[ExI] Gender-Neutral Side Note

[Adrian Tymes]

On Sun, Nov 16, 2025 at 11:48 AM <spike at rainier66.com> wrote:
> ...> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat
> >...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".
>
> I see, so you would be OK with it if

I wasn't talking about whether I'm okay with it.  I was talking about
establishing the historical fact record of what actually happened.

So long as there's major confusion about the facts, discussions about
whether one is okay with it tend to be muddled and unproductive.  I
have found that, in many cases, discussions about whether one is okay
with it (for whatever "it" is being discussed at the time) quickly get
resolved once there is agreement as to exactly what it is.

(To take a hypothetical example: "Some soldiers shot and killed some
approximately 12 year old children..."  "...who were charging at the
soldiers while holding rifles..."  "...because the children were
fleeing the building the soldiers' army had just bombed..."  "...which
building was a bunker painted with the opposing army's livery, and the
children were wearing the opposing army's uniform."  Notice the
emotional context tilting back and forth with each new revelation?
Take out the fourth/final bit, and this example - including the
selective presentation of facts each side uses to justify their
position - might not even be hypothetical these days.)

What actually happened is: Trump was convicted on 34 felony counts.

Whether or not that's just or fair, or who is okay with it and who
isn't, is irrelevant to determining whether or not it happened.

(As to whether or not I would be okay with an analogous example: I'd
probably need a lot more details than your analogy gives, to form an
opinion.)

> I will note that the law you quoted appears to have been designed for one person, and I know of only one person who has ever been "convicted" of it.  That isn't how our legal system works either.

That is a better objection than most of the ones you have been making.
You would be better served to stick with that than to question whether
or not the conviction happened, or to repeatedly ask what the felonies
were.