Welcome to the Free Talk Live bulletin board system!
This board is closed to new users and new posts.  Thank you to all our great mods and users over the years.  Details here.
185859 Posts in 9829 Topics by 1371 Members
Latest Member: cjt26
Home Help
+  The Free Talk Live BBS
|-+  Profile of KDus
| |-+  Show Posts
| | |-+  Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - KDus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18
1
General / Re: Free Thought Association Game
« on: February 08, 2014, 01:49:17 AM »
All appendix burst

2
General / Re: Coming up: Christian bullies and Mormon porn
« on: February 08, 2014, 01:45:08 AM »
I had to finally face reality a few years back at age 32.
I asked myself:
what makes more sense?
1. A farmer teenager, that runs treasure hunts for extra income, is visited by glowing men and directed to find a hidden treasure that ends up as a book and the original is taken away by angels....
or
2. A farmer's friend works across the street from a printing shop and when a local minister died, he took a manuscript of religious fan fiction and his friends turned it into a scam to bang lots of teen wives....

3
Free Radio Forum / Re: Pirate shortwave.
« on: February 08, 2014, 01:28:20 AM »
11meters is still alive in los angeles

4
General / FTL sponsor: cabinet hardware?
« on: July 29, 2012, 05:45:02 PM »
What was the sponsor selling cabinet pulls and knobs?
I actually need some, whoda thunk it?

5
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: March 11, 2012, 08:35:02 PM »
Intent is for a jury to consider.

If we consider bad intent we must also consider good intent.

Does it matter that a social worker has good intent when she rips my family apart and I spend $100k to try to put it back together?
 Does it matter if a crime is racially motivated? I say no, the results are the same regardless of the intent.
I would accept that a jury should consider intent when determining appropriate restitution.

6
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: March 07, 2012, 09:39:48 PM »
Yes, the question was, "where's the victim?"

Manson had victims.
I don't see anyone on this thread that has defended or supported Manson and we all seem to think he is a bad person, and dangerous.

The Hitler example involves coercion. Apples and oranges.

I reject the claim that intention is relevant. Intent is a thought, we can only be held responsible for our actions.

Until coercion is used, the individual and only the individual is responsible for his/her actions. 

7
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: March 04, 2012, 11:46:01 AM »
So if a few guys team up to rob the museum one night, the guy who sits in the van with a headset on, watching for cops, looking at the map of the museum and coordinates, communicating with the folks inside and GUIDING them through it, the planner, he's not a thief?

You're fucking retarded.

Until he is knowingly in possession off another's property without permission, he is not a thief.
Until then, it is just words and thoughts.
How many people are responsible for a bomb being dropped in Iraq? It takes thousands of people to build, transport, deploy, and guide a bomb; but one person pushes the button.

8
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: March 03, 2012, 04:40:04 PM »
Consider these words:

rights, responsibilities, choices

You are suggesting that persons who voluntarily give up their autonomy are transferring the responsibility of their actions to the manipulator.

9
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: March 02, 2012, 11:41:42 PM »
Humans make a choice for which they are responsible.

I agree, but people can also work in concert with a goal of murder and we're back to being able to hold more than one person accountable. What morally separates Manson from someone who hires an assassin?

Nothing, and neither is guilty of murder because neither uses coercion.
Immoral persuasion, yes, but no violence is involved. The assassin commits violence, not the customer.

10
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: March 01, 2012, 08:28:07 PM »
Al and KDus, you're both considering a false dichotomy. We aren't limited to holding just one party responsible. Both assassins and whoever hires assassins are responsible for murder. They're both actively trying to bring about the death of another person. Manson AND the people he persuaded are guilty.

The only thing that should bring the persuader's guilt into question is perhaps if he couldn't reasonably expect his actions or requests to result in the deaths of innocent people. Like, if someone off-handedly says "Someone should put a bullet in so-and-so's head!", they shouldn't reasonably expect that to actually accomplish anything. Manson willfully acted in such a manner as to clearly result in deaths. If I persuaded someone with large sums of money to kill someone, I can reasonably expect that action to result in death. That's murder, just like the tiger example above, or if I'd let a deadly snake out into their room or if I'd put something in their food that I knew they were deadly allergic to, etc. You saying someone can't commit murder in any other way than to pick up a weapon and directly attack someone? That's absurd!

I suspect active trolling. This is too overtly retarded to be 4 rlz.
Humans are not deadly snakes, tigers, bear traps, or guns. Humans make a choice for which they are responsible.

No, there are other ways to commit murder; such as denying someone air, food, water , while they are a prisoner.

11
The Show / Re: Podcast commercials way louder than show
« on: March 01, 2012, 08:16:38 PM »
Yes, I think it is a bigger issue on the Sunday show.
The adult toys spot tends to be quite loud. It was a bit awkward to be sitting in traffic on the bike with FTL playing, then the adult toys spot is talking about lube and such really loud for all to hear.
Tragedy of the commons.

12
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: February 28, 2012, 08:12:03 PM »
So, if I convince a full-on, super strong retard that he needs to strangle the woman down the street because "the demons will come get him if he doesn't", he should go to prison for life and I should walk, no problem?

If the answer is no, where do you draw the line on manipulation?
You have deviated from the Manson topic but the point is a good one.

The line between persuasion and coercion is pretty clear.

We are all "convinced" to make choices every day. I will need to think about what factors are relavent to hold a person responsible for their choices.

13
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: February 24, 2012, 09:19:33 PM »
Again, I ask: Why is person A responsible for the actions of person B when there is no evidence of coercion? Persuasion, maybe; not coercion.
Since when did persuasion become an act of violence?

Because he had a terrible idea? Because we don't agree with his idea?

Are you really willing to say a person is like a tool, object, or weapon to be used by another? If so, why are most of them doing life in prison. Why are they responsible? We don't put guns in prison.

Is it murder to hire assassins, yes or no?

No, it is murder to coerce someone to kill.

14
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: February 24, 2012, 09:17:30 PM »
Are you really willing to say a person is like a tool, object, or weapon to be used by another? If so, why are most of them doing life in prison. Why are they responsible? We don't put guns in prison.

They're responsible as well. Both the assassins and the person employing them are guilty of premeditated murder. And yes, they were assassins. If you accept a job to paint a house, whether it's for money or because the owner is hot and offered to have sex with you or whatever motivation they used, you're now a painter. Doesn't matter that you haven't gone to painting school and gotten a title as a painter, etc. You're painting!

So, the owner is a painter because he/she hires painters?
Persuasion is not the same as coercion.

15
General / Re: Charles Manson: where's the victim?
« on: February 23, 2012, 08:35:39 PM »
Again, I ask: Why is person A responsible for the actions of person B when there is no evidence of coercion? Persuasion, maybe; not coercion.
Since when did persuasion become an act of violence?

Because he had a terrible idea? Because we don't agree with his idea?

Are you really willing to say a person is like a tool, object, or weapon to be used by another? If so, why are most of them doing life in prison. Why are they responsible? We don't put guns in prison.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 18

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 31 queries.