Personal Freedom vs. Public Welfare

[Arthur Brain]

Arresting someone for "Attempted Murder" is unjust, according to OK Doser's thinking . After all- no one got hurt!
So far he hasn't related to this attempted murder case, though he's clearly seen it.

Which, thankfully is why we have laws based on logic and reason. To use doser's tortured "logic" then you should indeed be allowed to go back home with no further repercussions. Obviously the law is a bit more nuanced than that and takes into account intent as well as action and result. In fact, not only should you be charged with attempted murder but also reckless endangerment because one of the of those stray bullets could have hit a passerby.

Drink driving costs lives for all of the aforementioned reasons so the logical recourse of action is to outlaw it and make it a crime. The notion that any transgressors should only be prosecuted if they cause an accident is illogical to the point of absurdity. Same with speeding and traffic light laws. If someone drives at 80 mph in a built up area then they're putting pedestrians and other motorists at risk through reckless driving. Going through a red light does the same. That nobody may have been harmed in either event doesn't negate it being a crime itself and punishable.

 

[ok doser]

Please explain how this is "Biblical".

Have you ever read Leviticus?

Does it describe punishment for somebody who fails to restrain their ox or does it describe punishment for somebody whose ox gores somebody else?

.. describe the ideal traffic law system that is just ...

It would punish offenders for offenses in which harm occurred. Not POTENTIAL harm.

 

[User Name]

Do you guys enjoy communicating with him?

 

[chair]

I go out into the street and see my neighbor Jimmy, whom I've hated for years, out walking his dog. I go into my house, grab my revolver, make sure it's loaded, and run after Jimmy.
I shout: "Jimmy, I've had it! I'm going to kill you!"
Then I take careful aim, and shoot at Jimmy. Six times. But I am a lousy shot, and I miss every single time. I do manage to put a hole in a neighbor's windshield.
I find the car owner, who is standing nearby, and pay him for the damages.
The police show up, see that nobody was hurt, and that I'd settled with the car owner already- so they...just leave. I go home, reload my revolver, and put it back in my drawer.
Does this make sense to you?

OKDoser- How about responding to the above scenario?

 

[ok doser]

Arresting someone for "Attempted Murder" is unjust, according to OK Doser's thinking .

Come on Chair, you can do better than this. I'm not playing this kind of game with you. This is artie and eider type of stuff.

Attempted murder is deserving of punishment because there's intent. I didn't think that had to be spelled out it seemed so obvious.

 

[chair]

Have you ever read Leviticus?
Does it describe punishment for somebody who fails to restrain their ox or does it describe punishment for somebody whose ox gores somebody else?

I have, many times. The Bible includes laws that you would call "just", but also many that would fail your "just law" test.

• If I steal your plow and sell it, how much do I need to pay you? Double the value of your plow. How about if I steal your sheep and slaughter or sell it? 4X the value of the animal. or your ox?- 5X. What is "just" about those rules?
• How about Sabbath laws- say someone collects firewood on the Sabbath. Who did he hurt? Death penalty, by the way.
• If my brother died, and was childless, is it "just" that I be forced to marry the widow?

One should be very careful when throwing the Bible around- somebody might actually have paid attention to what's written there.

It would punish offenders for offenses in which harm occurred. Not POTENTIAL harm.

So everybody could drive drunk, and run red lights- as long as they didn't hit anybody? You apparently honestly think that would work.

 

[chair]

Come on Chair, you can do better than this. I'm not playing this kind of game with you. This is artie and eider type of stuff.

Attempted murder is deserving of punishment because there's intent. I didn't think that had to be spelled out it seemed so obvious.

Oh, it sure does need to be spelled out! For the simple reason that you have consistently maintained that the measure of punishment should only be harm- and there is none here.
Now, if the same gun owner was blind, and shot his revolver randomly in a crowded street, and only managed to break a window, what should happen?

 

[ok doser]

I have, many times. The Bible includes laws that you would call "just", but also many that would fail your "just law" test.

• If I steal your plow and sell it, how much do I need to pay you? Double the value of your plow. How about if I steal your sheep and slaughter or sell it? 4X the value of the animal. or your ox?- 5X. What is "just" about those rules?

• 
  
  In the context of harm? Harm was caused.
  
  
  
  

  So everybody could drive drunk, and run red lights- as long as they didn't hit anybody? You apparently honestly think that would work.

  
  Laws against murder and attempted murder are written to punish harm or intentionally attempted harm.
  
  And yet we don't have the case that everybody goes out and murders or attempts to murder. Apparently you don't think that laws against murder and attempted murder would work.

 

[ok doser]

Oh, it sure does need to be spelled out! For the simple reason that you have consistently maintained that the measure of punishment should only be harm- and there is none here

Then I will modify my position to include not only harm but also intended harm.

If you down a quart of scotch and hop behind the wheel of your 4 by 4 with the intention of running others off the road, even though people can swerve to avoid you and nobody is harmed, you have ATTEMPTED to cause harm and thus I would say are deserving of punishment.

 

[chair]

In the context of harm? Harm was caused.

The same harm was caused no matter what I stole.
And what harm did I cause by collecting firewood. Or if my brother died.
Where's the justice there?

Laws against murder and attempted murder are written to punish harm or intentionally attempted harm.
And yet we don't have the case that everybody goes out and murders or attempts to murder. Apparently you don't think that laws against murder and attempted murder would work.

Why is attempted murder punished? There is no harm?
The reason is obvious- there is potential harm, and next time there very well may be harm- which we want to prevent.

 

[Rusha]

Do you guys enjoy communicating with that imbecile?

The ignore feature is a beautiful thing ...

 

[ok doser]

The same harm was caused no matter what I stole.
And what harm did I cause by collecting firewood. Or if my brother died.
Where's the justice there?

Not going to go off on this Bunny trail right now I'm at work cell reception is poor and I'm using my handheld

Why is attempted murder punished? There is no harm?
The reason is obvious...

To me the obvious reason is intent not potential.

Potential harm exists constantly in a myriad of situations, whether we're talking about discharging a gun or driving a car.

If you want to mitigate POTENTIAL harm, then why not address the statistical likelihood of young black males to cause harm?

 

[chair]

Not going to go off on this Bunny trail right now I'm at work cell reception is poor and I'm using my handheld

To me the obvious reason is intent not potential.

Potential harm exists constantly in a myriad of situations, whether we're talking about discharging a gun or driving a car.

If you want to mitigate POTENTIAL harm, then why not address the statistical likelihood of young black males to cause harm?

It's not a bunny trail- you keep side-stepping the issue. You've already admitted that your "harm only" approach doesn't hold water.

Every normal society punishes people for dangerous behavior, whether or not it in fact harmed somebody- they don't punish people for who they are. You tried that dumb argument before.

 

[chair]

If you down a quart of scotch and hop behind the wheel of your 4 by 4 with the intention of running others off the road, even though people can swerve to avoid you and nobody is harmed, you have ATTEMPTED to cause harm and thus I would say are deserving of punishment.

It's very simple. If you down a quart of scotch, you become a dangerous driver- and I maintain, again, that there is room for "unjust" laws that are needed to protect society.

 

[chair]

In Hebrew we have an expression: "He climbed up a tree, and can't find the way down." i.e. OK Doser has committed to an absurd position, and is unwilling to deal with the embarrassment of admitting that he is wrong. Maybe we should all turn our backs, and let him climb down quietly at night.

 

[ok doser]

... and I maintain, again, that there is room for "unjust" laws that are needed to protect society.

And I admit, again, that there may be a need for unjust laws like this in today's society

But they should be recognized as unjust and we should seek to alter them so they are more just.

 

[chair]

And I admit, again, that there may be a need for unjust laws like this in today's society

But they should be recognized as unjust and we should seek to alter them so they are more just.

Well, you climbed down.
Have a great day!

 

[ok doser]

... OK Doser has committed to an absurd position ...

My "absurd" position: A law that seeks to punish somebody who engages in an action or behavior in which no harm has occurred (or has been intended to occur) is unjust.

 

[ok doser]

In response to the statistical likelihood of harm coming from actions perpetrated by young black males:

Every normal society punishes people for dangerous behavior, whether or not it in fact harmed somebody- they don't punish people for who they are.

Last night I drove home drunk. I was exceedingly cautious and careful. I took a route in which I knew I would encounter no other vehicle or pedestrian on the road. I obeyed the speed limit and the traffic laws. I arrived home safely and without causing any harm.

What "dangerous behavior"did I engage in?

 

[chair]

My "absurd" position: A law that seeks to punish somebody who engages in an action or behavior in which no harm has occurred (or has been intended to occur) is unjust.

Yep
I'm tired of this.
Have a nice fday