>I think the source of the conflict here is that, no, this does not follow. The position I described is distinctly progressive in nature, on the opposite end of the spectrum from a belief that one might characterize as conservative. That does not imply that everybody who identifies as progressive believes it.

No. The source of the "conflict," as you describe (I call it a spirited conversation, but whatever blows your skirt up) is that you made an unsupported assertion (that the "progressive" position is that people with bad childhoods shouldn't be prosecuted for crimes they go on to commit), and I asked for specific information as to who, exactly, claims that to be not only their position, but that of progressives in general.

You danced around that very specific request and then somewhat backed off your (ridiculous) assertion.

And no, you didn't say "it's a progressive position," you said[0]:

   There’s something very odd to me about the modern
   progressive position that, more or less, if you can
   explain a crime, then you can in some sense excuse
   it.

Not "a progressive postion," which is debatable at best, you called it "the progressive position" implying that was the belief of most who call themselves "progressive."

That's simply not true. Nor has it ever been.

And I called you out on your wholly unsupported, unsubstantiated and flat wrong assertion.

You are seemingly trying to walk back your statement and chalk it up to "conflict."

No. I'm not in conflict with you at all. You may think you're in conflict with me, but I'm just here trying to have good faith discussions.

You might try it some time.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34317453

Edit: clarified my prose.

> Not "a progressive position," which is debatable at best, you called it "the progressive position" implying that was the belief of most who call themselves "progressive."

I am actually the world's foremost expert on what I mean when I say something. If we ever have a debate about what I meant, then I am 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect. When I do helpfully clarify something for you, that's not "walking back" anything. There is no debate to be had here. You can ask me to clarify something, but only I know what I meant.

Quoting somebody's words back to them as if to say, "but but but you said this!" is basically never useful, because you're always talking to the preeminent scholar on what that person meant and you should only ever be in the posture of accepting what they tell you they meant by those words.

If there appears to be some confusion about what I meant, then I am, as one former president so eloquently put it, "the decider."

>If we ever have a debate about what I meant, then I am 100% correct and you are 100% incorrect.

You are the person others perceive you to be, at least as far as they're concerned. Perhaps that's something to keep in mind when you're attempting to share your thoughts.

And that's the last I'll say on the matter.

Have a nice day.