Total Posts:43|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Very Difficult Hypotheticals

Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?
thett3
Posts: 14,344
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:16:17 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

That's really really really tough, and there is no real right answer. But I say this: either way, a persons rights will be violated. By not punishing the attacker you violate the right of the victim to have his violator punished, but imprisonment unishes the innocent twin. So since either way property rights get violated, I would default to utilitarianism and itss most likely that the societal benefits of not punishing the criminal outweigh the harms of unjustly imprisoning the other. Its debatable though.

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Depends on the lifeguards contract. If he had a contractual obligation not to put others lives above his, then against him because he violated his contract. However if the contract only specified that he must go through all reasonable means to save life, I would not rule against him for refusing to risk his life for another. He has no obligations save contractual ones

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

No, since he (presumably) had no way of knowing
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:18:34 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

I don't believe in prison either way. It's just as barbaric to a "guilty" person as an "innocent" person.

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

I'm sure there's some policy on that already. I don't really care.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

Shoot them both.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:19:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Sentence them both.

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Hardly a hard hypothetical. He cannot be prosecuted for not doing his job. He probably wouldn't even lose his job. He is perfectly justified in resisting giving mouth to mouth.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

Consent is consent. She gave it and to his understanding, it is still consentual.
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:23:26 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Not difficult. Because the conjoined twin didn't stop the other, he was party to the act, and therefore guilty by association. Prosecute, put them in jail for third degree murder (unless you could establish pre-motivation).

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Not guilty. The aids-case swam at his own risk.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

No. He did not formulate the intent to commit the crime in question.

--

These are not hard at all.
Tsar of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:27:00 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Heres one:

30 Jews are hiding under the floor boards in a home in Germany. Their a Nazi's performing a raid above, looking for jews.
One of the jewish woman has a baby that starts to cry. Covering its mouth to quiet it, will suffocate it.
Does she allow the baby to live, and let it cry, or does she suffocate the baby to save the rest of the jews?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:29:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:27:00 AM, TUF wrote:
Heres one:

30 Jews are hiding under the floor boards in a home in Germany. Their a Nazi's performing a raid above, looking for jews.
One of the jewish woman has a baby that starts to cry. Covering its mouth to quiet it, will suffocate it.
Does she allow the baby to live, and let it cry, or does she suffocate the baby to save the rest of the jews?

One life is worth less than 30.
Tsar of DDO
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:29:50 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:23:26 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Not difficult. Because the conjoined twin didn't stop the other, he was party to the act, and therefore guilty by association. Prosecute, put them in jail for third degree murder (unless you could establish pre-motivation).

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Not guilty. The aids-case swam at his own risk.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

No. He did not formulate the intent to commit the crime in question.

--

These are not hard at all.

1. Just because someone is within proximity of an assault doesn't make them culpable for not preventing it. If something is in the heat of passion you simply may not be able to stop it.

2. Lifeguards have a contractual obligation. Think of it like a doctor in an E.R. refusing to remove a life-threatening bullet from an AIDS patient in fear of becoming infected.

3. He did formulate the intent. Consensual suicide is still a crime. And once the women decides not to go through with the play-acting it is sex against her will. It becomes a rape. Consent doesn't neccassarily negate the crime.

They're difficult if you actually consider the questions.
FREEDO
Posts: 21,057
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:31:06 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:27:00 AM, TUF wrote:
Heres one:

30 Jews are hiding under the floor boards in a home in Germany. Their a Nazi's performing a raid above, looking for jews.
One of the jewish woman has a baby that starts to cry. Covering its mouth to quiet it, will suffocate it.
Does she allow the baby to live, and let it cry, or does she suffocate the baby to save the rest of the jews?

Eat the baby and then scream, giving yourself away.
??????
Party in the showers.
GRAND POOBAH OF DDO

fnord
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:36:47 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:27:00 AM, TUF wrote:
Heres one:

30 Jews are hiding under the floor boards in a home in Germany. Their a Nazi's performing a raid above, looking for jews.
One of the jewish woman has a baby that starts to cry. Covering its mouth to quiet it, will suffocate it.
Does she allow the baby to live, and let it cry, or does she suffocate the baby to save the rest of the jews?

This certainly reminds me of a thought experiment known as the Trolley problem and appears to affront the utilitarian perspective, where the greatest good is to be saved and benefited in the course of proposals, actions, etc; while certainly, an utilitarian approach in terms of a course of action might appear beneficial, there are often questions of justice--does the fact that the urgency of the situation force one to act as quickly as possible, even in ignoring the human element in the scenario--is justice to be instilled, regardless of such, is there a sufficient moral framework to justify such a standard in upholding the maximization of such a principle?

Unfortunately, as I have designated, this is a bit of a question of such a moral framework and I cannot deign to ask, especially if I were situated in such a scenario...There are questions of life over security, especially on a grander scale, tied to pathos--that of your only progeny or son so far, given the mutually exclusive nature of the dichotomy here--I assume we cannot reach a compromise or alternative route in ensuring the welfare of the group here; there are many personalities to consider, within the vessel known as a 'Mother', where urgency may successfully provoke action, or perhaps one life--even a small and undeveloped one--is valued above others in the act of refraining what may appear to be an immoral and degraded act.
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:38:45 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Trolley Problem:

"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:43:04 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:29:50 AM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:23:26 AM, YYW wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Not difficult. Because the conjoined twin didn't stop the other, he was party to the act, and therefore guilty by association. Prosecute, put them in jail for third degree murder (unless you could establish pre-motivation).

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Not guilty. The aids-case swam at his own risk.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

No. He did not formulate the intent to commit the crime in question.

--

These are not hard at all.

1. Just because someone is within proximity of an assault doesn't make them culpable for not preventing it. If something is in the heat of passion you simply may not be able to stop it.

Legally, yes it does.

2. Lifeguards have a contractual obligation. Think of it like a doctor in an E.R. refusing to remove a life-threatening bullet from an AIDS patient in fear of becoming infected.

(1) Your analogy is fallacious. (2) Lifeguards do not have a duty to harm themselves to save a life -although it would seem like that would be the case. (3) The aids patient, with open sores in a public pool, presents a public health risk. The lifeguard has no duty to contract aids in the process of saving a life.

3. He did formulate the intent. Consensual suicide is still a crime. And once the women decides not to go through with the play-acting it is sex against her will. It becomes a rape. Consent doesn't neccassarily negate the crime.

Rape is not suicide. Take a criminal justice class.

They're difficult if you actually consider the questions.

Morally, yes. Legally, no.

Reading Recommendation:

Thinking Like A Lawyer, (Ward Farnsworth)
Tsar of DDO
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:43:29 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:38:45 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

This is similiar to the Harvard Justice class I watched on youtube. ()
It is basically a question of 'good' vs. 'morality.' And it proves that they aren't always congruent. I think it would do the most 'good' to kill the one man, but it would be 'immoral.' And then it becomes a question of your personal worldview. Do you value morality over goodness?
I probably would kill the one and accept the punishment for my actions.
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:43:55 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
The Trolley Problem:

"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

I am going to ask anyone who can offer their own resolution to the two parallel scenarios above, one from the viewpoint of the judge, the other from the would-be "savior". :-)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:44:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:43:29 AM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:38:45 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

This is similiar to the Harvard Justice class I watched on youtube. ()
It is basically a question of 'good' vs. 'morality.' And it proves that they aren't always congruent. I think it would do the most 'good' to kill the one man, but it would be 'immoral.' And then it becomes a question of your personal worldview. Do you value morality over goodness?
I probably would kill the one and accept the punishment for my actions.

Michael Sandel is brilliant, but philosophy =/= law.
Tsar of DDO
Man-is-good
Posts: 6,871
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:46:27 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:43:29 AM, Axiom wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:38:45 AM, Man-is-good wrote:
The Trolley Problem:

"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five."

This is similiar to the Harvard Justice class I watched on youtube. ()
It is basically a question of 'good' vs. 'morality.' And it proves that they aren't always congruent. I think it would do the most 'good' to kill the one man, but it would be 'immoral.' And then it becomes a question of your personal worldview. Do you value morality over goodness?
I probably would kill the one and accept the punishment for my actions.

My worldview is at best uncertain, and I wouldn't want to impose it when there are far other, more "moralistic" courses to be taken. ;)
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." --Terence

"I believe that the mind can be permanently profaned by the habit of attending to trivial things, so that all our thoughts shall be tinged with triviality."--Thoreau
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:49:41 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

1. Just because someone is within proximity of an assault doesn't make them culpable for not preventing it. If something is in the heat of passion you simply may not be able to stop it.

Legally, yes it does.

2. Lifeguards have a contractual obligation. Think of it like a doctor in an E.R. refusing to remove a life-threatening bullet from an AIDS patient in fear of becoming infected.

(1) Your analogy is fallacious. (2) Lifeguards do not have a duty to harm themselves to save a life -although it would seem like that would be the case. (3) The aids patient, with open sores in a public pool, presents a public health risk. The lifeguard has no duty to contract aids in the process of saving a life.

3. He did formulate the intent. Consensual suicide is still a crime. And once the women decides not to go through with the play-acting it is sex against her will. It becomes a rape. Consent doesn't neccassarily negate the crime.

Rape is not suicide. Take a criminal justice class.

They're difficult if you actually consider the questions.

Morally, yes. Legally, no.

Reading Recommendation:

Thinking Like A Lawyer, (Ward Farnsworth)

1. Legally, no it doesn't. If you are unable to prevent a crime of passion it isn't your fault. Someone may act too fast for you to do anything. Someone may be too strong for you to prevent them.

2. Doctors don't have a duty to harm themselves either, but it is considered mal-practice to not remove the bullet and allow the patient to die. Similiarly, it is considered negligence to not revive a drown victim when it is within your power to do so and your are contractually obliged to do so.

3. I was establishing that Consent doesn't mean something is illegal as you originally purported. I wasn't equating the two.

You have a very poor grasp on law and you speak with an authority and certainty not warranted by your opinions.

Reccomended reading: Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:51:22 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:49:41 AM, Axiom wrote:

1. Just because someone is within proximity of an assault doesn't make them culpable for not preventing it. If something is in the heat of passion you simply may not be able to stop it.

Legally, yes it does.

2. Lifeguards have a contractual obligation. Think of it like a doctor in an E.R. refusing to remove a life-threatening bullet from an AIDS patient in fear of becoming infected.

(1) Your analogy is fallacious. (2) Lifeguards do not have a duty to harm themselves to save a life -although it would seem like that would be the case. (3) The aids patient, with open sores in a public pool, presents a public health risk. The lifeguard has no duty to contract aids in the process of saving a life.

3. He did formulate the intent. Consensual suicide is still a crime. And once the women decides not to go through with the play-acting it is sex against her will. It becomes a rape. Consent doesn't neccassarily negate the crime.

Rape is not suicide. Take a criminal justice class.

They're difficult if you actually consider the questions.

Morally, yes. Legally, no.

Reading Recommendation:

Thinking Like A Lawyer, (Ward Farnsworth)

1. Legally, no it doesn't. If you are unable to prevent a crime of passion it isn't your fault. Someone may act too fast for you to do anything. Someone may be too strong for you to prevent them.

2. Doctors don't have a duty to harm themselves either, but it is considered mal-practice to not remove the bullet and allow the patient to die. Similiarly, it is considered negligence to not revive a drown victim when it is within your power to do so and your are contractually obliged to do so.

3. I was establishing that Consent doesn't mean something isn't illegal as you originally purported. I wasn't equating the two.

You have a very poor grasp on law and you speak with an authority and certainty not warranted by your opinions.

Reccomended reading: Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 12:57:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:49:41 AM, Axiom wrote:

1. Just because someone is within proximity of an assault doesn't make them culpable for not preventing it. If something is in the heat of passion you simply may not be able to stop it.

Legally, yes it does.

2. Lifeguards have a contractual obligation. Think of it like a doctor in an E.R. refusing to remove a life-threatening bullet from an AIDS patient in fear of becoming infected.

(1) Your analogy is fallacious. (2) Lifeguards do not have a duty to harm themselves to save a life -although it would seem like that would be the case. (3) The aids patient, with open sores in a public pool, presents a public health risk. The lifeguard has no duty to contract aids in the process of saving a life.

3. He did formulate the intent. Consensual suicide is still a crime. And once the women decides not to go through with the play-acting it is sex against her will. It becomes a rape. Consent doesn't neccassarily negate the crime.

Rape is not suicide. Take a criminal justice class.

They're difficult if you actually consider the questions.

Morally, yes. Legally, no.

Reading Recommendation:

Thinking Like A Lawyer, (Ward Farnsworth)

1. Legally, no it doesn't. If you are unable to prevent a crime of passion it isn't your fault. Someone may act too fast for you to do anything. Someone may be too strong for you to prevent them.

You are speculating beyond the facts in evidence.

2. Doctors don't have a duty to harm themselves either, but it is considered mal-practice to not remove the bullet and allow the patient to die. Similiarly, it is considered negligence to not revive a drown victim when it is within your power to do so and your are contractually obliged to do so.

Doctors are not lifeguards. Again, you're basing your conclusion on assumptions you have made beyond the hypothetical presented.

3. I was establishing that Consent doesn't mean something is illegal as you originally purported. I wasn't equating the two.

You have a very poor grasp on law and you speak with an authority and certainty not warranted by your opinions.

Lol... you're funny... and you also have no idea what my background is. Again, speculating on things you don't know.

Reccomended reading: Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension

Lol... again. I'm not making fun of you, but I really don't see the point in debating this issue with you. You're convinced your right, and that because I am saying something you don't understand/agree with/have the educational background to comprehend you assume I'm stupid. Ok... lol.
Tsar of DDO
TUF
Posts: 21,309
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 1:08:35 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Terrorist threaten to nuke the state of texas, if the U.S. government doesn't give up the president.

What do foo?
"I've got to go and grab a shirt" ~ Airmax1227
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 1:09:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago

1. Legally, no it doesn't. If you are unable to prevent a crime of passion it isn't your fault. Someone may act too fast for you to do anything. Someone may be too strong for you to prevent them.

You are speculating beyond the facts in evidence.

2. Doctors don't have a duty to harm themselves either, but it is considered mal-practice to not remove the bullet and allow the patient to die. Similiarly, it is considered negligence to not revive a drown victim when it is within your power to do so and your are contractually obliged to do so.

Doctors are not lifeguards. Again, you're basing your conclusion on assumptions you have made beyond the hypothetical presented.

3. I was establishing that Consent doesn't mean something is illegal as you originally purported. I wasn't equating the two.

You have a very poor grasp on law and you speak with an authority and certainty not warranted by your opinions.

Lol... you're funny... and you also have no idea what my background is. Again, speculating on things you don't know.

Reccomended reading: Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension

Lol... again. I'm not making fun of you, but I really don't see the point in debating this issue with you. You're convinced your right, and that because I am saying something you don't understand/agree with/have the educational background to comprehend you assume I'm stupid. Ok... lol.

1. The facts are that one siamese twin killed a man. They are not that the other could have somehow prevented him. Nor are they that the other was in the situation or had the physicality to somehow prevent him. You are the one that introduced extraneous circumstances. I countered by pointing them out as being unfounded in law.

2. No, doctors are not lifeguards. They are both contractually obliged, however, to fulfill their duties in regard to the preservation of human life. Nothing more. Nothing less. The consequences of breeching said contracts may vary, but the breech is there nonetheless.

3. Not really clever how you don't address the actual point made here, but rather address my conclusion which was directed at yours. And I'm not judging your background. I simply stated that you speak with authority, but your opinions don't back up that authority. I don't need to know any more about you for that to be a true statement.

No. It's because you are wrong that I don't agree with you. It's not difficult to point out where you're wrong as I have just done. And now who is making judgements about one's background? If you are flippant towards someone, expect them to return the same regard. It's not difficult to understand that you 'reap what you sow.'

(Is there something wrong with being 'convinced you're right.' Usually that's why people argue from a certain standpoint... They're convinced they're right.)
Axiom
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 1:10:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 1:08:35 AM, TUF wrote:
Terrorist threaten to nuke the state of texas, if the U.S. government doesn't give up the president.

What do foo?

It's another question of greatest good vs. greatest morality. I'd give up the president (saves the most life: most good) but I will be causing the death or capture of a man (immoral).
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 1:37:10 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 1:09:58 AM, Axiom wrote:

1. Legally, no it doesn't. If you are unable to prevent a crime of passion it isn't your fault. Someone may act too fast for you to do anything. Someone may be too strong for you to prevent them.

You are speculating beyond the facts in evidence.

2. Doctors don't have a duty to harm themselves either, but it is considered mal-practice to not remove the bullet and allow the patient to die. Similiarly, it is considered negligence to not revive a drown victim when it is within your power to do so and your are contractually obliged to do so.

Doctors are not lifeguards. Again, you're basing your conclusion on assumptions you have made beyond the hypothetical presented.

3. I was establishing that Consent doesn't mean something is illegal as you originally purported. I wasn't equating the two.

You have a very poor grasp on law and you speak with an authority and certainty not warranted by your opinions.

Lol... you're funny... and you also have no idea what my background is. Again, speculating on things you don't know.

Reccomended reading: Critical Thinking and Reading Comprehension

Lol... again. I'm not making fun of you, but I really don't see the point in debating this issue with you. You're convinced your right, and that because I am saying something you don't understand/agree with/have the educational background to comprehend you assume I'm stupid. Ok... lol.

1. The facts are that one siamese twin killed a man. They are not that the other could have somehow prevented him. Nor are they that the other was in the situation or had the physicality to somehow prevent him. You are the one that introduced extraneous circumstances. I countered by pointing them out as being unfounded in law.

The facts:

Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies.

Twin 1 kills patron. Twin 2 was present, given that he is a twin. Twin 1 is conjoined, making him constantly aware of Twin 2's activity. (The law also states that being intoxicated does not divest a person of liability.)

Concept for you to research:

guilty by association.

Lexis-Nexis that sh!t.

2. No, doctors are not lifeguards. They are both contractually obliged, however, to fulfill their duties in regard to the preservation of human life. Nothing more. Nothing less. The consequences of breeching said contracts may vary, but the breech is there nonetheless.

Your Hypothetical:

A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Facts:

Lifeguard sees aids sores of victim (and recognizes them as aids sores, per your wording).

Question them becomes: contract aids and save life v. not contract aids and not save life.

Concept for you to research:

Duty to rescue

Lifeguard has no obligation to contract aids in the performance of his job. Do not make an analogy. Deal with only the facts of the situation. Because the lifeguard recognized the sores as aids (assuming he correctly identified them), he (the lifeguard) has no duty to rescue where his well-being is jeopardized for doing so. (Stipulate that lifeguard is private citizen, because no evidence was presented to contrary.)

3. Not really clever how you don't address the actual point made here, but rather address my conclusion which was directed at yours. And I'm not judging your background. I simply stated that you speak with authority, but your opinions don't back up that authority. I don't need to know any more about you for that to be a true statement.

In order for a person to be guilty of a crime, they have to formulate the intent to commit it.

Your Hypothetical:

Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

Male has no way to know woman changed her mind, and therefore had no intent to rape her, where rape is understood to mean unwilling sexual penetration. Male only is aware of the fact that he is playing a role in a fantasy, WITH HER CONSENT. Given, she had no way to express that she changed her mind, but she had the responsibility to establish circumstances under which she could have expressed her desire NOT to fulfill fantasy. Again, take a criminal justice class.

No. It's because you are wrong that I don't agree with you. It's not difficult to point out where you're wrong as I have just done. And now who is making judgements about one's background? If you are flippant towards someone, expect them to return the same regard. It's not difficult to understand that you 'reap what you sow.'

Because I know my background, I know that you're wrong. You're an undergraduate with the intent to go to law school. That's what I know. What I also know is that you think you're correct, and that's fine, because ultimately it's of no real consequence. There is no real point in exploring this further.

(Is there something wrong with being 'convinced you're right.' Usually that's why people argue from a certain standpoint... They're convinced they're right.)

What penetrating insight hath been bestowed upon you.

--

As I said, morally questionable, legally clear.
Tsar of DDO
Maikuru
Posts: 9,112
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 2:40:57 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
1. Punish the twins
2. Rule in favor of the life guard
3. Charge the rapist

You had it right the first time. The "Very" was unnecessary.

http://www.debate.org...
"You assume I wouldn't want to burn this whole place to the ground."
- lamerde

https://i.imgflip.com...
royalpaladin
Posts: 22,357
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 5:30:12 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 12:19:02 AM, TUF wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Sentence them both.

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Hardly a hard hypothetical. He cannot be prosecuted for not doing his job. He probably wouldn't even lose his job. He is perfectly justified in resisting giving mouth to mouth.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

Consent is consent. She gave it and to his understanding, it is still consentual.

This isn't true. People have the right to back out at any time.
Mestari
Posts: 4,656
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 5:38:46 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 5:30:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:19:02 AM, TUF wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Sentence them both.

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Hardly a hard hypothetical. He cannot be prosecuted for not doing his job. He probably wouldn't even lose his job. He is perfectly justified in resisting giving mouth to mouth.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

Consent is consent. She gave it and to his understanding, it is still consentual.

This isn't true. People have the right to back out at any time.
Rules of Mafia

1. Mestari is never third party.
2. If Mestari claims an intricate and page long TP role, he's telling the truth.
3. Mestari always jointly wins with the town.
3b. If he doesn't he's mafia.
3c. If he was mafia you wouldn't suspect him in the first place.
4. If you lynch Mestari you will lose because he will be the third party Doctor or some other townie power role.
5. DP1 lynches are good.
6. The answer is always no.
YYW
Posts: 36,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/13/2012 5:52:58 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/13/2012 5:38:46 AM, Mestari wrote:
At 8/13/2012 5:30:12 AM, royalpaladin wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:19:02 AM, TUF wrote:
At 8/13/2012 12:05:16 AM, Axiom wrote:
Here are three hypothetical situations that you have to pass judgement on.

1. Siamese twins (conjoined and inoperable) are at a bar. One of the twins picks up a bottle and slams it over the head of another patron. The patron dies. How should one go about prosecuting and sentencing the twins? There are two of them who share organs and most of a body, so you can't sentence one without depriving the liberties of the other. What do you do?

Sentence them both.

2. A lifeguard has to give mouth to mouth to a 'drown' victim followed by chest compressions. A lifeguard sees someone struggling in the pool, he dives in, rescues the person and takes them ashore. He recognizes the unconcious victim as a man with AIDS and mouth sores. The lifeguard refuses to give mouth to mouth and the victim dies. He is then prosecuted for not fulfilling his duty. Which way would you rule?

Hardly a hard hypothetical. He cannot be prosecuted for not doing his job. He probably wouldn't even lose his job. He is perfectly justified in resisting giving mouth to mouth.

3. Online a female organizes a 'rape fantasy' with a male. The scenario is to be played out the following night and is to be as realistic as possible. There is no safe word. The next day, moments before the 'fake attack' the women changes her mind and decides not to go through with it. But the male counterpart thinks of it as playacting and continues to perpertrate the 'fantasy sexual assault.' Should the man be prosecuted criminally?

Consent is consent. She gave it and to his understanding, it is still consentual.

This isn't true. People have the right to back out at any time.

The problem is that she while she has the right to back out at any time, where no "safe word" (i.e. vehicle to withdraw consent) was established, and the male participant were expecting a realistic enactment, despite her protest, the male would have no way to know that she -in fact- ever withdrew consent.

Hence, regardless of what would likely be fervent protest, it would be impossible for the male to know that she did, in fact, change her mind and withdrew consent, meaning that he could not, in any reasonable sense, formulate the intent to commit rape (even though he in fact did). Where intent is a necessary prerequisite for a crime to be committed (and it is), to prosecute him for raping her would be problematic.

(I still would subject him to a trial, and at least -if I were the DA- go for some lesser sexual assault charge, because if a defendant told me this bullsh!t, I wouldn't believe him unless there were OVERWHELMING evidence in support of his case.)
Tsar of DDO