Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Soul Crusher on June 12, 2011, 04:09:11 PM
-
Its intentional.
-
Its intentional.
your idiocy never ceases
-
your idiocy never ceases
Andre "black ppl voted for obama b/c he is black, but race has nothing to do with it" LMAO
-
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.
-
So then its ignorance and incompetence instead on bamas's part?
-
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.
-
Go ahead.
-
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."
-
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.
-
Why don't we take my last five threads to start.
-
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.
-
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...
-
Yawn. So then its ignorance and incompetence then?
-
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.
-
Yawn. Splitting hairs at best.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Intentions are clear from ones actions.
-
Intentions are clear from ones actions.
???
No.......they are not.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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).
-
LMFAO legality doesnt equal reality my friend hopefully one day you will learn this...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Dead wrong. This is law school 101 Ones actions are clearly used to establish intent.
-
Dead wrong. This is law school 101 Ones actions are clearly used to establish intent.
This is where you're wrong. Intentions can sometimes be never clear to juries or judges. Intentions ideally should be clear, but unfortunately they aren't. Therefore it is a problem that needs to be solved.
http://users.dickinson.edu/~nadelhth/Online%20Papers/Bad%20Acts%20and%20Blameworthy%20Agents.pdf
-
Yeah. Whatever. Because people always articulate their intentions before doing an act.
-
Yeah. Whatever. Because people always articulate their intentions before doing an act.
That's not what the article is about.
Please admit you're wrong now.
-
That's not what the article is about.
Please admit you're wrong now.
I'm talking about how these issues are decided in the real world w real people, not academic exercises of insignificance in a vacuum.
-
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.
lmfao sorry hoss blame as i told you in the other thread is not soley based on intentions. Perhaps legally but not realistically. ::)
-
magoo you ever take an accounting class?
shit doesnt work like it does in accounting just like shit doesnt work like it does in your legal philosophy class
-
magoo you ever take an accounting class?
shit doesnt work like it does in accounting just like shit doesnt work like it does in your legal philosophy class
that analogy doesn't work.
I think you're missing the difference between what is, and what should be
These are two very different things. Just because something is the case in "reality" (as you put it) does not mean that something SHOULD be the case in "reality".
The reality is that people are more apt to assign moral blame to someone when the outcome of a situation is bad despite the person's intentions. Read Thomas Nagel. This is a sad reality. I don't think it SHOULD be a reality. Just like it's a reality that children will die horrible deaths, doesn't mean it SHOULD be the reality that children do die horrible deaths.
Reality has NO bearing on what should be. So when responding, please respond in terms of what "should be", not what "is". What "is" does not matter whatsoever.
-
If one does not communicate their intent by what measure do you think we should use to determine it?
-
I'm talking about how these issues are decided in the real world w real people, not academic exercises of insignificance in a vacuum.
That article addressed real concerns with real people in real juries deciding real cases where real lives are at stake. The issue of juries not being able to discern intentions is a real issue, not a thought experiment.
I'm sorry 3333 but again you're wrong.
-
That article addressed real concerns with real people in real juries deciding real cases where real lives are at stake. The issue of juries not being able to discern intentions is a real issue, not a thought experiment.
I'm sorry 3333 but again you're wrong.
Again intent is inferred from ones actions all the time. It's common sense.
-
that analogy doesn't work.
I think you're missing the difference between what is, and what should be
These are two very different things. Just because something is the case in "reality" (as you put it) does not mean that something SHOULD be the case in "reality".
The reality is that people are more apt to assign moral blame to someone when the outcome of a situation is bad despite the person's intentions. Read Thomas Nagel. This is a sad reality. I don't think it SHOULD be a reality. Just like it's a reality that children will die horrible deaths, doesn't mean it SHOULD be the reality that children do die horrible deaths.
Reality has NO bearing on what should be. So when responding, please respond in terms of what "should be", not what "is". What "is" does not matter whatsoever.
lmao what should be is that if a person knows something will happen and does it the action to cause it anyway they intended for that to happen...
now i understand the need to differentiate for legal purposes but that doesnt make it reality.
IF YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING, THIS WILL HAPPEN AND YOU PROCEED YOU INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THAT REACTION
-
lmao what should be is that if a person knows something will happen and does it the action to cause it anyway they intended for that to happen...
now i understand the need to differentiate for legal purposes but that doesnt make it reality.
IF YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING, THIS WILL HAPPEN AND YOU PROCEED YOU INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THAT REACTION
Sort of like obama and energy prices
-
Again intent is inferred from ones actions all the time. It's common sense.
your attempts at arguing is starting to become sad.
I've provided you with evidence to disprove your point. At least read it. I can't convince you that your wrong if you don't even look at the evidence.
If you're not going to be open to being wrong then we won't ever get anywhere, then I'll stop wasting my time.
EDIT: This post applies to tony's post that he just posted too. The article refutes both points of A) It is clear to see intentions based on acts (3333 point) and B) Doing an action while knowing the consequences means you did the action intentionally (tony's point).
I don't know what else to do to prove you wrong.
-
Splitting hairs.
-
IF YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING, THIS WILL HAPPEN AND YOU PROCEED YOU INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THAT REACTION
This is taken from that article (pages 2-3) but I'll save you the time and type it here seperately.
The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also help the environment’. The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new
program’. They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped. (Knobe 2003a, 191)
Only 23% say that the VP intentionally helped the environment. Apparently, the majority of people disagree with the part of your post in bold. This study has been done enough times in enough countries to be valid.
-
This is taken from that article (pages 2-3) but I'll save you the time and type it here seperately.
The vice-president of a company went to the chairman of the board and said, ‘We are thinking of starting a new program. It will help us increase profits, but it will also help the environment’. The chairman of the board answered, ‘I don’t care at all about helping the environment. I just want to make as much profit as I can. Let’s start the new
program’. They started the new program. Sure enough, the environment was helped. (Knobe 2003a, 191)
Only 23% say that the VP intentionally helped the environment. Apparently, the majority of people disagree with the part of your post in bold. This study has been done enough times in enough countries to be valid.
LOL simply in that instance, doesnt your study say the opposite?
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.
which one is it?
so apparently they agree with in your previous post...::)
again a distinction without a difference
-
Change it around to instead harming the environment and see the response you get.
-
LOL simply in that instance, doesnt your study say the opposite?
which one is it?
so apparently they agree with in your previous post...::)
again a distinction without a difference
The study says that if the word "harm" is in there, then it's 83% or so say the person did it intentionally. This proves my point that people are biased when it comes to trying to discover intentions (it is not clear like 3333 claimed it was). You're wrong because you said "IF YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU DO SOMETHING, THIS WILL HAPPEN AND YOU PROCEED YOU INTENTIONALLY CAUSED THAT REACTION". My point is that 1) The majority of people don't (or cannot) discern intentions correctly (you fall into this category, you're confusing "knowingly" and "intentionally", just like the majority of other people (read the article for more info regarding this) and 2) people should be able to discern intentions correctly, despite the fact that they don't (or cannot).
I think i've proved my point.