Makaze Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Not my fault this time, honest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Sexual Assault/Rape needs to be taken a lot more seriously by law enforcement and the media coverage. ASAP. Let's add domestic abuse. Regardless of gender. (edited because I don't want a stupid semantics war) Edited January 7, 2014 by eclipse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thor Odinson Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 There are individuals who are authorized to kill without a trial under a range of circumstances. The laws you are thinking of stipulate something to the effect of: "Civilians are prohibited from using lethal force." I did not stipulate exceptions in my preference. Wait are you saying any killing is a murder? for the record cheat engine utterly shits on art money and using art money should be a crime like stupidity yeah well ur face should be a crime Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) Wait are you saying any killing is a murder? No, only first degree murder is a murder. To paraphrase: Murder is the killing, with malice aforethought, of another human, and generally this premeditated state of mind distinguishes murder from other forms of homicide (such as manslaughter). On reflection, murder was probably a bad term to use in this context. Assault is a much broader term that applies to everything from manhandling to murder equally well. Edited January 7, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Okay. But your examples seem to suggest police and military members would be held to the same standard as everyone else, pointing to how it operates today to differentiate. Which makes no sense. It's necessary for a group of people to be able to enforce the rules you're making. That will never change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 That paradigm implies a flaw in the means of enforcement, not my preference. It should go without saying that a nonlethal resolution is always preferable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aleph Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 my face is a crime I am frequently incarcerated for being too beautiful Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 That paradigm implies a flaw in the means of enforcement, not my preference. It should go without saying that a nonlethal resolution is always preferable. How do you stop a serial murderer from murdering without restraining him? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) How do you stop a serial murderer from murdering without restraining him? You don't. Utilitarianism demands that one use force if it will minimize force overall. But let's suppose the serial murderer is killed by an officer during a chase before their trial. In this case, an individual killed another individual without due process. Were it anyone else, the one who killed the serial killer would be put to trial for murder or manslaughter. If the one who killed them were an officer, this trial would be put aside in favor of an excessive force investigation performed by fellow officers and paid leave for the officer while the investigation is underway. All of this happens without a trial to determine the guilt of the serial murderer. My calling them a serial murderer throughout this scenario is presumptive. Due process has been skipped twice in this scenario: once in presumption of guilt and once in overlooking of guilt in the second murder. But that is one of the rarest examples. I go with one that is far more common. An authorized agent guns someone down or sends a drone to kill them on the suspicion that they were responsible for a terrorist attack, or associated with a group that was responsible for a terrorist attack. This agent unintentionally kills civilians in both cases, having no trial for any of the events in question. Our positions are not so different. However, I prefer to analyze whether someone needs to be killed before doing so and would not excuse someone due to their testimony that their victim needed killin'. There is no individual authority that can be trusted to use lethal force without an objective peer-reviewed rational decision. Edited January 7, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) You don't. Utilitarianism demands that one use force if it will minimize force overall. But let's suppose the serial murderer is killed by an officer during a chase before their trial. In this case, an individual killed another individual without due process. Were it anyone else, the one who killed the serial killer would be put to trial for murder or manslaughter. If the one who killed them were an officer, this trial would be put aside in favor of an excessive force investigation performed by fellow officers and paid leave for the officer while the investigation is underway. All of this happens without a trial to determine the guilt of the serial murderer. My calling them a serial murderer throughout this scenario is presumptive. Due process has been skipped twice in this scenario: once in presumption of guilt and once in overlooking of guilt in the second murder. All of this happens without a trial because of a chase in which a criminal does not obey the agent that is going to be bringing him to trial. It's irrelevant whether he's stood trial if he's going to evade officers whose job it is to make that happen in the first place. An authorized agent guns someone down or sends a drone to kill them on the suspicion that they were responsible for a terrorist attack, or associated with a group that was responsible for a terrorist attack. This agent unintentionally kills civilians in both cases, having no trial for any of the events in question. This is unavoidable in the real world. In a perfect world civilians wouldn't be targeted but in the modern reality we live in it's difficult to distinguish who is friend and who is foe. It's naive to the extreme to expect any agency on this planet to be held to such rigorous standards that collateral damage doesn't exist, and equally foolish to bring to trial officials whose job it is to isolate and neutralize threats to security. Our positions are not so different. However, I prefer to analyze whether someone needs to be killed before doing so and would not excuse someone due to their testimony that their victim needed killin'. There is no individual authority that can be trusted to use lethal force without an objective peer-reviewed rational decision. Peer-reviewed by who? You? Me? What organization do you think is best-equipped to deal with terrorism threats? I trust the government very little in matters of war, but I trust the public masses even less. Edited January 7, 2014 by Esau of Isaac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacLovin Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 If I were my old man, I'd say re-elections of any holder of a government office. But at the moment, I don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Interest Posted January 7, 2014 Author Share Posted January 7, 2014 Jeez. Did this turn into serious discussion or something? Anyways... What is your favorite riddle? (Actually, screw that, you can choose more than one riddle if you really have to). My answer's kind of cheating, though it's mostly because I suck at remembering. Back when I was in the Warcraft 3 custom scene there were a couple maps with sets of riddles that involves the usage of built-in game mechanics. I found said maps interesting because they required thinking outside the box - rarely would you expect to literally pause the game (who even bothers making a trigger around that function?) to solve a riddle but there you go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I definitely wouldn't make anything about it illegal, exactly, but the last question reminded me; I think it's some kind of interesting that you need to, say, take classes/lessons (in my state, at least) and pass a test to legally drive a car, (and that you're then required to continually have your license to do so be renewed by the government to legally continue,) but most societies (iirc/afaict) don't exactly test you on anything like your level of readiness before you're legally allowed to birth and raise a child*, which is much more difficult and stressful, takes at least as many resources (a lot more to do it well), and which (iirc/afaict) has a much wider variance of expert/cultural opinions on so many different parts of how to do it best (or even just acceptably). And which, of course, tends to have a much more direct on how a whole life goes. *(Unless maybe sometimes like whether giving birth would be life-threatening to the mother) (cough abortion laws) (and/or unless maybe you're underage) (cough abortion laws) (Or unless you're trying to adopt.) (Not that I think it makes sense to just drop an orphan or parentally-abused kid off with the first person who says they'll take them, but I've heard that people trying to adopt sometimes feel like they face relatively enormous/unjustified biases and obstacles from the government and from society in general in being allowed to do so, despite that here in the U.S., at least, the system is busting at the seams with kids who have just about nowhere to go and are in huge want of adoption, many of whom face a real possibility of just being moved around without adoptive families until they're 18, when they get set loose undereducated and basically possessionless.) (And who then often become homeless.) (iirc/afaict) And not that I think I know how it "ought to go/be changed," like I certainly don't want to bring any Plato-style pseudo-eugenics breeding lottery take-all-kids-from-their-biological-parents-and-have-the-state-raise-em crap into law any time soon or anything, and not that "people having and raising kids" isn't itself one of the most natural things a lot of them do (kinda literally). Just, it's kinda. Little interestingly incongruous in some ways how "easy" it is to be allowed to have a kid of one's own, considering how hard and all-consuming and important it is, compared to some other things that require more "certification" but tend to not be quite as impactful, I think. nuts to you firefox if impactful wasn't a word before it is now Edited January 7, 2014 by Rehab Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vashiane Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Ah, my favorite riddle... "Why is a raven like a writing desk?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rehab Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 ..it spoke never(more)? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nightmare Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I dunno. I'm not really familiar with riddles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Answers should be in spoiler tags. What is grey, has two big ears, a tail and a trunk? A mouse going on vacation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esau of Isaac Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 What can run but never walk, has a mouth but cannot talk, has a head but never weeps, has a bed but never sleeps? A river! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Randa Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 What killed none, but still killed twelve? And I'm not giving the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jedi Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 This thing all things devours: Birds, beasts, trees, flowers; Gnaws iron, bites steel; Grinds hard stones to meal; Slays king, ruins town, And beats high mountain down. Time Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) What is your favorite riddle? You are walking down a path on your way to Heaven and come to a fork in the road. One fork leads to Heaven, the other to Hell. You have no idea which fork leads to which place. There is a figure standing near each fork. The figure from Hell always lies, and the one from Heaven always tells the truth. However, they look absolutely identical and you have no idea which is which. You may ask them both one question and receive an answer simultaneously to learn which path is the correct one. What question do you ask? [spoiler=Esau] All of this happens without a trial because of a chase in which a criminal does not obey the agent that is going to be bringing him to trial. It's irrelevant whether he's stood trial if he's going to evade officers whose job it is to make that happen in the first place. This is unavoidable in the real world. In a perfect world civilians wouldn't be targeted but in the modern reality we live in it's difficult to distinguish who is friend and who is foe. It's naive to the extreme to expect any agency on this planet to be held to such rigorous standards that collateral damage doesn't exist, and equally foolish to bring to trial officials whose job it is to isolate and neutralize threats to security. Peer-reviewed by who? You? Me? What organization do you think is best-equipped to deal with terrorism threats? I trust the government very little in matters of war, but I trust the public masses even less. It is not irrelevant. In that case, the person's only confirmed crime (up to that point) was to evade the agent, which does not necessitate lethal force. It is far more naïve to expect that an agent who has legal immunity for any murders committed in the line of duty will kill only those they need to kill. Humans adapt to their environments. Studies have proven time and time again that immunity for enforcement agents breeds violence faster than nearly any other factor. If these decisions were put under scrutiny, the agents that made them would be forced to consider their trigger fingers far more heavily. The particular peers would depend on the area. I must address something. Trust is irrelevant and presumptive. You mocked your own ability to judge, then you claim that you do not trust the masses, implying that your trust is important. Beware of needless self-importance. I think you are falling into a trap most fall into that leads to a logical inconsistency. Consider a campaign to enforce speed limits more heavily on roads. If you ask any particular individual about it, the vast majority will say that they believe they personally can drive safely without the enforcement, but not that others can. Sum them up, and you get a whole group of people who believe in their abilities to drive safely without enforcement. Which decision is truly in their best interest: lax enforcement, or stronger enforcement? Back to the trial. Assuming that what the individual did did not jive with the people they claimed to be representing when they did it, they acted outside of the interests of the people and should be tried like any criminal who does the same. Intent does not matter in the face of a positive or negative result. I repeat, "they needed killin'" from an individual perspective is not a utilitarian defense. This becomes all the more important when the victim of the crime was a civilian who underwent no trial. In this case, the peers are representing their own interests. If all that it takes to be shot dead by an agent of the state is to run away, then any of the peers could have been the victim instead. This kind of scrutiny is paramount in order to keep agents of the state from true immunity where their use of excessive force is nothing more than a footnote on their employment record. Edited January 7, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MacLovin Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 I have four wings, but cannot fly, I never laugh and never cry; On the same spot I'm always found, toiling away with little sound. What am I? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 (edited) I have four wings, but cannot fly, I never laugh and never cry; On the same spot I'm always found, toiling away with little sound. What am I? A theatre? A mansion? Never mind, found it. The wings thing threw me. Good one. Edited January 7, 2014 by Makaze Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted January 7, 2014 Share Posted January 7, 2014 Baldur's Gate 2 style. "The poorest have it, the richest need it, but if either was to eat it they would certainly perish. What is it?" Nothing! "The life I lead is mere hours or less, I serve all my time by being consumed. I am quickest when thin, slowest when fat, and wind is the bane of the gift that I bring." A candle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.