I never INTENDED to hurt anyone.

Author: 3RU7AL
Ethics
Philosophy
logiczombie
intp
Information War

Posts

Total: 100
Topic's author
#1
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
How do you QUANTIFY intentions?
This isn't a deposition. You got to get to the point.
Yes, you've convinced me that any legal or moral framework that relies on detecting INTENTIONS is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft.

By your "consequentialist" view, nobody should ever be convicted of accidentally or unintentionally committing a crime.

Isn't that one of the KEY legal obstacles to convicting TRUMP of many of his CRIMES?

It's been argued that the Georgia phone call was NOT criminal if TRUMP sincerely believes that he really and truly WON.

This would magically transform the phone call from being an implicit demand for falsifying vote tallies into an honest and sincere plea for "THE TRUTH".

ALSO,

There was a case a few years ago where a police officer accidentally entered a neighbor's apartment, mistakenly thinking it was their own apartment and mistook their neighbor for an INTRUDER and shot them dead.

Their legal defense argued that it was not a crime because the officer sincerely believed their neighbor was an intruder.

Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the officer believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
#2
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
Any logic, no matter how sound, that vindicates Trump, will be rejected by the Democrats and their liberal hordes.
#3
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Police are protected by a legal doctrine called "qualified immunity" which states that (IFF) the officer believed at the time that what they were doing was perfectly legal, (THEN) their case can be dismissed. [LINK]
Regardless of the whole trump fiasco. That, above, is a problem
Topic's author
#4
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
How Cops Get Away With Murder: Qualified Immunity (LegalEagle’s Law Review)

#5
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
I've actually already watched that, and as I said, the entire "qualified immunity" is a problem.
Topic's author
#6
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Theweakeredge
the entire "qualified immunity" is a problem.
I'll see you at the next BLM protest.
Topic's author
#7
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@ethang5
It is impossible to quantify what a person "sincerely believed at the time".
#8
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to quantify what a person "sincerely believed at the time
That is why there is evidence given to imply intent. Going to a home with a weapon compared to grabbing some thing close those kinds of choices. 
Topic's author
#9
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
That is why there is evidence given to imply intent.
There is no way to prove "intent".
#10
Polytheist-Witch
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 4,188
3
3
6
Polytheist-Witch's avatar
Polytheist-Witch
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
That's why I say imply. We can't know for sure but actions can give indications.
Topic's author
#11
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
That's why I say imply. We can't know for sure but actions can give indications.
I wish I were as confident as you seem to be in your mind-reading abilities.
#12
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@3RU7AL
It is impossible to quantify what a person "sincerely believed at the time".
Liberals seem to have no problem reading Trump's mind.
#13
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@ethang5
@3RU7AL
You are correct that it is impossible to read Trump's mind; however, we can look through the logical implications and context of Trump's words. This is a thing established in court all of the time, but it is true that it is Trump sincerely believed what he said.

There are a couple of points that point to that... not being the case:

  • Trump's admitted trait of lying (see the "I didn't say anything as to not create panic" tapes and those things)
  • Trump's several instances of criminal behavior and pardoning of those who are also criminal (and in a lot of cases not a little criminal, but a lotta criminal)
  • The actual phrasing of his request; "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"
  • The seeing, threat of blackmail if he refuses; ""You know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offence. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer," 
It is not a case of reading his mind, but finding what is most likely.

#14
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@Theweakeredge
  • Trump's admitted trait of lying (see the "I didn't say anything as to not create panic" tapes and those things)
Untrue. He admitted a trait of concern for public safety. "Trait of lying" is your spin.

  • Trump's several instances of criminal behavior and pardoning of those who are also criminal (and in a lot of cases not a little criminal, but a lotta criminal)
You would be more credible if you didn't call everything Trump did "criminal". Are you against the President's ability to pardon, or are you against whom he pardoned? Only people who have run afoul of the law need pardons. Trump, and indeed any President,  can only pardon criminals. Your condemnation here is not only illogical, but it shows how deeply you have been brainwashed.

  • The actual phrasing of his request; "I just want to find 11,780 votes,"
Trump meant that the entire vote did not need to be verified, just 11,780. He was not asking for illegal votes, but for verification of legal votes.

  • The seeing, threat of blackmail if he refuses; ""You know what they did and you're not reporting it. That's a criminal offence. You can't let that happen. That's a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer," 
This is clearly true. If the vote was rigged and he knows it, validating the results would be criminal, and he and lawyer would  suffer penalties. How can the truth about our legal system be a threat? Trump is NOT saying, there will be penalties if you don't fake the vote in my favor, he's saying there will be penalties if you know the vote is fake and you validate it. This is true and there was nothing threatening about it.

It is not a case of reading his mind, but finding what is most likely.
You bias is not what is most likely. It isn't even what is likely.

12 days later

#15
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Well, under the law at least...
Manslaughter and murder are considered different crimes.

Topic's author
#16
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Manslaughter and murder are considered different crimes.
But the only difference is "intent".

How do you determine what I was thinking at the time?
#17
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
Why wouldn't Trump think the election was stolen?

Even before he was elected, he went to the same sources of news as the people who believe that it was. Did that change after he was elected?

I think a lot of stuff people think originates from Trump really came from the people Trump listens to. 
#18
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Manslaughter and murder are considered different crimes.
But the only difference is "intent".

How do you determine what I was thinking at the time?



Depends entirely on the judge and/or jury. What leads one peraon to believe something is different than what leads another to believe the same thing, or even something different.

Topic's author
#19
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
Depends entirely on the judge and/or jury. What leads one peraon to believe something is different than what leads another to believe the same thing, or even something different.
I guess judges and jurors must have special mind-reading powers bestowed upon them by "YHWH".
#20
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
They have privledge granted by their roles in the judicial process.

They don't determine things such as intent so much as they try to discern intent.

Topic's author
#21
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Mopac
They have privledge granted by their roles in the judicial process.

They don't determine things such as intent so much as they try to discern intent.
It still sounds like magic.
#22
Mopac
Mopac's avatar
Debates: 4
Posts: 8,050
3
4
7
Mopac's avatar
Mopac
3
4
7
-->
@3RU7AL
Many have entered the field of law for the magic I'm sure.
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
And any sound logic that doesn't vindicate Trump, will be rejected by Extreme Republicans and their backwood militia hordes.

It does seem that less extreme Republicans know which side their bread is actually buttered......And they're already starting to distance themselves from  the orange toast....As it were.

Hey...Such is the political merry-go-round Mr E.....Round and round we go.
#24
ethang5
ethang5's avatar
Debates: 1
Posts: 5,875
3
3
6
ethang5's avatar
ethang5
3
3
6
-->
@zedvictor4
Capt. Obvious gives us his unique opinion yet again.
#25
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,060
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@ethang5
Definitely an obvious and pertinent opinion.

I'm pleased that you think so, Capt. Obvious the alternative and expected opinion.

19 days later

#26
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
How do you determine what I was thinking at the time?
With evidence, just like anything else.

The fact that we can never be absolutely certain as to what someone was thinking is not an argument, the same holds true for anything else. Video footage of a murder could be faked, pictures could be photoshopped, finger prints could be planted. That’s why “beyond a shadow of a doubt” has no place in our justice system.

Trump made clear in that phone call that he was looking for 11,780 votes, the exact number he needed to pull ahead. That right there says it all. Even if he sincerely believed the election was rigged that’s no defense because he demonstrated that his intent was not for Georgia officials to determine to the accurate number, just the number he needed to win.

If there were any such thing as a neutral, objective observer, this would be a no brainier.
Topic's author
#27
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Evidence of action is demonstrable.

Evidence of intention is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft.
#28
Double_R
Double_R's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 5,239
3
2
5
Double_R's avatar
Double_R
3
2
5
-->
@3RU7AL
Evidence of action is demonstrable.

Evidence of intention is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft
Nonsense, and I sincerely doubt you apply this thinking towards any normal function of your every day life. Imagine your girlfriend tells you she plans to have lunch with her ex boyfriend. She gets ready with a full face of makeup, lingerie, expressive perfume, and leaves the house with condoms in her purse after making a reservation at a motel. Will you really equate deducing her intentions with witchcraft? 
Topic's author
#29
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R
Evidence of action is demonstrable.

Evidence of intention is functionally indistinguishable from witchcraft
Nonsense, and I sincerely doubt you apply this thinking towards any normal function of your every day life. Imagine your girlfriend tells you she plans to have lunch with her ex boyfriend. She gets ready with a full face of makeup, lingerie, expressive perfume, and leaves the house with condoms in her purse after making a reservation at a motel. Will you really equate deducing her intentions with witchcraft? 
I've known enough people to realize that you cannot predict what someone consciously intends to do.

Many people use sexual attractiveness and the false promise of intimacy as leverage for any number of potential goals.
Topic's author
#30
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Double_R