|
On May 04 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime. I think I disagree with you here. Putting a Kick Me sign on someone's back makes you a dick, but other people aren't forced to kick someone just because you put a sign there.
Is putting a needle with heroin in front of an addict, knowing he will OD on it, murder? All you did was allow that person to give into temptation. Yet you know full well what the consequences of your actions will be (people will kick someone with a "kick me" sign, and the heroin addict will OD).
|
On May 04 2016 02:31 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote: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? 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. I'm not excusing the guy who keyed the car. I'm just saying that saying "The one who puts the sticker should hold all the responsability" is, as a general statement, as invalid as "The one who puts the sticker should all no responsability at all".
1. Why though? Why is it invalid to say that the sticker dick (...dick sticker? >.> ) needs some level of responsibility?
2. I feel like that means that there is a well-known expectation for the visibility of that Trump sticker to incite rage and physical violence, but actual Trump supporters put pro-Trump stickers on their cars all the time... should they expect their car to be damaged? Are they responsible for their own car being damaged (even partially)?
3. Is someone with a generally peaceful bumper sticker (e.g., COEXIST stickers with letters made from religious symbols, or a picture of a puppy or something) also partially responsible if their car is damaged because "their sticker incited it and they should know better than to instigate"?
4. Where does one draw the line on stickers and doodads and decorations? It seems subjective and borderline arbitrary, so I feel like it's sensible to say "As long as you're not doing something illegal, you have freedom of expression. People may not like it, and you might get ridiculed or yelled at, but you and your property shouldn't be physically attacked because of a sticker."
|
On May 04 2016 02:28 thePunGun wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2016 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2016 12:42 Cascade wrote:Wtf are you guys smoking? "Physical definition of 0"? There is no such thing... 0 is a mathematical object. Force has a physical definition, length and time has. "0" hasn't. When you do calculation on for example force, you sometimes end up with 0 Newton (unit of force), which means no force. Where is the problem here?  The original problem was that thepungun initially made the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". And then in the next sentence he said that 0 doesn't exist (presumably as its own magical floating physical entity), which is fine but we can still apply the concepts of 0 and other numbers and math to the real world (and several people listed examples of those applications), to which there was some backtracking and redefining of the number zero (and what it's "allowed" to be applied to, according to thepungun... which is that it can't be applied to anything unless it's simultaneously applied to everything, and he said that if we can't have absolute nothingness in this universe- there's always *something*- then there's no representation of 0 at all). I never said 0 can't be applied, ofc it can, that's how math works.  I only mentioned that the closest to 0 in the physical world is the smallest distance, which i personally find facinating, because it means that even a vacuum is something and not 0. Yet the concept of 0 only exists in math, just because you cann apply it and it works in math does not mean it exists in our physical world.( I even posted several links, with the smallest distance and scientific proof of it.) edit: I had a long stressful day yesterday at work so my arguments may have been a bit short and today isn't any better( even though it's only been an hour so far xD), sorry if any of this seems rushed, 
Again, I don't think anyone is arguing with your conditional of "If we're talking about a smallest, measurable positive length in any way, then we're referring to the Plank length". But we're not, because zero isn't positive.
Well you started the discussion with the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". That's a direct quote from you. I feel like you've backtracked and redefined some of your terms (including "zero") a bit to try and make it so that everyone's examples are no longer applicable; either way, I think we might be talking in circles at this point, so I hope we've made at least a Planck's length worth of progress!
|
On May 04 2016 03:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime. I think I disagree with you here. Putting a Kick Me sign on someone's back makes you a dick, but other people aren't forced to kick someone just because you put a sign there. Is putting a needle with heroin in front of an addict, knowing he will OD on it, murder? All you did was allow that person to give into temptation. Yet you know full well what the consequences of your actions will be (people will kick someone with a "kick me" sign, and the heroin addict will OD).
I think there are two major differences between your heroin addict analogy and the original bumper sticker case, and when combined they make the situation different:
1. The person is an addict. In other words, he actually has a psychological, medical issue that has been professionally diagnosed. He shouldn't be anywhere near heroin needles.
2. You're aware that he's a struggling addict and you're actually forcing a dangerous temptation on to him.
For this to be analogous to the bumper sticker scenario, I feel like you'd have to fabricate a man who has a clinically diagnosed violent predisposition towards Trump bumper stickers. In which case, he shouldn't be near political rallies (or cars at all? idk), and the bumper sticker dick needs to be aware of this issue and basically shoving the addict's face in it. Given those hypotheticals, then yes, I'd say that the dick bears some responsibility. I hadn't really considered that in the domain of realistic ideas though, since I've never heard of someone who is diagnosed with violent bouts of rage due to bumper stickers, nor did the original scenario imply that the sticker dick put the sticker on to single out a susceptible target.
Also, people kicking others with Kick Me signs is really, really not the same as drug addicts wanting drugs when they see them.
|
On May 04 2016 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:12 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime. I think I disagree with you here. Putting a Kick Me sign on someone's back makes you a dick, but other people aren't forced to kick someone just because you put a sign there. Is putting a needle with heroin in front of an addict, knowing he will OD on it, murder? All you did was allow that person to give into temptation. Yet you know full well what the consequences of your actions will be (people will kick someone with a "kick me" sign, and the heroin addict will OD). I think there are two major differences between your heroin addict analogy and the original bumper sticker case, and when combined they make the situation different: 1. The person is an addict. In other words, he actually has a psychological, medical issue that has been professionally diagnosed. He shouldn't be anywhere near heroin needles. 2. You're aware that he's a struggling addict and you're actually forcing a dangerous temptation on to him. For this to be analogous to the bumper sticker scenario, I feel like you'd have to fabricate a man who has a clinically diagnosed violent predisposition towards Trump bumper stickers. In which case, he shouldn't be near political rallies (or cars at all? idk), and the bumper sticker dick needs to be aware of this issue and basically shoving the addict's face in it. Given those hypotheticals, then yes, I'd say that the dick bears some responsibility. I hadn't really considered that in the domain of realistic ideas though, since I've never heard of someone who is diagnosed with violent bouts of rage due to bumper stickers, nor did the original scenario imply that the sticker dick put the sticker on to single out a susceptible target. Also, people kicking others with Kick Me signs is really, really not the same as drug addicts wanting drugs when they see them.
Ok, but these are differences of scale, not of category. So given that we agree that causing temptation may be wrong, we can see that in the case of bumper stickers, it may be wrong to cause temptation of adult anti-Trump crazies to key that particular car. Obviously the temptation in both cases is of a grossly different scale, and one can argue that one cannot reasonably expect anti-Trump hooligans to key cars with pro-Trump stickers. And that's probably what a defense lawyer would argue. But one cannot categorically exculpate the Trump-bumper-sticker-stickerer, while blaming the addict-murderer. They are on the same scale, just at opposite ends.
|
On May 04 2016 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 02:31 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote: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? 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. I'm not excusing the guy who keyed the car. I'm just saying that saying "The one who puts the sticker should hold all the responsability" is, as a general statement, as invalid as "The one who puts the sticker should all no responsability at all". 1. Why though? Why is it invalid to say that the sticker dick (...dick sticker? >.> ) needs some level of responsibility? 2. I feel like that means that there is a well-known expectation for the visibility of that Trump sticker to incite rage and physical violence, but actual Trump supporters put pro-Trump stickers on their cars all the time... should they expect their car to be damaged? Are they responsible for their own car being damaged (even partially)? 3. Is someone with a generally peaceful bumper sticker (e.g., COEXIST stickers with letters made from religious symbols, or a picture of a puppy or something) also partially responsible if their car is damaged because "their sticker incited it and they should know better than to instigate"? 4. Where does one draw the line on stickers and doodads and decorations? It seems subjective and borderline arbitrary, so I feel like it's sensible to say "As long as you're not doing something illegal, you have freedom of expression. People may not like it, and you might get ridiculed or yelled at, but you and your property shouldn't be physically attacked because of a sticker."
1. Precisely, it's not invalid to say that the sticker dick has some level of responsability. It's invalid to say that he holds no responsability in all situations (because of the intent thing I talked about earlier), or that he holds full responsability in all situations (pretty obviously because the guy who does the act is first and foremost responsible).
2. Tbh the Trump thing is more of an example to me, I have no idea how likely your car is to get damaged if you put a Trump sticker on it. But assuming it's the case, then yes, the Trump supporter is responsible for his own car being damaged. Just like for point (1), he's neither at 100% nor 0% responsability, but he has some level of responsability. It does not mean, however that the guys damaging his car are right to do it ; it does not justify. But it can partly explain it.
3. I'd say it depends on how consensual the sticker is. A relatively consensual sticker (said consensuality depends on where your car is located, ofc) will give you little responsability, because tbh a guy who damages a car for the sole reason of a puppy sticker is an ass lol.
4. Once again, I'm not saying that displaying sticker X should or should not get you harmed in some ideal world where everyone's tolerance is as high as Mick Jagger in the early 70s, I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect from some people holding a given view to react in unreasonable ways when faced with certain situations. It doesn't mean that you should be harmed, but it does mean that being harmed is among the possible consequences, and that you're responsible for ignoring or not ignoring these potential consequences. That, however, does not justifiy the offender's actions, nor does it protect them from legal consequences.
|
On May 04 2016 03:35 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 03:12 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime. I think I disagree with you here. Putting a Kick Me sign on someone's back makes you a dick, but other people aren't forced to kick someone just because you put a sign there. Is putting a needle with heroin in front of an addict, knowing he will OD on it, murder? All you did was allow that person to give into temptation. Yet you know full well what the consequences of your actions will be (people will kick someone with a "kick me" sign, and the heroin addict will OD). I think there are two major differences between your heroin addict analogy and the original bumper sticker case, and when combined they make the situation different: 1. The person is an addict. In other words, he actually has a psychological, medical issue that has been professionally diagnosed. He shouldn't be anywhere near heroin needles. 2. You're aware that he's a struggling addict and you're actually forcing a dangerous temptation on to him. For this to be analogous to the bumper sticker scenario, I feel like you'd have to fabricate a man who has a clinically diagnosed violent predisposition towards Trump bumper stickers. In which case, he shouldn't be near political rallies (or cars at all? idk), and the bumper sticker dick needs to be aware of this issue and basically shoving the addict's face in it. Given those hypotheticals, then yes, I'd say that the dick bears some responsibility. I hadn't really considered that in the domain of realistic ideas though, since I've never heard of someone who is diagnosed with violent bouts of rage due to bumper stickers, nor did the original scenario imply that the sticker dick put the sticker on to single out a susceptible target. Also, people kicking others with Kick Me signs is really, really not the same as drug addicts wanting drugs when they see them. Ok, but these are differences of scale, not of category. So given that we agree that causing temptation may be wrong, we can see that in the case of bumper stickers, it may be wrong to cause temptation of adult anti-Trump crazies to key that particular car. Obviously the temptation in both cases is of a grossly different scale, and one can argue that one cannot reasonably expect anti-Trump hooligans to key cars with pro-Trump stickers. And that's probably what a defense lawyer would argue. But one cannot categorically exculpate the Trump-bumper-sticker-stickerer, while blaming the addict-murderer. They are on the same scale, just at opposite ends.
I feel like the designation of clinical addiction creates a different category due to brain chemistry, although if you're creating a general scale of addiction, I can see how you can certainly have Not Addicted and Addicted on the same scale. I also don't think people can be literally addicted (medically) to damaging cars with Trump stickers on them though, but if there existed such a man and if it were known, then sure; I'd happily concede that the sticker dick bears some responsibility. The original question didn't have those other axioms though, but either way I can sleep at night
|
On May 04 2016 03:46 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 02:31 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote: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? 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. I'm not excusing the guy who keyed the car. I'm just saying that saying "The one who puts the sticker should hold all the responsability" is, as a general statement, as invalid as "The one who puts the sticker should all no responsability at all". 1. Why though? Why is it invalid to say that the sticker dick (...dick sticker? >.> ) needs some level of responsibility? 2. I feel like that means that there is a well-known expectation for the visibility of that Trump sticker to incite rage and physical violence, but actual Trump supporters put pro-Trump stickers on their cars all the time... should they expect their car to be damaged? Are they responsible for their own car being damaged (even partially)? 3. Is someone with a generally peaceful bumper sticker (e.g., COEXIST stickers with letters made from religious symbols, or a picture of a puppy or something) also partially responsible if their car is damaged because "their sticker incited it and they should know better than to instigate"? 4. Where does one draw the line on stickers and doodads and decorations? It seems subjective and borderline arbitrary, so I feel like it's sensible to say "As long as you're not doing something illegal, you have freedom of expression. People may not like it, and you might get ridiculed or yelled at, but you and your property shouldn't be physically attacked because of a sticker." 1. Precisely, it's not invalid to say that the sticker dick has some level of responsability. It's invalid to say that he holds no responsability in all situations (because of the intent thing I talked about earlier), or that he holds full responsability in all situations (pretty obviously because the guy who does the act is first and foremost responsible). 2. Tbh the Trump thing is more of an example to me, I have no idea how likely your car is to get damaged if you put a Trump sticker on it. But assuming it's the case, then yes, the Trump supporter is responsible for his own car being damaged. Just like for point (1), he's neither at 100% nor 0% responsability, but he has some level of responsability. It does not mean, however that the guys damaging his car are right to do it ; it does not justify. But it can partly explain it. 3. I'd say it depends on how consensual the sticker is. A relatively consensual sticker (said consensuality depends on where your car is located, ofc) will give you little responsability, because tbh a guy who damages a car for the sole reason of a puppy sticker is an ass lol. 4. Once again, I'm not saying that displaying sticker X should or should not get you harmed in some ideal world where everyone's tolerance is as high as Mick Jagger in the early 70s, I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect from some people holding a given view to react in unreasonable ways when faced with certain situations. It doesn't mean that you should be harmed, but it does mean that being harmed is among the possible consequences, and that you're responsible for ignoring or not ignoring these potential consequences. That, however, does not justifiy the offender's actions, nor does it protect them from legal consequences.
I'm definitely on board with the idea that the existence of the Trump sticker can partly *explain* why the assailant damaged the car, but I'm not quite sold on the fact that the person who put the sticker there should therefore be *blamed*. I don't think one necessarily implies the other.
I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that people's cars will be damaged due to bumper stickers. It's a comparatively rare occurrence, but perhaps the actual message on the bumper sticker is what matters? If it's "Vote for Trump", then that's relatively docile. If it's "Vote for Trump and Fuck All You Niggers", then clearly you shouldn't be driving around Newark...
I guess I'd need more context and need to go on a case-by-case basis.
|
And this is why case-by-case is so much better than statistics.
|
On May 04 2016 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 02:31 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote: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? 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. I'm not excusing the guy who keyed the car. I'm just saying that saying "The one who puts the sticker should hold all the responsability" is, as a general statement, as invalid as "The one who puts the sticker should all no responsability at all". 1. Why though? Why is it invalid to say that the sticker dick (...dick sticker? >.> ) needs some level of responsibility? 2. I feel like that means that there is a well-known expectation for the visibility of that Trump sticker to incite rage and physical violence, but actual Trump supporters put pro-Trump stickers on their cars all the time... should they expect their car to be damaged? Are they responsible for their own car being damaged (even partially)? 3. Is someone with a generally peaceful bumper sticker (e.g., COEXIST stickers with letters made from religious symbols, or a picture of a puppy or something) also partially responsible if their car is damaged because "their sticker incited it and they should know better than to instigate"? 4. Where does one draw the line on stickers and doodads and decorations? It seems subjective and borderline arbitrary, so I feel like it's sensible to say "As long as you're not doing something illegal, you have freedom of expression. People may not like it, and you might get ridiculed or yelled at, but you and your property shouldn't be physically attacked because of a sticker." 1. Precisely, it's not invalid to say that the sticker dick has some level of responsability. It's invalid to say that he holds no responsability in all situations (because of the intent thing I talked about earlier), or that he holds full responsability in all situations (pretty obviously because the guy who does the act is first and foremost responsible). 2. Tbh the Trump thing is more of an example to me, I have no idea how likely your car is to get damaged if you put a Trump sticker on it. But assuming it's the case, then yes, the Trump supporter is responsible for his own car being damaged. Just like for point (1), he's neither at 100% nor 0% responsability, but he has some level of responsability. It does not mean, however that the guys damaging his car are right to do it ; it does not justify. But it can partly explain it. 3. I'd say it depends on how consensual the sticker is. A relatively consensual sticker (said consensuality depends on where your car is located, ofc) will give you little responsability, because tbh a guy who damages a car for the sole reason of a puppy sticker is an ass lol. 4. Once again, I'm not saying that displaying sticker X should or should not get you harmed in some ideal world where everyone's tolerance is as high as Mick Jagger in the early 70s, I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect from some people holding a given view to react in unreasonable ways when faced with certain situations. It doesn't mean that you should be harmed, but it does mean that being harmed is among the possible consequences, and that you're responsible for ignoring or not ignoring these potential consequences. That, however, does not justifiy the offender's actions, nor does it protect them from legal consequences. I'm definitely on board with the idea that the existence of the Trump sticker can partly *explain* why the assailant damaged the car, but I'm not quite sold on the fact that the person who put the sticker there should therefore be *blamed*. I don't think one necessarily implies the other. I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that people's cars will be damaged due to bumper stickers. It's a comparatively rare occurrence, but perhaps the actual message on the bumper sticker is what matters? If it's "Vote for Trump", then that's relatively docile. If it's "Vote for Trump and Fuck All You Niggers", then clearly you shouldn't be driving around Newark... I guess I'd need more context and need to go on a case-by-case basis.
But I didn't say that the one who put the sticker should be blamed. I said that he had responsability, assuming the car was damaged because of the sticker and not because of another reason. Then you're free to blame him or not ; it'll mainly depend on the specifics of the situation.
|
On May 04 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2016 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 03:12 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime. I think I disagree with you here. Putting a Kick Me sign on someone's back makes you a dick, but other people aren't forced to kick someone just because you put a sign there. Is putting a needle with heroin in front of an addict, knowing he will OD on it, murder? All you did was allow that person to give into temptation. Yet you know full well what the consequences of your actions will be (people will kick someone with a "kick me" sign, and the heroin addict will OD). I think there are two major differences between your heroin addict analogy and the original bumper sticker case, and when combined they make the situation different: 1. The person is an addict. In other words, he actually has a psychological, medical issue that has been professionally diagnosed. He shouldn't be anywhere near heroin needles. 2. You're aware that he's a struggling addict and you're actually forcing a dangerous temptation on to him. For this to be analogous to the bumper sticker scenario, I feel like you'd have to fabricate a man who has a clinically diagnosed violent predisposition towards Trump bumper stickers. In which case, he shouldn't be near political rallies (or cars at all? idk), and the bumper sticker dick needs to be aware of this issue and basically shoving the addict's face in it. Given those hypotheticals, then yes, I'd say that the dick bears some responsibility. I hadn't really considered that in the domain of realistic ideas though, since I've never heard of someone who is diagnosed with violent bouts of rage due to bumper stickers, nor did the original scenario imply that the sticker dick put the sticker on to single out a susceptible target. Also, people kicking others with Kick Me signs is really, really not the same as drug addicts wanting drugs when they see them. Ok, but these are differences of scale, not of category. So given that we agree that causing temptation may be wrong, we can see that in the case of bumper stickers, it may be wrong to cause temptation of adult anti-Trump crazies to key that particular car. Obviously the temptation in both cases is of a grossly different scale, and one can argue that one cannot reasonably expect anti-Trump hooligans to key cars with pro-Trump stickers. And that's probably what a defense lawyer would argue. But one cannot categorically exculpate the Trump-bumper-sticker-stickerer, while blaming the addict-murderer. They are on the same scale, just at opposite ends. I feel like the designation of clinical addiction creates a different category due to brain chemistry, although if you're creating a general scale of addiction, I can see how you can certainly have Not Addicted and Addicted on the same scale. I also don't think people can be literally addicted (medically) to damaging cars with Trump stickers on them though, but if there existed such a man and if it were known, then sure; I'd happily concede that the sticker dick bears some responsibility. The original question didn't have those other axioms though, but either way I can sleep at night
It becomes simpler if you stop talking about heroin and talk about peanut butter.
Giving someone a PB&J is not wrong.
Unknowingly giving it to someone with a Peanut allergy is not wrong.
Knowingly giving it to someone with a Peanut allergy is wrong.
Now lets go back to the needle.
If an addict overdoses by himself it is not automatically a suicide investigatio. (there needs to be other evidence outside of the OD for that to happen)
If an addict does drugs with another addict and one of them OD's, it is not a murder investigation. (Unless there was evidence that pointed to it outside of the OD).
If one knowingly gives drugs to an addict, and the addict OD's--then there is a case for murder (albeit hard to prove, but the police would actually look into it).
Now lets move back to the sticker analogy.
Is there a study that says stickers causes you to act out in the same way as a peanut allergy or drug addiction?
Would you be willing to make the argument that getting angry about stickers is the same as dying of peanut allergy?
|
On May 04 2016 03:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 02:28 thePunGun wrote:On May 03 2016 13:10 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 03 2016 12:42 Cascade wrote:Wtf are you guys smoking? "Physical definition of 0"? There is no such thing... 0 is a mathematical object. Force has a physical definition, length and time has. "0" hasn't. When you do calculation on for example force, you sometimes end up with 0 Newton (unit of force), which means no force. Where is the problem here? The original problem was that thepungun initially made the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". And then in the next sentence he said that 0 doesn't exist (presumably as its own magical floating physical entity), which is fine but we can still apply the concepts of 0 and other numbers and math to the real world (and several people listed examples of those applications), to which there was some backtracking and redefining of the number zero (and what it's "allowed" to be applied to, according to thepungun... which is that it can't be applied to anything unless it's simultaneously applied to everything, and he said that if we can't have absolute nothingness in this universe- there's always *something*- then there's no representation of 0 at all). I never said 0 can't be applied, ofc it can, that's how math works. I only mentioned that the closest to 0 in the physical world is the smallest distance, which i personally find facinating, because it means that even a vacuum is something and not 0. Yet the concept of 0 only exists in math, just because you cann apply it and it works in math does not mean it exists in our physical world.( I even posted several links, with the smallest distance and scientific proof of it.) edit: I had a long stressful day yesterday at work so my arguments may have been a bit short and today isn't any better( even though it's only been an hour so far xD), sorry if any of this seems rushed, Again, I don't think anyone is arguing with your conditional of "If we're talking about a smallest, measurable positive length in any way, then we're referring to the Plank length". But we're not, because zero isn't positive. Well you started the discussion with the claim that math "cannot be directly applied to the real world". That's a direct quote from you. I feel like you've backtracked and redefined some of your terms (including "zero") a bit to try and make it so that everyone's examples are no longer applicable; either way, I think we might be talking in circles at this point, so I hope we've made at least a Planck's length worth of progress!
Love that analogy, that's my kind of humor.
|
|
|
On May 04 2016 04:17 OtherWorld wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 04:04 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 03:46 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 03:13 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 02:31 OtherWorld wrote:On May 04 2016 00:14 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 00:07 OtherWorld wrote: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? 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. I'm not excusing the guy who keyed the car. I'm just saying that saying "The one who puts the sticker should hold all the responsability" is, as a general statement, as invalid as "The one who puts the sticker should all no responsability at all". 1. Why though? Why is it invalid to say that the sticker dick (...dick sticker? >.> ) needs some level of responsibility? 2. I feel like that means that there is a well-known expectation for the visibility of that Trump sticker to incite rage and physical violence, but actual Trump supporters put pro-Trump stickers on their cars all the time... should they expect their car to be damaged? Are they responsible for their own car being damaged (even partially)? 3. Is someone with a generally peaceful bumper sticker (e.g., COEXIST stickers with letters made from religious symbols, or a picture of a puppy or something) also partially responsible if their car is damaged because "their sticker incited it and they should know better than to instigate"? 4. Where does one draw the line on stickers and doodads and decorations? It seems subjective and borderline arbitrary, so I feel like it's sensible to say "As long as you're not doing something illegal, you have freedom of expression. People may not like it, and you might get ridiculed or yelled at, but you and your property shouldn't be physically attacked because of a sticker." 1. Precisely, it's not invalid to say that the sticker dick has some level of responsability. It's invalid to say that he holds no responsability in all situations (because of the intent thing I talked about earlier), or that he holds full responsability in all situations (pretty obviously because the guy who does the act is first and foremost responsible). 2. Tbh the Trump thing is more of an example to me, I have no idea how likely your car is to get damaged if you put a Trump sticker on it. But assuming it's the case, then yes, the Trump supporter is responsible for his own car being damaged. Just like for point (1), he's neither at 100% nor 0% responsability, but he has some level of responsability. It does not mean, however that the guys damaging his car are right to do it ; it does not justify. But it can partly explain it. 3. I'd say it depends on how consensual the sticker is. A relatively consensual sticker (said consensuality depends on where your car is located, ofc) will give you little responsability, because tbh a guy who damages a car for the sole reason of a puppy sticker is an ass lol. 4. Once again, I'm not saying that displaying sticker X should or should not get you harmed in some ideal world where everyone's tolerance is as high as Mick Jagger in the early 70s, I'm saying that it is reasonable to expect from some people holding a given view to react in unreasonable ways when faced with certain situations. It doesn't mean that you should be harmed, but it does mean that being harmed is among the possible consequences, and that you're responsible for ignoring or not ignoring these potential consequences. That, however, does not justifiy the offender's actions, nor does it protect them from legal consequences. I'm definitely on board with the idea that the existence of the Trump sticker can partly *explain* why the assailant damaged the car, but I'm not quite sold on the fact that the person who put the sticker there should therefore be *blamed*. I don't think one necessarily implies the other. I also don't think it's reasonable to assume that people's cars will be damaged due to bumper stickers. It's a comparatively rare occurrence, but perhaps the actual message on the bumper sticker is what matters? If it's "Vote for Trump", then that's relatively docile. If it's "Vote for Trump and Fuck All You Niggers", then clearly you shouldn't be driving around Newark... I guess I'd need more context and need to go on a case-by-case basis. But I didn't say that the one who put the sticker should be blamed. I said that he had responsability, assuming the car was damaged because of the sticker and not because of another reason. Then you're free to blame him or not ; it'll mainly depend on the specifics of the situation.
Ah, I don't want any equivocation between those words... I was responding with the intent of saying "should be held partially responsible legally", and I thought that I could use "blame" to mean exactly that, as opposed to having a choice or being free to blame him or not.
|
On May 04 2016 04:58 Naracs_Duc wrote:Show nested quote +On May 04 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 03:35 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2016 03:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 03:12 Acrofales wrote:On May 04 2016 03:02 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On May 04 2016 01:53 Cascade wrote:On May 04 2016 01:30 Acrofales wrote:
Well, if the idea of car repairs is what is the problem here, it's easy to replace the whole scenario with a sticker that says "shoot me, I'm a Trump supporter", which Epishade stuck on his friend's back. Then someone shot Epishade's friend.
How much of that (if any) is Epishade's fault? What if Epishade knew there was someone walking around shooting Trump supporters? I guess it'd be roughly equivalent to helping (a little bit) the shooter murder him? Just because you didn't pull the trigger yourself doesn't mean you're free of guilt. You'd be a kind of mild accomplice, knowingly facilitating the crime. I think I disagree with you here. Putting a Kick Me sign on someone's back makes you a dick, but other people aren't forced to kick someone just because you put a sign there. Is putting a needle with heroin in front of an addict, knowing he will OD on it, murder? All you did was allow that person to give into temptation. Yet you know full well what the consequences of your actions will be (people will kick someone with a "kick me" sign, and the heroin addict will OD). I think there are two major differences between your heroin addict analogy and the original bumper sticker case, and when combined they make the situation different: 1. The person is an addict. In other words, he actually has a psychological, medical issue that has been professionally diagnosed. He shouldn't be anywhere near heroin needles. 2. You're aware that he's a struggling addict and you're actually forcing a dangerous temptation on to him. For this to be analogous to the bumper sticker scenario, I feel like you'd have to fabricate a man who has a clinically diagnosed violent predisposition towards Trump bumper stickers. In which case, he shouldn't be near political rallies (or cars at all? idk), and the bumper sticker dick needs to be aware of this issue and basically shoving the addict's face in it. Given those hypotheticals, then yes, I'd say that the dick bears some responsibility. I hadn't really considered that in the domain of realistic ideas though, since I've never heard of someone who is diagnosed with violent bouts of rage due to bumper stickers, nor did the original scenario imply that the sticker dick put the sticker on to single out a susceptible target. Also, people kicking others with Kick Me signs is really, really not the same as drug addicts wanting drugs when they see them. Ok, but these are differences of scale, not of category. So given that we agree that causing temptation may be wrong, we can see that in the case of bumper stickers, it may be wrong to cause temptation of adult anti-Trump crazies to key that particular car. Obviously the temptation in both cases is of a grossly different scale, and one can argue that one cannot reasonably expect anti-Trump hooligans to key cars with pro-Trump stickers. And that's probably what a defense lawyer would argue. But one cannot categorically exculpate the Trump-bumper-sticker-stickerer, while blaming the addict-murderer. They are on the same scale, just at opposite ends. I feel like the designation of clinical addiction creates a different category due to brain chemistry, although if you're creating a general scale of addiction, I can see how you can certainly have Not Addicted and Addicted on the same scale. I also don't think people can be literally addicted (medically) to damaging cars with Trump stickers on them though, but if there existed such a man and if it were known, then sure; I'd happily concede that the sticker dick bears some responsibility. The original question didn't have those other axioms though, but either way I can sleep at night It becomes simpler if you stop talking about heroin and talk about peanut butter. Giving someone a PB&J is not wrong. Unknowingly giving it to someone with a Peanut allergy is not wrong. Knowingly giving it to someone with a Peanut allergy is wrong. Now lets go back to the needle. If an addict overdoses by himself it is not automatically a suicide investigatio. (there needs to be other evidence outside of the OD for that to happen) If an addict does drugs with another addict and one of them OD's, it is not a murder investigation. (Unless there was evidence that pointed to it outside of the OD). If one knowingly gives drugs to an addict, and the addict OD's--then there is a case for murder (albeit hard to prove, but the police would actually look into it). Now lets move back to the sticker analogy. Is there a study that says stickers causes you to act out in the same way as a peanut allergy or drug addiction? Would you be willing to make the argument that getting angry about stickers is the same as dying of peanut allergy?
I don't think so (it's certainly not common) and No.
I'm not sure what Acro would say.
|
It's often said that there are no stupid questions--but are there?
|
On May 04 2016 09:46 TMagpie wrote:
It's often said that there are no stupid questions--but are there?
Subjective, but probably.
|
Canada11355 Posts
On May 04 2016 09:46 TMagpie wrote:
It's often said that there are no stupid questions--but are there?
Does a question have the capacity for intelligence? I don't think it does, as the act of stringing together the words needed to formulate a question is done by the entity asking the question.
So, no, there are no stupid questions. Only stupid people.
|
Ok, I got one! Why do people say stuff like " You know it's actually kind of funny....." and what follows is definitely NOT funny and all of sudden, you wished you'd get the seconds of your life back, that you've just invested in that particular conversation.
Or why is it, that 99% of people use the word "literally" wrong over and over again?!
Seriously I'll tell the next one to "figuratively f*** off!"
edit: sorry it has.....been a ..just one of those...days... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
