You avoided answering my question and went into sarcasm instead. Was my form of debate too challenging? Under what conditions am I free to assault someone and take no personal responsibility?
Hell, even if there's an actual fire, am I allowed to push over an old lady like George Costanza in the Seinfeld episode? (except that wasn't a real fire). Is that acceptable? Does the blame lie with me in a real fire, but someone else in a fake fire? I'm interested in what you think.
And what are you doing, exactly? (Your PC must be very dirty!)
Under what false conditions am I allowed to brazenly trample someone to death and take no responsibility for it? It's one thing if I'm actually on fire or see it (Great White concert) -- but what false pretenses remove my responsibility and place it on someone else?
I contend that those killed in the Italian Hall Disaster were killed by people who trampled them and put their life ahead of others when no actual danger was present, and not the fault of the person who yelled fire. People don't want to take responsibility and own up for their own actions. We had fire drills [no drill announcement] at my dorm all the time. Do I then get to assault my fellow citizen and blame it on the drill, and become blameless?
As for: ". "fault . . . does not solely rest on whoever provided bad intelligence" So you'd agree that they are clearly not blameless? This would seem to support my position."
In that case, yes, because it is the act of a state, not an individual. Totally different paradigm. But I am also saying that if you blame it all on whoever gives misinformation first, then the President isn't culpable, the generals aren't culpable, and the soldiers aren't culpable either. After all, they're "just following orders".
It's not similar. You are comparing a situation of a perceived threat to one of a real threat. It's the difference between me pulling out a gun and pointing it at you, and pulling out my wallet. One of those, you can shoot me. The other, you can only shoot me if you're a cop (who use this excuse to murder innocent people on a daily basis).
Your metaphor fails. When you are getting shot at, that is a real threat, and you know you are in imminent danger. Try again.
Own your actions and take responsibility. Have you never heard of a fire drill? When the bell rings, do students injure each other? If one kid did, despite years of fire drills with no incident, would you blame the school system for having a drill? My drills were never announced as such in college. You don't know the difference between a drill and a real bell. Does that mean I can knock people over, hurt them, then claim no responsibility? Strangely, this never happened in my 1,000 person dorm.
What I am seeing here is people making excuses to not own their action, and blame idiotic actions on someone else. Total lack of personal responsibility.
This is also how the police get away with shooting unarmed people, and it’s wrong then too.
Anyway: Own your actions and take responsibility. Have you never heard of a fire drill? When the bell rings, did students injure each other? If one kid did, would you blame the school system for having a drill?
....Interesting example, but I'm talking about people in immediate situations, not governments and intelligence. There's definitely a parallel... And I'd add, the fault of the people who died in Iraq does not solely rest on whoever provided bad intelligence.
Those points don't speak to my point. "It's pretty fucking sad I had to explain that to you." Panicking and hurting people when there is no actual threat is the fault of the one doing it.
If you stampede despite all the mandatory fire drill lessons in publi education, YOU are assaulting someone. Your own panic should not be a valid legal excuse, nor a reason to pass the responsibility onto the "prankster". A lot of false bomb threats are phoned in - are people injuring themselves in a trample? No, because they are acting reasonable. That is an individual's responsibility, and you don't get to morally write it off "because someone told me something that made me lose all reason".
If he was really going to commit a crime, wouldn't it be better to let him say it, then be able to catch him in the act, having a clearer and less ambiguous case, with a longer, actual sentence [not some 30 day psych ward stint that won't stop anybody]?
I use optical digital cables to connect my PC to my stereo. Could the distance really even matter at that point? It's a pure digital signal. Why are the blind listening tests not done with pure digital signals?
i keep seeing all these people talk about not having adblock, but i've always had it in chrome, even before i switched over at the beginning of this year...
Congratulations. You've negated my argument, but you still haven't upheld yours. What crime would they be entrapping in the situation of gathering info on a phone on pretending to be someone?
It would have to satisfy:
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.
Now, if they thought the person was their friend, and said something they were already going to say to their friend, then they were already ready and willing to commit the crime. So condition 3 would never be satisfied.
Please look it up before leaving a stupid comment. Entrapment is when they force you to do it. Gathering information is not forcing anybody to do anything. I'm about as anti-cop as they come (I smile when I read a cop is killed), but.... Your comment was weaksauce.
Slashdot Mirror
Or maybe I should ask -- at what point are YOU going to hurt someone, then claim it was the panic's fault, and not yours? Own your actions.
Hell, even if there's an actual fire, am I allowed to push over an old lady like George Costanza in the Seinfeld episode? (except that wasn't a real fire). Is that acceptable? Does the blame lie with me in a real fire, but someone else in a fake fire? I'm interested in what you think.
Under what false conditions am I allowed to brazenly trample someone to death and take no responsibility for it? It's one thing if I'm actually on fire or see it (Great White concert) -- but what false pretenses remove my responsibility and place it on someone else?
As for: ". "fault . . . does not solely rest on whoever provided bad intelligence" So you'd agree that they are clearly not blameless? This would seem to support my position."
In that case, yes, because it is the act of a state, not an individual. Totally different paradigm. But I am also saying that if you blame it all on whoever gives misinformation first, then the President isn't culpable, the generals aren't culpable, and the soldiers aren't culpable either. After all, they're "just following orders".
I'm not trolling. Take responsibility for your own actions.
http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0376.htm
Total logic fail. A 15 year old male having sex with a 15 year old female is not statutory rape. You lose.
It's not similar. You are comparing a situation of a perceived threat to one of a real threat. It's the difference between me pulling out a gun and pointing it at you, and pulling out my wallet. One of those, you can shoot me. The other, you can only shoot me if you're a cop (who use this excuse to murder innocent people on a daily basis).
Own your actions and take responsibility. Have you never heard of a fire drill? When the bell rings, do students injure each other? If one kid did, despite years of fire drills with no incident, would you blame the school system for having a drill? My drills were never announced as such in college. You don't know the difference between a drill and a real bell. Does that mean I can knock people over, hurt them, then claim no responsibility? Strangely, this never happened in my 1,000 person dorm.
What I am seeing here is people making excuses to not own their action, and blame idiotic actions on someone else. Total lack of personal responsibility.
This is also how the police get away with shooting unarmed people, and it’s wrong then too.
Anyway: Own your actions and take responsibility. Have you never heard of a fire drill? When the bell rings, did students injure each other? If one kid did, would you blame the school system for having a drill?
....Interesting example, but I'm talking about people in immediate situations, not governments and intelligence. There's definitely a parallel... And I'd add, the fault of the people who died in Iraq does not solely rest on whoever provided bad intelligence.
Those points don't speak to my point. "It's pretty fucking sad I had to explain that to you." Panicking and hurting people when there is no actual threat is the fault of the one doing it.
Can you point to any event in history where someone caused people to die by pretending a fire that wasn't there was?
If you stampede despite all the mandatory fire drill lessons in publi education, YOU are assaulting someone. Your own panic should not be a valid legal excuse, nor a reason to pass the responsibility onto the "prankster". A lot of false bomb threats are phoned in - are people injuring themselves in a trample? No, because they are acting reasonable. That is an individual's responsibility, and you don't get to morally write it off "because someone told me something that made me lose all reason".
Yes. That happens with every bad thing, and always will, no matter how much is done or changed. "WHY DIDN'T THE TSA CHECK OUR SHOES?!?"
Furthermore, it is my reasoned opinion that it's fine, regardless of what the law may be: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com/2006/04/14/294/
If he was really going to commit a crime, wouldn't it be better to let him say it, then be able to catch him in the act, having a clearer and less ambiguous case, with a longer, actual sentence [not some 30 day psych ward stint that won't stop anybody]?
I use optical digital cables to connect my PC to my stereo. Could the distance really even matter at that point? It's a pure digital signal. Why are the blind listening tests not done with pure digital signals?
i keep seeing all these people talk about not having adblock, but i've always had it in chrome, even before i switched over at the beginning of this year...
It wasn't fixed when I left for Chrome about 6 months ago. I guess I'm not sure how long "ages" is for you.
The main difference being that those updates don't tend to kill your plugins like they do in firefox.
The TSA was formed by the Bush Administration in 2002.
It would have to satisfy:
Entrapment holds if all three conditions are fulfilled:
The idea for committing the crime came from the government agents and not from the person accused of the crime.
Government agents then persuaded or talked the person into committing the crime. Simply giving someone the opportunity to commit a crime is not the same as persuading them to commit that crime.
The person was not ready and willing to commit the crime before interaction with the government agents.
Now, if they thought the person was their friend, and said something they were already going to say to their friend, then they were already ready and willing to commit the crime. So condition 3 would never be satisfied.
Please look it up before leaving a stupid comment. Entrapment is when they force you to do it. Gathering information is not forcing anybody to do anything. I'm about as anti-cop as they come (I smile when I read a cop is killed), but.... Your comment was weaksauce.
Imagine a creepy man is looking into my bedroom window. I close my blinds. What has been publicly viewable is now no longer.