EPTOn May 03 2016 15:06 OtherWorld wrote:
How could he prove that his car got keyed because of the sticker?
How could he prove that his car got keyed because of the sticker?
Good point. What if they left a note on the windshield?
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 444
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46243 Posts
Good point. What if they left a note on the windshield? | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
On May 03 2016 19:08 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: Good point. What if they left a note on the windshield? Well. Then your prank backfired and you should rethink your sense of humor. Who pays for repairs is between you and your friend. I guess if you want a legal ruling, a lawyer could argue either way, but you could probably be held partially responsible. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9324 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
On May 03 2016 20:25 Sent. wrote: Come on lol, there is no way you can legally blame the friend for something like that. Maybe if the car was parked right next to Sanders rally but then you could make a reasonable assumption that the friend wanted to damage the car Actions having unintended consequences is not something unknown in law or life. | ||
|
Sent.
Poland9324 Posts
| ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
| ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On May 03 2016 13:49 Epishade wrote: If I put a Trump 2016 bumper sticker on my friend's car as a joke, and someone keys his car because of that sticker, should I have to pay for damages? If it's indeed keyed because of the sticker, then yes. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On May 03 2016 21:29 Cascade wrote: If it's indeed keyed because of the sticker, then yes. You can't be serious. The only person to blame for the keying is the guy with the key. This is getting the idea of "pay for consequences of your actions" way too far. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On May 03 2016 13:28 Uldridge wrote: There is no representation of nothingness in this universe. Only through mankind. You agree with this, yet you want to argue with this simple statement for some reason. I don't get it. And that's literally all he said (imo) Also the issue wasn't sidestepped, I merely tried to convey that you, as a sentient being, capable of noticing the absence of dogs (to use your example again), applied a concept thought of by humans, to say something about something that isn' there. That's not how the universe works though. It has stuff in it. That stuff is in a certain state. That's it. You can't really talk about the stuff that's in that certain state that's not there. You know what I'm trying to say? Anyway gonna go for a new one, since I feel like it's fast approaching beating dead horse (BDH) status.. How do audio engineers (or programmers) program things like reeverbs or delays (and make them sound natural)? Maybe I start to understand what you are trying to say. Maybe.  Are you trying to say that I can't point to an empty bowl and say that it contains 0 apples? While I can point at it and say that it contains 2 apples? And thus you say that the mathematical number 2 has a "representation in the universe", while the number 0 doesn't? Did I get that more or less right? Maybe I didn't.  | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
On May 03 2016 21:43 Cascade wrote: Maybe I start to understand what you are trying to say. Maybe. Are you trying to say that I can't point to an empty bowl and say that it contains 0 apples? While I can point at it and say that it contains 2 apples? And thus you say that the mathematical number 2 has a "representation in the universe", while the number 0 doesn't? Did I get that more or less right? Maybe I didn't. I believe his point was more philosophical than that, although not completely thought through. "It takes a sentient being to be capable of noticing the absence of dogs" misses the fact that it also takes that same sentient being to notice the presence of dogs. Nevertheless, the absence or presence of dogs is not dependent on that sentient being. We're back to the sound of a tree falling in the woods, and if we explore this further head far into epistemology. I think it is rather silly to assume that just because there isn't an observer around to call something a dog (or a dinosaur, or a carbon atom), means that that thing does not exist, and by extension we can talk about its presence, or absence, without an observer to ever know whether it was actually present or absent. If we draw this far enough along, why are we stopping at quanta, strings, or whatever other fundamental particle you think underlies the structure of the universe. It takes humans to discuss their presence too. Following the line of reasoning that apples cease to be present (or absent) in the absentia of sentient observers, so should electrons, or strings. If you say that all numbers (and math) is meaningless without humans to give it meaning, then we might have an interesting discussion about whether or not math is a property of the universe waiting to be discovered, or a property of humans. I believe it is the former, but at least it's a logically consistent point of view to deny that (with some strange conclusions, imho). However, if you insist on stating that some numbers (positive integers?) have a meaningful representation, but others do not, you will have to be a lot more careful in your definitions before we can move on with this discussion. | ||
|
ThomasjServo
15244 Posts
On May 03 2016 22:24 JimmiC wrote: What id like to see in video games is a senior division for people over 35 or 30 Than ragers would really make me laugh and hopefully be very slow. Also wouldn't be against kids with super fast fingers 😜 Mentally, that is what I was thinking, also some amount of understanding for, "oh the kid stuck a fork in the socket, he isn't very bright brb." That being said, probably wouldn't stop ragers. Adults could well be more prodigious ragers than their teen counterparts in some instances. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18393 Posts
On May 03 2016 21:42 opisska wrote: You can't be serious. The only person to blame for the keying is the guy with the key. This is getting the idea of "pay for consequences of your actions" way too far. That's like saying the only people responsible for the deaths by SWAT in the US are the SWAT teams. However, if you SWAT someone as a prank, you are partially (or maybe even fully) responsible, because you put that person in the situation to have his house stormed into by a SWAT team. It all depends on the specifics of the situation. But to have a blanket statement either way is wrong: the person putting the bumper sticker might very well be held accountable. And as a further aside, if it were my friend doing that to my car, I would definitely be incredibly pissed off with him. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On May 03 2016 21:42 opisska wrote: You can't be serious. The only person to blame for the keying is the guy with the key. This is getting the idea of "pay for consequences of your actions" way too far. Depends on stuff. If you put the Trump sticker on your friend's car, you obviously do it with the intent that something happens to him/his car. Thus if something "serious" happens, you're not fully responsible, but you're still partly responsible. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On May 03 2016 22:46 Acrofales wrote: That's like saying the only people responsible for the deaths by SWAT in the US are the SWAT teams. However, if you SWAT someone as a prank, you are partially (or maybe even fully) responsible, because you put that person in the situation to have his house stormed into by a SWAT team. It all depends on the specifics of the situation. But to have a blanket statement either way is wrong: the person putting the bumper sticker might very well be held accountable. And as a further aside, if it were my friend doing that to my car, I would definitely be incredibly pissed off with him. Pissed, yes. But not legally liable. And yes, if people kill others, they are the ones responsible. I do not know any details of the problem you mention, but in general, distributing the blame is only paving the way for more deaths. If you are using deadly force, it is your ultimate impetus to control it. Honestly, to me this discussion starts pretty much to sound like the "she was asking for it" excuse for rapists. I see this trend a lot, trying to find ways to argue that people aren't purely to blame for what they did personally, and I don't like it. | ||
|
Velr
Switzerland10929 Posts
Keying because of this sticker is another issue, intent/situation should paly major roles here. | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46243 Posts
The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property. If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. | ||
|
opisska
Poland8852 Posts
On May 03 2016 23:14 Velr wrote: Uhm, putting Stickers on Cars that are not your own is actually not really legal and you probably would have to pay damages if the removal of said sticker does any harm to the car. Keying because of this sticker is another issue, intent/situation should paly major roles here. It's probably "not really legal", but it's not a crime, not even a "minor crime" (don't know the English term) - the damage done is extremely minor. The most you can get for it in a reasonable country are some fatherly looks. On the other hand, keying a car can be significant damage and it is at least a minor offense. In principle, I would like to consider damaging other people's property or health and similar actions unacceptable in our society. That means that these are things that are not supposed to happen and it is the reason why we have law enforcement to make sure it stays that way. I do not want to plan my actions according to the possibility of them happening. Putting a sticker on someone's car is maybe not nice, but I should not be liable, because someone else has broken the law. Maybe it has motivated them - but... what? This thinking leads straight to arguing that they are less guilty, because they have been provoked and that is wrong. | ||
|
OtherWorld
France17333 Posts
On May 04 2016 00:01 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: The person who put the sticker on the car should be held accountable for any direct damage done as the sticker gets pulled off, but not really for the indirect damage caused by someone else getting offended and further vandalizing the vehicle. The person who keyed the car should be responsible for that destruction of property. If the person putting the sticker on the car gets in trouble for someone else getting offended and acting upon the sticker, then where do we draw the line? I'd imagine a slippery slope could start where people get in trouble for putting their own bumper stickers on their own cars, if it incites violence or destruction of property. I'd imagine that people could get in trouble for the destruction of property if they put little slips of paper/ advertisements on the windshield asking for charity donations or supporting a noble cause, if someone gets "offended" by them and takes action. But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car? | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46243 Posts
On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote: But what if the guy putting the stickers does it with the intent of someone deteriorating the car? Good question; I don't know. I still feel like the whole "He triggered me into committing violence" is a childish argument. The sticker guy is a dick, but you should have enough self-control not to destroy property simply because you see something that offends you. Grow up, recognize that there's such a thing as freedom of expression, recognize that you're not going to agree with everyone on everything, and just ignore it. Should adults need to be told *not* to destroy property? Meh. | ||
| ||
