Thread: Living Under the Boot Heel of Our New Orange Overlord

  1. #2791
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,009

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    Work for someone other than the government...

    ...or is that tone deaf?
    I lol'd.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

 

  • #2792
    self admitted prolifer kirinke's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    To the left of reality. Behind reason. Right next to the backside of beyond.
    Oratio
    7,399

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Feanor View Post
    Work for someone other than the government...

    ...or is that tone deaf?
    Yes. Tommorrow I'm going to the bank, get my account info and then file for unemployment. I'm on the fucking accepted list, which means I gotta work. But I need cash to work. Gah!
    Madness does not always howl. Sometimes, it is the quiet voice at the end of the day saying, "Hey, is there room in your head for one more?"

    I is before E except after C, then it's chaos man, mass chaos! Letters coming together into words, but then you go English and they put U's in places that just shouldn't go there... AHHHHHH!!!!!!!!

    My sanity left town along time ago and didn't leave a forwarding address. It's not missed.

  • #2793
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Your entire argument depends on omniscience. Who is the omniscient determiner?
    Big Bird is omniscient, but no, my argument doesn't require any sort of omniscience.

  • #2794
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    Fuck Trump and his stupid border wall. I want my damned paycheck!
    Get used to it. Shutdowns are par for the course now.

  • #2795
    That's Wacist! Mistwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Province
    Los Angeles, CA
    Oratio
    26,363

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Xyxox View Post
    Just an historical note...
    In the entire history of the United States, there has NEVER been four consecutive presidents who served two terms. For recent history, George H,W, Bush served a single term, Bill Clinton served two terms, George W, Bush served two terms, and Barack Obama served two terms. If Trump gets re-elected in 2020, he will be the FIRST president in American history to serve two terms after three predecessors had done so.

    The only time prior to Obama when there were three consecutive two term presidents was the run of Jefferson - Madison - Monroe.
    Which, in terms of records where there's only 45 members to begin with, isn't all that impressive. It's not like he's the first African American or Female President. And I don't think anyone even shrugged when President Obama was the first three-consecutive since Monroe. Seems like one of those obscure fairly meaingless stats baseball announcers come up with during a game to fill time
    I like hats.

  • #2796
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,009

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    Big Bird is omniscient, but no, my argument doesn't require any sort of omniscience.
    So Big Bird is doing all the telling that a crime has absolutely been committed at the moment of the act? If not Big Bird, who does this determination? That's core to your argument -- that a crime has been committed at the moment of the act which violates law. So, who determines this? If it's an absolute truth, who arbitrates it? You invoke omniscience and can't even tell you're doing it.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #2797
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    So Big Bird is doing all the telling that a crime has absolutely been committed at the moment of the act? If not Big Bird, who does this determination? That's core to your argument -- that a crime has been committed at the moment of the act which violates law. So, who determines this? If it's an absolute truth, who arbitrates it? You invoke omniscience and can't even tell you're doing it.
    Nobody needs to know that the crime happened for it to have happened. No omniscience is required. Perhaps you don't know what omniscience means.

  • #2798
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,009

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    Nobody needs to know that the crime happened for it to have happened. No omniscience is required. Perhaps you don't know what omniscience means.
    No, I think you don't. If no one knows an absolute crime action was committed (even the actor, which isn't uncommon), then how was a crime 100% committed? You're requiring some omniscient, ephemeral observer to view and render judgement, even in cases where no human can know. You're confusing yourself by attaching the absolute to the act and eliding how knowing occurs -- the act cannot know.

    Laws are an invention of humans. There is no objective existence to laws. Ergo, humans are required to determine if a law is broken and a crime has occurred. If it requires human fact determination to discover a crime, crimes cannot be endemic to the acts themselves; crimes can exist only after humans determine they do. And the humans with that power are the ones in government.

    Your postulation requires crimes to be objectively part of the act and inseparable from the act. It requires an all-knowing trier of actions to objectively assign crime status only to the correct acts, and further says that this assignation exists despite our ability as humans to determine it. You've invented a god of crimes.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #2799
    consequences 3catcircus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Province
    New Jersey
    Oratio
    4,139

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by kirinke View Post
    Yes. Tommorrow I'm going to the bank, get my account info and then file for unemployment. I'm on the fucking accepted list, which means I gotta work. But I need cash to work. Gah!
    Dumbass - you gotta be layed off. Walking away from a job you already have unless the state you live in considers you to have good cause. This likely aint good cause.

  • #2800
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,009

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by 3catcircus View Post
    Dumbass - you gotta be layed off. Walking away from a job you already have unless the state you live in considers you to have good cause. This likely aint good cause.
    No, dude, most states have okayed unemployment benefits for Federal workers during a shutdown, so long as the non-paid period extends more than a week consecutively.

    I think there's some hinky-ness with the inevitable backpay, but seems legit to me.
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #2801
    consequences 3catcircus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Province
    New Jersey
    Oratio
    4,139

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    No, dude, most states have okayed unemployment benefits for Federal workers during a shutdown, so long as the non-paid period extends more than a week consecutively.

    I think there's some hinky-ness with the inevitable backpay, but seems legit to me.
    Last info I had was Arizona hadn't, *unless* you are furloughed and are actively looking for a new job. Arizona s where I think she lives and she isnt furloughed. If my info is OBE then mea culpa. In her case, I'd say her being required to work but not being paid is just that the Bobs "...fixed the glitch."

    http://fortune.com/2019/01/10/can-federal-workers-collect-unemployment-during-the-shutdown-some-of-them/

    Last edited by 3catcircus; January 12th, 2019 at 02:45 PM.

  • #2802
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    No, I think you don't. If no one knows an absolute crime action was committed (even the actor, which isn't uncommon), then how was a crime 100% committed?
    Because a crime is dependent only on the criteria set up by the government, not knowledge by the government(or anyone else) that the crime was committed. If the government sets up that jaywalking is a crime, it's a crime when you do it at 3am and nobody sees you. It's based on the act, not the knowledge.

    You're requiring some omniscient, ephemeral observer to view and render judgement, even in cases where no human can know.
    Incorrect. There is no requirement for any observer, or even in the case of many/most crimes, for the person committing the crime to know about it.

    Laws are an invention of humans. There is no objective existence to laws. Ergo, humans are required to determine if a law is broken and a crime has occurred.
    Only for the sake of punishment, not to truly determine if the crime happened. If you murder someone and nobody ever find out, you still committed the crime of murder. Knowledge and human determination only come into play if people are going to try and punish you for it.

    If it requires human fact determination to discover a crime, crimes cannot be endemic to the acts themselves; crimes can exist only after humans determine they do. And the humans with that power are the ones in government.
    Your premise is flawed. And wrong even as you state it. A mob is plenty capable of determining if they believe you committed a crime and lynching you for it. Further, here in America it's not usually the government that makes that determination at all. It's typically the civilians of the jury.

  • #2803
    Pony Up! Ovinomancer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Province
    The Paddock
    Oratio
    28,009

    Ignore User
    Quote Originally Posted by MrMaxperson View Post
    Because a crime is dependent only on the criteria set up by the government, not knowledge by the government(or anyone else) that the crime was committed. If the government sets up that jaywalking is a crime, it's a crime when you do it at 3am and nobody sees you. It's based on the act, not the knowledge.
    Then what about those crimes that require knowledge to be a crime -- ie, most of the crimes in the US require mens rea, or the guilty mind, meaning that the perp has to know that the act was a crime and have committed it anyway. Your definition is already wrong.

    Incorrect. There is no requirement for any observer, or even in the case of many/most crimes, for the person committing the crime to know about it.
    Again, mens rea. You're locking down on a specific set of facts that allow you to be "correct", but they fail to address the full topic.

    Only for the sake of punishment, not to truly determine if the crime happened. If you murder someone and nobody ever find out, you still committed the crime of murder. Knowledge and human determination only come into play if people are going to try and punish you for it.
    What if the murder was because of an everyday action normally not an issue, but, in this one case, leads to death, and, further, that no one knows the causal chain? Can you honestly say that you've never murdered anyone if this is true?

    Murder is one of those crimes that requires mens rea. I HAVE to know that my actions are likely to lead to injury or death for negligent homicide to be found. I have to know that it's against the law to kill for any degree of murder to occur, and I have to have intended to kill (if I'm sparring and an accident occurs where the other person dies through unforeseen events during the match, I'm not a murderer in the eyes of the law). So, yes, for the majority of crimes you have to have an observer of fact that can determine if this act is a crime, because the same act may not be a crime.

    Your premise is flawed. And wrong even as you state it. A mob is plenty capable of determining if they believe you committed a crime and lynching you for it. Further, here in America it's not usually the government that makes that determination at all. It's typically the civilians of the jury.
    Lynching is not criminal reprisal, it's mob justice. You can't even separate concepts now. Whatever it takes, huh? Your argument has morphed so many times now -- you've previously accepted mens rea, but here you dismiss it; you accept that your definition fails for those crimes that are vague in the codes; you know say that mobs can determine and punish crimes (which makes them a de facto government in the moment, but I'll not expect you to understand that). And then you say that my principled and unchanging argument that doesn't need these constant shifts of the posts to make sense is the one that's flawed and wrong? Dude. This is a fundamental concept -- the things that man creates are solely within the realm of man. Man cannot create a new objective state by passing a law, because the law has no existence outside of men and so the state of breaking the law has no existence outside of men. Further, laws are a creation of a creation -- man created government to create laws. Crimes are at least a 2 deep inception into 'shit that only exists in the minds of men.'
    Quote Originally Posted by PWD View Post
    This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member.
    I think ovi's right.

  • #2804
    Quote Originally Posted by Ovinomancer View Post
    Then what about those crimes that require knowledge to be a crime -- ie, most of the crimes in the US require mens rea, or the guilty mind, meaning that the perp has to know that the act was a crime and have committed it anyway.
    Never heard of, "Ignorance is not a defense."? He has to intend to commit the act and know it was wrong. He does not have to know it was a crime.

    "The mens rea requirement is premised upon the idea that one must possess a guilty state of mind and be aware of his or her misconduct; however, a defendant need not know that their conduct is illegal to be guilty of a crime. Rather, the defendant must be conscious of the "facts that make his conduct fit the definition of the offense."

    What if the murder was because of an everyday action normally not an issue, but, in this one case, leads to death, and, further, that no one knows the causal chain?
    Do you really not know the difference between murder and other forms of homicide? I think you do.

    Murder is one of those crimes that requires mens rea. I HAVE to know that my actions are likely to lead to injury or death for negligent homicide to be found. I have to know that it's against the law to kill for any degree of murder to occur, and I have to have intended to kill (if I'm sparring and an accident occurs where the other person dies through unforeseen events during the match, I'm not a murderer in the eyes of the law). So, yes, for the majority of crimes you have to have an observer of fact that can determine if this act is a crime, because the same act may not be a crime.
    You have to have Mens Rea, not knowledge that it's a crime.

  • #2805
    56% of an excuse nail bunny's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Province
    Kekistan
    Oratio
    29,548

    Ignore User
    I like the cut of his jib.... so why isn't he running for the Presidency?


    I wouldn't even censor you.

  • Page 187 of 189 FirstFirst ... 87137168169170171172173174175176177178179180181182183184185186187188189 LastLast

    Posting Permissions

    • You may not post new threads
    • You may not post replies
    • You may not post attachments
    • You may not edit your posts
    •