Re: James Wolfensohn: Former World Bank Persident Makes Stunning Announcement

[Soul Crusher]

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.  

[Mr. Magoo]

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

[Soul Crusher]

Yeah.  Whatever.     Because people always articulate their intentions before doing an act. 

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[tonymctones]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

If one does not communicate their intent by what measure do you think we should use to determine it? 

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

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. 

[tonymctones]

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

[Soul Crusher]

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     

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[Soul Crusher]

Splitting hairs.   

[Mr. Magoo]

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.

[tonymctones]

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

[Soul Crusher]

Change it around to instead harming the environment and see the response you get.  

[Mr. Magoo]

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.