory, but does it work in practice?

I’m happy with the results.