Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..."

Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

UllrsIshtar -> Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/26/2013 4:12:11 PM)
To not further derail that thread, here's the new one based on this line of posts: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4452741 quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 Well I added more to my answer when I thought about it more if you wanna see my edit above. I would have to trust that the person I am stranded with saw me as a fellow human being and chose to treat me like he'd want to be treated. However I base this initial trust on the evidence I've seen of human nature. In my experience, people want to be treated fairly and thus treat others fairly to get that so it's not a stretch for me to come to the conclusion that N'gumbo here doesn't want to eat my spline. But if I had never come across another human being in my life and knew nothing of ones nature, I would not be surprised if I killed one at first glance for any number of reasons. Competition. A threat. Whatever. Nods, now stop thinking about killing, and think about this: You and N'gumbo are on an island together, y'all ain't going to kill each other, but you have different skill levels, and different assets you landed on the island with. He's got a knife, you don't. He knows how to gather food. You don't. Does he still own the knife? If so, why? Does he owe you a share of his food? If so, why? Does he owe you not to use the knife to rape you under the threat of violence? If so why?

curious23 -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/26/2013 4:22:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar To not further derail that thread, here's the new one based on this line of posts: http://www.collarchat.com/fb.asp?m=4452741 quote: ORIGINAL: curious23 Well I added more to my answer when I thought about it more if you wanna see my edit above. I would have to trust that the person I am stranded with saw me as a fellow human being and chose to treat me like he'd want to be treated. However I base this initial trust on the evidence I've seen of human nature. In my experience, people want to be treated fairly and thus treat others fairly to get that so it's not a stretch for me to come to the conclusion that N'gumbo here doesn't want to eat my spline. But if I had never come across another human being in my life and knew nothing of ones nature, I would not be surprised if I killed one at first glance for any number of reasons. Competition. A threat. Whatever. Nods, now stop thinking about killing, and think about this: You and N'gumbo are on an island together, y'all ain't going to kill each other, but you have different skill levels, and different assets you landed on the island with. He's got a knife, you don't. He knows how to gather food. You don't. Does he still own the knife? If so, why? Does he owe you a share of his food? If so, why? Does he owe you not to use the knife to rape you under the threat of violence? If so why? It really depends on the nature of our relationship. If I had nothing like you say, I would try and be alley's with N'gumbo because I know my time on this island would be hard without him. I wouldn't steal from him because there are consequences to that. So my thinking isn't "I can't steal his knife because that's wrong". It's "I can't steal his knife because he might steal it back and slit my throat." I'm thinking more about me than him. Does he owe me food? Hell no. The last thing I'd want to wrack up on a tropical island is debt. The last things I have for a stranger is expectations. Now if he offers, I probably wouldn't decline food. As for the last question, as I stated earlier, I'd be coming into this with initial trust hoping that he would treat me as he'd want to be treated. Then minute he starts to treat me as anything less, he forfeits the trust I bestowed on him and I'd probably take him out or die trying.

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:00:47 AM)
This reminds me of a discussion in jurisprudence class about the Speluncean explorers. I can't claim to understand it but basically (from wikipedia) : In the hypothetical case, a trapped team of five spelunkers determine via radio contact with physicians that they will have starved to death by the time they are rescued, and thus elect to eat one of their party. Once the remaining four spelunkers are rescued, they are all indicted for the murder of their fifth member. The article proceeds to examine the case from the perspectives of five different legal principles, with widely varying conclusions as to whether or not the spelunkers are guilty, and whether or not they should be executed (as is the mandatory punishment for murder in the fictitious commonwealth where the case takes place).

mnottertail -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:03:19 AM)
File a writ of habeus corpus. (I know it isn't exactly that but) Where is the body?

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:05:37 AM)
This is a link to the case (I'm new I hope this works lol) http://www.nullapoena.de/stud/explorers.html I did pass my jurisprudence exam. [:'(] I just never got my head around speluncean explorers. But I'm claustrophobic and wouldn't have been in the caves in the first place.

mnottertail -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:11:53 AM)
Must be a hell of a deal for you in a stifling, cramped, southern courtroom fighting for the freedom of a mordant haranguer, my little briefcase. I passed English, and that was as far as I ever wanted to go, exploring caves. Spelunker One; out.

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:15:27 AM)
I'm in corporate law. That's much worse. And I'm in the UK but the site keeps defaulting me to Alabama which sucks. But basically, what it comes down to in my opinion, and I'm atheist to the core, is that your view of the situation will be coloured by your own innate belief system. And that's what makes these discussions so interesting, and so polarised, and in so many ways a total and utter waste of time.

crazyml -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:20:25 AM)
Well the ideal answer would be we hang the four remaining people, along with the remains of the fifth. Because in any fucking half civilised society any pass-time with a name like <finger quotes>Spelunking</finger quotes> would carry a mandatory death penalty.

crazyml -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:24:24 AM)
I'd refer you, however, to R v Dudley and Stephens (1884). In which it was found that "Necessity" fails as a defence to moider.

mnottertail -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:26:31 AM)
But you two is the sort of blokes what brought it fourf unto the English Language, innit? Yanks is the sort of rotters would need that word looked up for em, OI?

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:26:45 AM)
Spelunking is a real thing. I thought it was made up for the purposes of engendering the jurisprudential debate but it isn't. It's the exploration of caves. Looking at it from a legal point of view, laws evolve over time based on the societal norms at the time. Years ago in the UK we had hanging and drawing and quartering - we don't now. We used to not allow civil partnership, we do now. And to get involved in the debate on human rights and the UDHR and the ECHR with it's incorporation into UK law in the HRA 1998, again these are fluid documents, look at the distinction between civil and political rights and economic and social rights. Is there a distinction? Is it meaningful? What point the right to privacy in your home and respect for family life if you haven't got a home? What point the right to a fair trial if you can't access justice due to lack of income? Sorry if I'm derailing the point of the thread.

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:27:56 AM)
Ahhh dudley and stephens. the shipwrecked sailors. I'd refer you to re A surgical separation of conjoined twins. Which kind of blurred the boundaries.

crazyml -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:29:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: UllrsIshtar You and N'gumbo are on an island together, y'all ain't going to kill each other, but you have different skill levels, and different assets you landed on the island with. He's got a knife, you don't. He knows how to gather food. You don't. Does he still own the knife? If so, why? Did he own it before? Or did he find it in the wreckage? In any event, if it's not the other person's knife I'd be happy with him owning it. quote: Does he owe you a share of his food? If so, why? How much food is there? How likely is rescue? quote: Does he owe you not to use the knife to rape you under the threat of violence? If so why? Well... taking a purely utilitarian perspective, he owes it to himself not to use the knife to rape under the threat of violence. Because he's likely to create an unpleasant atmosphere. Or even find himself beaten to death with a coconut.

crazyml -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:31:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missdressed Spelunking is a real thing. I thought it was made up for the purposes of engendering the jurisprudential debate but it isn't. It's the exploration of caves. Oh I know, I know. That doesn't stop it being fucked up.

crazyml -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:32:47 AM)
Blimey... it was like being in Mary Poppins for a moment there. I don't care which side of the Atlantic the word came from, it should still be a hanging offence to do what ever it is the word describes. I mean... heavens-to-betsy

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:34:05 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml quote: ORIGINAL: Missdressed Spelunking is a real thing. I thought it was made up for the purposes of engendering the jurisprudential debate but it isn't. It's the exploration of caves. Oh I know, I know. That doesn't stop it being fucked up. Agree completely! [:D]

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:35:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But you two is the sort of blokes what brought it fourf unto the English Language, innit? Yanks is the sort of rotters would need that word looked up for em, OI? It was a case by Fuller in the Harvard Law Review so it was one of you pesky lot who used it in the context of the case.

crazyml -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:38:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missdressed Ahhh dudley and stephens. the shipwrecked sailors. I'd refer you to re A surgical separation of conjoined twins. Which kind of blurred the boundaries. quote: re A surgical separation of conjoined twins Christ on a stick... are we talking about Conjoined-spelunkers. What sort of sick mind do you lawyers have? ;-) I think the distinction, and the basis for a necessity defence, is the urgency of the threat of death (which neatly brings it back onto topic>

Missdressed -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:43:45 AM)
In the conjoined twins case, there was no chance of survival of the weaker twin, and the stronger twin would likely die in a few months. But separation meant the killing of the weaker twin. And the doctors were concerned they would be tried for murder. The judgement ran to over a hundred pages. It's a knotty problem. And lets not even talk about Tony Martin or the McCann case ....

mnottertail -> RE: Sidetrack from "Yes, even Atheists..." (5/31/2013 11:46:19 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Missdressed quote: ORIGINAL: mnottertail But you two is the sort of blokes what brought it fourf unto the English Language, innit? Yanks is the sort of rotters would need that word looked up for em, OI? It was a case by Fuller in the Harvard Law Review so it was one of you pesky lot who used it in the context of the case. Fuller (which I believe is English in its heritage, ) spoke words in the English language (which I believe you lot is....) which seems to have brought these troubles to the doorstep in the first place. Havin said that. I see that there is two forms and I can think of only three forms, in which murder is committed. A perceived need to do so for a personal reason, judged to be rational. A perceived need to do so for a personal reason, judged to be irrational. (and the third, accidental) often judiciously lumped in with the first type. I say that the guy committed suicide.

Page: [1]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125