As our cross-pond spitting session closes I'd just like to say that I don't want you to take my insults seriously. Very few nations deserve heartfelt ridicule and I bet yours is not one of them. Sure, America is currently the biggest superpower but that doesn't mean we dislike foreigners or foreign nations. I enjoy sparring about international power and on you I used some hollow and unoriginal insults.
Personally I think America will continue to be the world's superpower for the rest of my natural lifetime, which should be forty or fifty more years. Things change and I expect that somehow we will solve our problems just like Europe will somehow solve theirs and China will probably have to deal with a bunch of problems that don't seem obvious now. So I don't think we're on our way down, but if we are then so be it, it's not like we do a stellar job running the world as it is.
Yeah, and nuclear bombs can be used to clear land for development, but for some reason we don't let individuals have them. If you can fathom why that is, then you can understand why we make distinctions between different "tools". Some tools we don't allow to be out and about. Where we draw the line is open to political discussion, but it doesn't help when people try to equate soldering irons with semiautomatic rifles. All that does is make people in your camp look like daft, shallow-thinking kooks.
I see that, but on the other hand "most of the civilized world" isn't free. Heck, large parts of Europe aren't even democracies, much less free democracies.
Gun ownership is a very difficult issue. I don't know any countries who have gotten the balance right.
Hmm, no, I don't think that's what they are saying. I think what they are saying is "one way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, but another and better way is to not have the guns".
It's just a matter of whether you want to live in a wild-wild-west style society or not. Lots and lots of American truly, deeply desire to live in a town where they can participate in gunfights every week or two, with the opportunity to kill a few people along the way. That is a perfectly legitimate desire so long as you are honest about it. Please forgive the rest of us for simply not wanting that.
Yeah, again, wireless wiretapping is extremely popular among Americans, and is also (now) sanctioned by law. I don't endorse it, but it is what it is. In a democracy voters get the government they demand, and time after time they (we) demand a government which is dysfunctional and violates common decency. Is that "bullying"? Maybe, but it's voters bullying themselves so it's hard to get too bent out of shape about it.
It's really easy for us to laugh off petty insults from other countries; it's like the jester teasing the king. Call us back when you have enough political power for us to appoint an ambassador who isn't a big campaign donor.
I apologize for assuming the whole audience lived under American laws. What country do you live in where people can be complicit in crimes and yet avoid prosecution? That sounds like a pirate's haven to me and I didn't realize such a place existed. Maybe I could move there and start selling bombs to terrorists or acting as a middle man for political assassinations.
I focused on the American institution of high school because it is in high school when kids learn the last lessons they need before assuming the full responsibilities of majority which in America happens at 18. When you turn 18 in the United States, you better well understand that being complicit in a crime is prosecutable. What would be the corollary phase of life in your jurisdiction?
If they provide cars or alcohol to a person knowing that that person will drive drunk, then yes of course they are. It's hard to imagine how Budweiser could know at the time they distribute the alcohol, but it's pretty easy to see how a bartender might know. It's hard to imagine how Ford could know at the time they sell the car, but it's pretty easy to see how a friend might know when loaning out his keys. Bartenders and friends have been prosecuted successfully for a long time now.
If you know (or should have known), they you are complicit in a crime. The prosecution has the burden of showing that you knew, as the prosecution in this case will have the burden to show that the defendant knew his software would be used in New York. If they can do that, then he is guilty.
You almost stopped reading after you read "Bush"? So, then, you make it all the way through my comment, which didn't mention Bush?
Anyway, at least we mostly agree on this:
"Blaming a gun maker for their guns killing people = blaming the cigarette companies for lung cancer."
Yes, those aren't exactly equivalent, but they are very similar, and courts did in fact blame cigarette companies for [some] lung cancer. To the extent that tobacco companies knew their products caused losses and failed to disclose, they were responsible for those losses. This was not a new legal theory invented for tobacco lawsuits, that's how it works for every product in the world -- except for guns, because they were exempted.
Here's the quote with helpful context: "I'm pretty sure that depends on your definition of "Evil"."
This construction uses what is known as the "generic you" or the "fourth person". In that construction it takes on the meaning of all "people", or any number of people. It could be one person, but that's not how it's normall understood.
Consider: "If you sleep with the dogs, you wake with the fleas." 'YOU'? Like, 'you' specifically, only 'you', only one person 'you'? Not anybody else 'you'? No, of course not. 'You' refers to everybody in this construction.
"There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of this situation."
Really? Absolutely nothing? You don't consider "rehabilitation" to be anything good? Well, okay then, but I hope you understand that many people think otherwise.
would you want to throw your kid into juvenile justice just because of some dumb stunt?
No, not because of some dumb stunt, but if they commit criminal drugging then yes, I would want to throw my kid into juvi.
There's a line somewhere, and it might be difficult to find, but this is way, way above the line, well outside of the gray area. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Yeah, the government totally shouldn't tell rapists whether it is right or wrong to rape, and parents totally shouldn't tell children what time bedtime is.
Great. Tell it to a judge. If that's true, then he hasn't broken the law. If he's lying, only feigning ignorance when really he knew (or should have known -- the "reasonable person" standard) then he has broken the law. The burden is on the prosecution to show that a reasonable person would have known, or even better that he really did know and that he's lying now to cover his ass. If they can't do that then he goes free.
You know that, right? You know that's how the law works, right? I mean, I'm not teaching you anything new here am I? Is anything I'm saying less than totally obvious?
"They are not selling their firearms to someone they KNOW will use it improperly."
I didn't keep reading after this because nothing else you could say could matter. That right there would be the deciding issue. Would a reasonable company know, or not? That's the legal standard and most of the legal experts expected gun makers to get hit the way tobacco makers got hit, because both of them do, in fact, know.
If a reasonable person doesn't know how it will be used then it's not a crime.
But it IS a crime for a person to provide services which a reasonable person would know would be used in a crime and then to PRETEND that they don't know how their services will be used. If a reasonable person wouldn't know, then that's not a crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Come on, man, this isn't hard stuff. This is the very very basics of the laws which govern your actions, you should have known this stuff in high school.
Turned into a bully? It enforces the law, if that's what you mean. Other than that it accurately reflects the voters which is all we can ask for in a democracy. At times when it goes beyond the law it is *always* validated by voters -- such torture, wireless wiretaps, illegal foreign wars, etc, all of which were very popular with voters.
If a plumber reasonably expects that the fruits of his labor will be used in a specific crime, then of course he assumes some complicity and responsibility for the crime. It's hard to imagine how that would happen to a plumber, but you are simply totally wrong to say that he would be inculpable.
The ballot box comes first and we're still on that stage. Congress currently reflects the values of the American people. We are legitimately divided and thus so is Congress. This is exactly as things should be. Our problems will be solved by the grind of elections.
Slashdot Mirror
Agreed. You outline some serious problems with the justice system.
As our cross-pond spitting session closes I'd just like to say that I don't want you to take my insults seriously. Very few nations deserve heartfelt ridicule and I bet yours is not one of them. Sure, America is currently the biggest superpower but that doesn't mean we dislike foreigners or foreign nations. I enjoy sparring about international power and on you I used some hollow and unoriginal insults.
Personally I think America will continue to be the world's superpower for the rest of my natural lifetime, which should be forty or fifty more years. Things change and I expect that somehow we will solve our problems just like Europe will somehow solve theirs and China will probably have to deal with a bunch of problems that don't seem obvious now. So I don't think we're on our way down, but if we are then so be it, it's not like we do a stellar job running the world as it is.
Lazy? It's a standard part of the language. Whether or not it is "lazy" seems either wrong or irrelevant.
"Their" as a gender-neutral singular pronoun is also a standard part of the language but is newer than the Generic You.
Yeah, and nuclear bombs can be used to clear land for development, but for some reason we don't let individuals have them. If you can fathom why that is, then you can understand why we make distinctions between different "tools". Some tools we don't allow to be out and about. Where we draw the line is open to political discussion, but it doesn't help when people try to equate soldering irons with semiautomatic rifles. All that does is make people in your camp look like daft, shallow-thinking kooks.
I see that, but on the other hand "most of the civilized world" isn't free. Heck, large parts of Europe aren't even democracies, much less free democracies.
Gun ownership is a very difficult issue. I don't know any countries who have gotten the balance right.
Hmm, no, I don't think that's what they are saying. I think what they are saying is "one way to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun, but another and better way is to not have the guns".
It's just a matter of whether you want to live in a wild-wild-west style society or not. Lots and lots of American truly, deeply desire to live in a town where they can participate in gunfights every week or two, with the opportunity to kill a few people along the way. That is a perfectly legitimate desire so long as you are honest about it. Please forgive the rest of us for simply not wanting that.
Yeah, again, wireless wiretapping is extremely popular among Americans, and is also (now) sanctioned by law. I don't endorse it, but it is what it is. In a democracy voters get the government they demand, and time after time they (we) demand a government which is dysfunctional and violates common decency. Is that "bullying"? Maybe, but it's voters bullying themselves so it's hard to get too bent out of shape about it.
It's really easy for us to laugh off petty insults from other countries; it's like the jester teasing the king. Call us back when you have enough political power for us to appoint an ambassador who isn't a big campaign donor.
I apologize for assuming the whole audience lived under American laws. What country do you live in where people can be complicit in crimes and yet avoid prosecution? That sounds like a pirate's haven to me and I didn't realize such a place existed. Maybe I could move there and start selling bombs to terrorists or acting as a middle man for political assassinations.
I focused on the American institution of high school because it is in high school when kids learn the last lessons they need before assuming the full responsibilities of majority which in America happens at 18. When you turn 18 in the United States, you better well understand that being complicit in a crime is prosecutable. What would be the corollary phase of life in your jurisdiction?
If they provide cars or alcohol to a person knowing that that person will drive drunk, then yes of course they are. It's hard to imagine how Budweiser could know at the time they distribute the alcohol, but it's pretty easy to see how a bartender might know. It's hard to imagine how Ford could know at the time they sell the car, but it's pretty easy to see how a friend might know when loaning out his keys. Bartenders and friends have been prosecuted successfully for a long time now.
If you know (or should have known), they you are complicit in a crime. The prosecution has the burden of showing that you knew, as the prosecution in this case will have the burden to show that the defendant knew his software would be used in New York. If they can do that, then he is guilty.
You almost stopped reading after you read "Bush"? So, then, you make it all the way through my comment, which didn't mention Bush?
Anyway, at least we mostly agree on this:
"Blaming a gun maker for their guns killing people = blaming the cigarette companies for lung cancer."
Yes, those aren't exactly equivalent, but they are very similar, and courts did in fact blame cigarette companies for [some] lung cancer. To the extent that tobacco companies knew their products caused losses and failed to disclose, they were responsible for those losses. This was not a new legal theory invented for tobacco lawsuits, that's how it works for every product in the world -- except for guns, because they were exempted.
Here's the quote with helpful context: "I'm pretty sure that depends on your definition of "Evil"."
This construction uses what is known as the "generic you" or the "fourth person". In that construction it takes on the meaning of all "people", or any number of people. It could be one person, but that's not how it's normall understood.
Consider: "If you sleep with the dogs, you wake with the fleas." 'YOU'? Like, 'you' specifically, only 'you', only one person 'you'? Not anybody else 'you'? No, of course not. 'You' refers to everybody in this construction.
"There is absolutely nothing good that can come out of this situation."
Really? Absolutely nothing? You don't consider "rehabilitation" to be anything good? Well, okay then, but I hope you understand that many people think otherwise.
would you want to throw your kid into juvenile justice just because of some dumb stunt?
No, not because of some dumb stunt, but if they commit criminal drugging then yes, I would want to throw my kid into juvi.
There's a line somewhere, and it might be difficult to find, but this is way, way above the line, well outside of the gray area. It is disingenuous to pretend otherwise.
Yeah, the government totally shouldn't tell rapists whether it is right or wrong to rape, and parents totally shouldn't tell children what time bedtime is.
Totally, man, spot on. You are a genius.
The "groggy feeling of being drugged the night before" is, after all, exactly what I paid for. It's sort of the whole point.
"literally lost all meaning"
Ha! I see what you did there.
LOLWUT? "You is singular"?!? Bro, it's time to go back to first grade, man. Review your lesson on pronouns before you embarrass yourself again.
Great. Tell it to a judge. If that's true, then he hasn't broken the law. If he's lying, only feigning ignorance when really he knew (or should have known -- the "reasonable person" standard) then he has broken the law. The burden is on the prosecution to show that a reasonable person would have known, or even better that he really did know and that he's lying now to cover his ass. If they can't do that then he goes free.
You know that, right? You know that's how the law works, right? I mean, I'm not teaching you anything new here am I? Is anything I'm saying less than totally obvious?
"They are not selling their firearms to someone they KNOW will use it improperly."
I didn't keep reading after this because nothing else you could say could matter. That right there would be the deciding issue. Would a reasonable company know, or not? That's the legal standard and most of the legal experts expected gun makers to get hit the way tobacco makers got hit, because both of them do, in fact, know.
Think about it, if that liability wasn't real then gun makers wouldn't have lobbied Congress for a special law exempting them from exactly that liability.
If a reasonable person doesn't know how it will be used then it's not a crime.
But it IS a crime for a person to provide services which a reasonable person would know would be used in a crime and then to PRETEND that they don't know how their services will be used. If a reasonable person wouldn't know, then that's not a crime. The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
Come on, man, this isn't hard stuff. This is the very very basics of the laws which govern your actions, you should have known this stuff in high school.
Turned into a bully? It enforces the law, if that's what you mean. Other than that it accurately reflects the voters which is all we can ask for in a democracy. At times when it goes beyond the law it is *always* validated by voters -- such torture, wireless wiretaps, illegal foreign wars, etc, all of which were very popular with voters.
They would be under normal legal circumstances, but Congress specifically exempted them.
If a plumber reasonably expects that the fruits of his labor will be used in a specific crime, then of course he assumes some complicity and responsibility for the crime. It's hard to imagine how that would happen to a plumber, but you are simply totally wrong to say that he would be inculpable.
The ballot box comes first and we're still on that stage. Congress currently reflects the values of the American people. We are legitimately divided and thus so is Congress. This is exactly as things should be. Our problems will be solved by the grind of elections.
LOL. You can kick us later after we're down, but until then we still run the world so try harder to hide your jealousy.