Author Topic: Re: James Wolfensohn: Former World Bank Persident Makes Stunning Announcement (Read 1568 times)

Soul Crusher · « **on:** June 12, 2011, 04:09:11 PM »

Its intentional.

andreisdaman · « **Reply #1 on:** June 12, 2011, 04:29:02 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 12, 2011, 04:09:11 PM

Its intentional.

your idiocy never ceases

tonymctones · « **Reply #2 on:** June 12, 2011, 05:13:54 PM »

Quote from: andreisdaman on June 12, 2011, 04:29:02 PM

your idiocy never ceases

Andre "black ppl voted for obama b/c he is black, but race has nothing to do with it" LMAO

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #3 on:** June 12, 2011, 05:34:27 PM »

Quote from: andreisdaman on June 12, 2011, 04:29:02 PM

your idiocy never ceases

I agree. I don't see how anyone can take 3333 seriously. I think he suffers from paranoia and some type of obsession plus his violent behavior.

He seems like the kind of person that needs to be watched.

I say this in all seriousness.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #4 on:** June 12, 2011, 05:37:58 PM »

So then its ignorance and incompetence instead on bamas's part?

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #5 on:** June 12, 2011, 05:47:09 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 12, 2011, 05:37:58 PM

So then its ignorance and incompetence instead on bamas's part?

I think you're mentally unstable to be honest

It's very easy to disprove 90% of your points, and when someone does, you resort to name calling and cursing.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #6 on:** June 12, 2011, 05:51:21 PM »

Go ahead.

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #7 on:** June 12, 2011, 05:55:45 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 12, 2011, 05:51:21 PM

Go ahead.

I do most of the time, but seeing how you post on here 24/7 (why don't you have a girlfriend or wife by the way?) then obviously you get to make points and bump threads without anyone telling you exactly how wrong you are. I'll prove you wrong every now and then but it's impossible for me to spend my life refuting every half-ass argument you make.

I could dig through tons of current literature in philosophy of law to prove you wrong on your point of "intentions."

Fury · « **Reply #8 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:01:20 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Magoo on June 12, 2011, 05:55:45 PM

I do most of the time, but seeing how you post on here 24/7 (why don't you have a girlfriend or wife by the way?) then obviously you get to make points and bump threads without anyone telling you exactly how wrong you are. I'll prove you wrong every now and then but it's impossible for me to spend my life refuting every half-ass argument you make.

I could dig through tons of current literature in philosophy of law to prove you wrong on your point of "intentions."

Oh, look. Another "you're wrong but I can't be bothered to prove why you're wrong so just take my online word."

Shut the fuck up.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #9 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:09:08 PM »

Why don't we take my last five threads to start.

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #10 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:11:57 PM »

Quote from: BerzerkFury on June 12, 2011, 06:01:20 PM

Oh, look. Another "you're wrong but I can't be bothered to prove why you're wrong so just take my online word."

Shut the fuck up.

one of the current issues in legal philosophy is doing an action "knowingly" versus doing an action "intentionally". When the action is bad, most people assume the person did it intentionally. When the action is good, most people do not say that the person did it intentionally. This is a major problem when it comes to having juries decide a case because this little problem can cause a person to get a life sentence or the death penalty. If you want the literature on this then let me know.

I'm saying that 3333 is having the same trouble. I dont think 3333 knows the difference between doing an action intentionally and doing an action knowingly. But I'll be happy to allow him to prove that Obama did the action intentionally.

tonymctones · « **Reply #11 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:20:56 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Magoo on June 12, 2011, 06:11:57 PM

one of the current issues in legal philosophy is doing an action "knowingly" versus doing an action "intentionally". When the action is bad, most people assume the person did it intentionally. When the action is good, most people do not say that the person did it intentionally. This is a major problem when it comes to having juries decide a case because this little problem can cause a person to get a life sentence or the death penalty. If you want the literature on this then let me know.

I'm saying that 3333 is having the same trouble. I dont think 3333 knows the difference between doing an action intentionally and doing an action knowingly. But I'll be happy to allow him to prove that Obama did the action intentionally.

lets see, passing a health care bill that will raise premiums, inject major uncertainty into businesses for years to come, hurt a major portion of small businesses.

He signed that document KNOWING this would happen, if he didnt know then he shouldnt be in the position he is in...

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #12 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:22:27 PM »

Yawn. So then its ignorance and incompetence then?

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #13 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:32:12 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 12, 2011, 06:20:56 PM

lets see, passing a health care bill that will raise premiums, inject major uncertainty into businesses for years to come, hurt a major portion of small businesses.

He signed that document KNOWING this would happen, if he didnt know then he shouldnt be in the position he is in...

Look at the studies done by Joshua Knobe. I could make this a long long post but I'll just say again that most people think that if Person X did Action Y with consequence Z and consequence Z was a bad consequence, then most people think that Person X did consequence Z intentionally. But If Person X did Action Y with good consequence Z, then most people say that Person X did not do consequence Z intentionally.

I'll try sloppily to apply this to your post here. I'm allowing a lot just for the sake of argument. But Obama passed the health care bill because he intended to give health care to those that do not currently have it. The "raise premiums, inject major uncertainty into business for years to come, hurt a major portion of small businesses, etc", he did knowingly, NOT intentionally.

Intentionally and knowingly are not the same. In legal philosophy, moral blame is tied to actions done intentionally, not knowingly.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #14 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:37:11 PM »

Yawn. Splitting hairs at best.

tonymctones · « **Reply #15 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:37:28 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Magoo on June 12, 2011, 06:32:12 PM

Look at the studies done by Joshua Knobe. I could make this a long long post but I'll just say again that most people think that if Person X did Action Y with consequence Z and consequence Z was a bad consequence, then most people think that Person X did consequence Z intentionally. But If Person X did Action Y with good consequence Z, then most people say that Person X did not do consequence Z intentionally.

I'll try sloppily to apply this to your post here. I'm allowing a lot just for the sake of argument. But Obama passed the health care bill because he intended to give health care to those that do not currently have it. The "raise premiums, inject major uncertainty into business for years to come, hurt a major portion of small businesses, etc", he did knowingly, NOT intentionally.

Intentionally and knowingly are not the same. In legal philosophy, moral blame is tied to actions done intentionally, not knowingly.

trust me my friend ive done more than enough reading on the subject when completing my undergrad in psychology. I know that of which you speak, ppl see bad things in ppl when they commit an act they percieve as negative, nothing new under the sun...

I agree but its a distinction without a difference, if he knew that these things would happen and proceeded he intentionally caused them to happen.

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #16 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:43:30 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 12, 2011, 06:37:28 PM

trust me my friend ive done more than enough reading on the subject when completing my undergrad in psychology. I know that of which you speak, ppl see bad things in ppl when they commit an act they percieve as negative, nothing new under the sun...

I agree but its a distinction without a difference, if he knew that these things would happen and proceeded he intentionally caused them to happen.

This is where you're wrong. Political and moral philosophy is my field and I'm getting a little into legal philosophy. I can really go into this subject far if you want. A friend of mine did his dissertation recently on how big a problem it is for juries because the majority of people cannot tell the difference between doing an action knowingly and intentionally and the law requires an establishment of intentions. I think this is newer stuff than what you're thinking of.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #17 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:49:27 PM »

Intentions are clear from ones actions.

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #18 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:53:31 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 12, 2011, 06:49:27 PM

Intentions are clear from ones actions.

No.......they are not.

tonymctones · « **Reply #19 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:54:08 PM »

Quote from: Mr. Magoo on June 12, 2011, 06:43:30 PM

This is where you're wrong. Political and moral philosophy is my field and I'm getting a little into legal philosophy. I can really go into this subject far if you want. A friend of mine did his dissertation recently on how big a problem it is for juries because the majority of people cannot tell the difference between doing an action knowingly and intentionally and the law requires an establishment of intentions. I think this is newer stuff than what you're thinking of.

thats fine bro as far as legality is concerned but legality doesnt equate to reality...I understand the need in law to discern intent but this my friend isnt law.

the reality of it is that if you know that something will happen and you commit that act anyway, then you intentionally caused that effect to happen.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #20 on:** June 12, 2011, 06:57:37 PM »

Yes they are! Go read on what it takes to be convicted of an attempted crime or a conspiracy.

Intent can be inferred from ones actions.

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #21 on:** June 12, 2011, 07:01:27 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 12, 2011, 06:54:08 PM

thats fine bro as far as legality is concerned but legality doesnt equate to reality...I understand the need in law to discern intent but this my friend isnt law.

the reality of it is that if you know that something will happen and you commit that act anyway, then you intentionally caused that effect to happen.

wrong again stud. The bold part is wrong. If Person X does Action Y with bad consequence Z, Person X did Action Y intentionally, but did not do consequence Z intentionally. Person X did consequence Z knowingly, not intentionally. Person X intended for Y. Person X did not intend for Z.

The majority of people believe the above when Consequence Z is a good consequence. The majority of people do not believe the above when Consequence Z is a bad consequence.

Just because the majority of people cannot tell the difference, does not mean that majority of people shouldn't tell the difference. The reality of this has no bearing on what should be the reality. The reality should be that people can tell the difference and assign blame based on intentions and only intentions. The reality is that they don't (or can't if you want to be more technical).

tonymctones · « **Reply #22 on:** June 12, 2011, 07:04:14 PM »

LMFAO legality doesnt equal reality my friend hopefully one day you will learn this...

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #23 on:** June 12, 2011, 07:06:09 PM »

Quote from: 333386 on June 12, 2011, 06:57:37 PM

Yes they are! Go read on what it takes to be convicted of an attempted crime or a conspiracy.

Intent can be inferred from ones actions.

Intentions are not clear based on actions. You are wrong on this point. I'm sorry 3333 but I think you're out of your element on this one. The law calls for intentions to be established, but it is not clear for juries or judges to decide intentions. This is what I'm talking about with the current literature in legal philosophy. Not being able to properly establish intentions in law is a major problem facing juries and judges.

Mr. Magoo · « **Reply #24 on:** June 12, 2011, 07:08:53 PM »

Quote from: tonymctones on June 12, 2011, 07:04:14 PM

LMFAO legality doesnt equal reality my friend hopefully one day you will learn this...

maybe you didnt understand this part of my post. I'll bold the words you need to focus on.

Just because the majority of people cannot tell the difference, does not mean that majority of people shouldn't tell the difference. The reality of this has no bearing on what should be the reality. The reality should be that people can tell the difference and assign blame based on intentions and only intentions. The reality is that they don't (or can't if you want to be more technical).

Can't get ought from is my friend.