[ExI] Gender-Neutral Side Note

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2025 at 10:29 AM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
> > On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
\> On Sun, Nov 16, 2025 at 9:49 AM spike jones via extropy-chat
<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> >>... A New York court claims record keeping-violations are felonies if they are perpetrated to cover a second crime.  That politician was not tried or convicted of any second crime that anyone knows of.
>
> >...And he didn't have to be.  Mere intent - not conviction - is enough to justify the felony upgrade, under the specific laws the prosecution charged Trump with in this case.  Therefore, under the laws as written, all that needed to be proven is that he intended to commit a second crime, not that he actually did so, let alone that he be charged or convicted of it...
>
> Ja, and under that theory, I would say the court would need a conviction

And you would be incorrect.

https://www.nysenate.gov/legislation/laws/PEN/175.10

"A person is guilty of falsifying business records in the first degree
when he commits the crime of falsifying business records in the second
degree, and when his intent to defraud includes an intent to commit
another crime or to aid or conceal the commission thereof."

It says "intent to commit", not "has committed".  Nowhere in that law
is a requirement for a conviction for that other crime.  Mere intent
to commit another - whether or not that other was actually committed -
suffices.

It doesn't even require specifying an individual crime.  "Which crime
am I going to commit?  I don't know, but I am going to be one of
these," is itself "intent to commit another crime".

It can be debated whether that's fair or just.  But that is the exact
text of the law in question as of when the trial happened.

> >...Stop dancing around the issue and pretending that he needed to be actually charged or convicted of the second crime...
>
> No dancing needed.

And yet, dancing is what you've been doing.  That dancing does you a
disservice, by masking what you're actually objecting to and making it
seem like you're being a fool and an idiot.

"But what was he convicted of?"  That's in the record.  Repeatedly
asking it makes people think you are repeatedly asking it, not that
you are making a point about whether the laws as written are just.

"But what felony was he convicted of covering up?" would be closer to
your objection, but you've been drifting away from that.

>  It is safe to say the defendant must have committed or at least intended to commit a second crime.  To establish that requires a conviction.

Intention to commit a crime is not itself a crime, so there's no such
thing as a conviction for intent to commit a crime.  Thus, insofar as
there are laws where intent is a factor that needs to be proven, the
courts must rely on things other than convictions-for-intent to prove
intent.

> Otherwise the court must abandon the principle of presumption of innocence.

And here we have what may be the heart of the issue: your chain of
logic rests on a logical fallacy.

Specifically, a fallacy of the excluded middle.

There are ways of proving intent other than a formal conviction.
There exist options other than "conviction is the only means of proof"
and "abandon presumption of innocence".

Do not bother asking me for a complete and formal list.  That would
just be a version of the availability fallacy.  You know quite well
that you are capable of looking this up yourself.  (You might find a
more thorough list than I would anyway.)