Massachusetts becomes fifth state to make prison calls free

In an earlier comment you wrote:

> In fact it should likely cost prisoners something if it is good for them.

Which is equivalent to "if it is good for them it should likely cost prisoners something" i.e. "if it is good for them it likely should not be free for prisoners".

I'm aware that the hnarn's comment said "you" instead of "prisoners", but the principle of charity leads me to assume that hnarn meant specifically a prisoner rather than any person. And regardless, the answer to the question "Can you find a “shouldn’t“ part in my response?" is yes.

>“Which is equivalent to "if it is good for them it should likely cost prisoners something" i.e. "if it is good for them it likely should not be free for prisoners".”

You will have the same conclusion if there is no “likely” in the sentence, so you are obviously trying to pretend it is not there or you likely need basic logic course. (Don’t ignore likely here again, though)

If I say "you likely should give me 1 dollar" then in my interpretation there is a "should give" part in my response, even if there were also a "should not give" part or an "I don't know" part.

hnarn:

>> “If it’s good for you, it shouldn’t be free” is a very strange hill to die on, even if we weren’t even specifically talking about attempting to rehabilitate criminals.

up2isomorphism:

> Can you find a “shouldn’t“ part in my response?

In your case, you said "should likely cost". You took issue with the "shouldn't be free" part in hnarn's comment, so in the context of hnarn's comment, your first comment in the thread can be expressed as "should likely not be free". To me, there is a "should not" part in "should likely not be free", and I am not claiming that the "should not" part is the whole.

There's more to it though. Here's what you, up2isomorphism, wrote in full:

> There is no logic that a good thing should be free. In fact it should likely cost prisoners something if it is good for them. Just like breakfast is good for you but it is not free.

My natural interpretation is going to be one of the following:

1. up2isomorphism wants calls to cost something for prisoners (should not be free for prisoners)

2. up2isomorphism thinks that calls should cost something for prisoners regardless of which outcome up2isomorphism personally wants (should not be free for prisoners)

3. up2isomorphism is not sure about what they want or what should be the case regarding whether calls should cost something for prisoners, but they are leaning toward "should cost something" (should not be free for prisoners)

If all three of those interpretations are wrong then I'm just wrong about what you said. If so, sorry.

I know it is your "natural" interpretation, but it does not automatically make you correct. In this case, I did not give anything particular stance of if prisoner should be given free calls or not. I merely state that being a good thing for somebody is really not an supporting cause why it should be free. There might other valid reasons to provide it free or not free, but being a good thing for prisoner is just a poor argument. The same goes for things like since non-prisoner are already paying bunch of things for the prisoners they should not be bothered to pay another thing.