Responsible by inaction?

[Nalaar]

my primary consideration is that some countries think it is acceptable to pay lawyers to drag people frozen through fear into courts to give them a criminal record for not being a comic book hero. How exactly you twisted that to suggest i worry about money beats me. Or is this another of your f**king mind games ? I can play that too, but so far I've actively decided not to. Henceforth this may change.

That is not my understanding of the intent or implementation of the French law, though I may be wrong about that.

And frankly, I find your repeated "if you find the subject distasteful, don't discuss it" inadequate.

You have a track record of posting up shit like this and as I said, it makes me wonder why you enjoy this so much.

Then I don't know what to suggest. I will continue to post topics where I think their could be interesting discussion.

[papasmurf]

my primary consideration is that some countries think it is acceptable to pay lawyers to drag people frozen through fear into courts to give them a criminal record for not being a comic book hero.

That is not how the French law for rendering assistance works. It is not rendering assistance that carries a very big fine.
Just phoning the police/rescue services is rendering assistance it is not expected that you carry out an act of bravery.

[johnofgwent]

And I will not allow such a person to make money from arguing the toss over that.

If your primary consideration is money, that makes sense.

Not for the first time, I find your thought experiments distasteful in the extreme and wonder what exactly in them gets your rocks off.

I created this topic when I read about the story in the OP, real world case study's like this are distasteful, if you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

my primary consideration is that some countries think it is acceptable to pay lawyers to drag people frozen through fear into courts to give them a criminal record for not being a comic book hero. How exactly you twisted that to suggest i worry about money beats me. Or is this another of your fucking mind games ? I can play that too, but so far I've actively decided not to. Henceforth this may change.

And frankly, I find your repeated "if you find the subject distasteful, don't discuss it" inadequate.

You have a track record of posting up shit like this and as I said, it makes me wonder why you enjoy this so much.

[Nalaar]

And I will not allow such a person to make money from arguing the toss over that.

If your primary consideration is money, that makes sense.

Not for the first time, I find your thought experiments distasteful in the extreme and wonder what exactly in them gets your rocks off.

I created this topic when I read about the story in the OP, real world case study's like this are distasteful, if you don't want to discuss it, then don't.

[johnofgwent]

I frequently celebrate the fact that unlike france, i owe you nothing. In France there is a Good Samaritan law which if it existed here would certainly lead to deaths of people worried at the backlash of doing nothing from smarmy lawyers.

In Britain, although I have on several occasions put myself at what I PROFESSIONALLY assessed as something of a hazard to haul some sorry arsed idiot from a watery death, I was under no legal obligation to do so and I was entirely entitled to watch them drown and no ambulance chasing lawyer could have done a damn thing.

This should never, ever change.

I believe the French law your responsibility is conditional on an assessment of your ability to help without putting yourself in harms way.

I can understand the desire to not have these 'obligations' put to law, that said it is hard to justify the position (as in the case in the OP) of the man who knows his friend is raping a 7 year old girl and does nothing, because they aren't obligated to.

I do not know what the position regarding this is.

Suffice to say I have never scuba dived, and my daughters have never kayaked, scuba dived or windsurfed in, or off the coast of, mainland france and they and I never will.

Because in every other part of the world that I and they have done these things, no jumped up ambulance chasing lawyer has the right to have me and they arrested and prosecuted for not doing anything because they,or I, were scared that to do so would put ourselves in deadly peril beyond our ability to recover.

And I will not allow such a person to make money from arguing the toss over that.

Not for the first time, I find your thought experiments distasteful in the extreme and wonder what exactly in them gets your rocks off.

[Nalaar]

I frequently celebrate the fact that unlike france, i owe you nothing. In France there is a Good Samaritan law which if it existed here would certainly lead to deaths of people worried at the backlash of doing nothing from smarmy lawyers.

In Britain, although I have on several occasions put myself at what I PROFESSIONALLY assessed as something of a hazard to haul some sorry arsed idiot from a watery death, I was under no legal obligation to do so and I was entirely entitled to watch them drown and no ambulance chasing lawyer could have done a damn thing.

This should never, ever change.

I believe the French law your responsibility is conditional on an assessment of your ability to help without putting yourself in harms way.

I can understand the desire to not have these 'obligations' put to law, that said it is hard to justify the position (as in the case in the OP) of the man who knows his friend is raping a 7 year old girl and does nothing, because they aren't obligated to.

[Borg Refinery]

<t>I will start this by saying it is an unpleasant story, and while I will keep the details here brief, if one looks for the full story online expect that it will be more graphic.



In the spring of 1997, Strohmeyer (18) and Cash (17) went to a gambling resort in Nevada. After a night of gambling Strohmeyer saw and followed 7 year old Sherrice Iverson into the women's toilets. While he was assaulting her Cash entered the toilets, saw Strohmeyer assaulting her in the bathroom stall, and left. A little later the 2 men meet, Strohmeyer confessed that he sexually assaulted and murdered the girl. He is currently serving life in prison without parole.



Cash however is not in prison, in-fact he was never charged with a crime, as in Nevada it is not illegal to do nothing. This was understandably unpopular, but the decision was upheld. In a media report Cash said "The simple fact remains I don't know this little girl ... I don't know people in Panama or Africa who are killed every day, so I can't feel remorse for them."



Two questions follow from this -

Should inaction be considered illegal? If you witness a crime and don't attempt to stop it, are you assisting the crime?

and (less divisive but much more important to us individually) are we morally responsible for the death of someone that we could prevent, but chose not to?</t>

I frequently celebrate the fact that unlike france, i owe you nothing. In France there is a Good Samaritan law which if it existed here would certainly lead to deaths of people worried at the backlash of doing nothing from smarmy lawyers.

In Britain, although I have on several occasions put myself at what I PROFESSIONALLY assessed as something of a hazard to haul some sorry arsed idiot from a watery death, I was under no legal obligation to do so and I was entirely entitled to watch them drown and no ambulance chasing lawyer could have done a damn thing.

This should never, ever change.

In terms of crime then.

When were you last a victim or in a position to aid one. Because unless you have been, you have no right to pontificate or pass judgement.

I have on several occasions intervened in the UK to disrupt criminal activity directed at myself or friends and colleagues.

Each occasion has required violent intervention occasioning actual bodily harm, usually to a significant degree because the fuckers do not come quietly and once they kick off they do have to be kicked and beaten into submission or they probably will kill.or maim to escape.

On each occasion I had to make a split second decision.

Years, no decades later I would be told the wisest course of action was to fo sod all and let the criminal make their getaway.

As I said in reply, on every occasion I have done just that and yet the fuckers have charged at me with a knife or crowbar or screwdriver. They had the chance to flee and they chose to fight.

So on each occasion I have maimed and not cared if I killed. Because to be honest I was simply scared shitless the (the mods dont like the word I want to put here) would kill me if I did not render him so damaged he could not.

And so in sheer terror I went all out and only stopped when I noticed them so broken they were down and staying down.

And that's what I've told the police who bothered to turn up.

Now, I will not criticise anyone who chooses to walk away. Because I know how much it hurts after you've completed the necessary actions if you intervene.

[johnofgwent]

<t>I will start this by saying it is an unpleasant story, and while I will keep the details here brief, if one looks for the full story online expect that it will be more graphic.



In the spring of 1997, Strohmeyer (18) and Cash (17) went to a gambling resort in Nevada. After a night of gambling Strohmeyer saw and followed 7 year old Sherrice Iverson into the women's toilets. While he was assaulting her Cash entered the toilets, saw Strohmeyer assaulting her in the bathroom stall, and left. A little later the 2 men meet, Strohmeyer confessed that he sexually assaulted and murdered the girl. He is currently serving life in prison without parole.



Cash however is not in prison, in-fact he was never charged with a crime, as in Nevada it is not illegal to do nothing. This was understandably unpopular, but the decision was upheld. In a media report Cash said "The simple fact remains I don't know this little girl ... I don't know people in Panama or Africa who are killed every day, so I can't feel remorse for them."



Two questions follow from this -

Should inaction be considered illegal? If you witness a crime and don't attempt to stop it, are you assisting the crime?

and (less divisive but much more important to us individually) are we morally responsible for the death of someone that we could prevent, but chose not to?</t>

I frequently celebrate the fact that unlike france, i owe you nothing. In France there is a Good Samaritan law which if it existed here would certainly lead to deaths of people worried at the backlash of doing nothing from smarmy lawyers.

In Britain, although I have on several occasions put myself at what I PROFESSIONALLY assessed as something of a hazard to haul some sorry arsed idiot from a watery death, I was under no legal obligation to do so and I was entirely entitled to watch them drown and no ambulance chasing lawyer could have done a damn thing.

This should never, ever change.

In terms of crime then.

When were you last a victim or in a position to aid one. Because unless you have been, you have no right to pontificate or pass judgement.

I have on several occasions intervened in the UK to disrupt criminal activity directed at myself or friends and colleagues.

Each occasion has required violent intervention occasioning actual bodily harm, usually to a significant degree because the fuckers do not come quietly and once they kick off they do have to be kicked and beaten into submission or they probably will kill.or maim to escape.

On each occasion I had to make a split second decision.

Years, no decades later I would be told the wisest course of action was to fo sod all and let the criminal make their getaway.

As I said in reply, on every occasion I have done just that and yet the fuckers have charged at me with a knife or crowbar or screwdriver. They had the chance to flee and they chose to fight.

So on each occasion I have maimed and not cared if I killed. Because to be honest I was simply scared shitless the (the mods dont like the word I want to put here) would kill me if I did not render him so damaged he could not.

And so in sheer terror I went all out and only stopped when I noticed them so broken they were down and staying down.

And that's what I've told the police who bothered to turn up.

Now, I will not criticise anyone who chooses to walk away. Because I know how much it hurts after you've completed the necessary actions if you intervene.

[Borg Refinery]

No it's not wordplay, I never accused you or anyone else of lying, it's no retort, it applies to everyone including me and anyone else, as does everything else stated in the rest of the post.



Everyone is hypocritical to some degree, some more than others, some less.



I hoped you would find it interesting, not get into some argument like the rest of the forum...

[Nalaar]

Maybe you're right, but it alienates folks who may be otherwise amenable to your approach ..and may respond differently if you used altered analogies.

Certainly so, you can't appeal to everyone, so I don't.

How do we measure less judgement? Do we even know what judgement is or if it's being passed when viewed through our subjective lens?

I think you become less judgemental through self enquiry if your own hypocrisy's, and cognitive dissonance.

It might do, if it makes them feel better you'd feel better no? The answer is surely maybe?

I don't think so, no.

How are you overcoming your own bias and what 'objective' truth are you basing that on?

This is wordplay 'by what objective truth am I lying' is an appropriate (and unfulfilling) retort which you can entertain if you want but I do not think it worth your time.

[Borg Refinery]

I mean gosh, 'reality' itself is pretty much just a collective hallucination.



https://www.google.com/search?q=reality+collective+hallucination&oq=reality+collective+hallucination&aqs=chrome..69i57.8226j0j9&client=ms-android-h3g-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8">https://www.google.com/search?q=reality ... e&ie=UTF-8">https://www.google.com/search?q=reality+collective+hallucination&oq=reality+collective+hallucination&aqs=chrome..69i57.8226j0j9&client=ms-android-h3g-gb-revc&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8



Try the TED talk - very interesting.



Then there's these weird scientific theories which are um, extreme in what they propose.



Quantum Physics Experiment Suggests That Reality Isn't Objective



A new quantum physics experiment just lent evidence to a mind-boggling idea that was previously limited to the realm of theory, according to the MIT Technology Review — that under the right conditions, two people can observe the same event, see two different things happen, and both be correct.



https://futurism.com/quantum-physics-experiment-reality-objective">https://futurism.com/quantum-physics-ex ... -objective">https://futurism.com/quantum-physics-experiment-reality-objective



Then there's this...



https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/ob ... y-to-mind/">https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/physics-is-pointing-inexorably-to-mind/



If the MIT guys are correct then I guess there can almost be no such thing as 'alternative facts' or 'alternative truth'...because it may well be true after all, and who are we to talk about it, when they're sticking by the truth as they saw it?

[Borg Refinery]

I think honesty is important.

What is honesty? We go to psychologists because we, even the best of us, can't frickin be honest with ourselves...we're so biased and we don't even see it. Exactly like a filter.



"No"



It might do, if it makes them feel better you'd feel better no? The answer is surely maybe?



 "Yes"



How are you overcoming your own bias and what 'objective' truth are you basing that on?



If you're all by yourself, who else is there to witness it...how do you know you're really being truthful with yourself? What do you measure it against...

[Borg Refinery]

Fair, I think we see things somewhat similarly.

The result of which (I think) is much less judgement of other people.

The story may seem inappropriate, but I find it's instinctive one sided responses helps  create an solid and agreeable base to build from.

Maybe you're right, but it alienates folks who may be otherwise amenable to your approach ..and may respond differently if you used altered analogies.



I like stuff which questions the nature of everything in its entirety, including itself.



For example, carrying on from what you wrote;



How do we measure less judgement? Do we even know what judgement is or if it's being passed when viewed through our sybjective lens?



Maybe intervening could make things worse in some cases (not endorsing what papa said)?



Maybe inaction is actually the best course of action sometimes, if everything else is going to make it worse?



I really like Blaise Pascal as I said before, some Stoic stuff too and obviously Orthodox Christian Theology as you will guessed from my name/signature, though I be a sinner and a hypocrite.

[Nalaar]

Why?

I think honesty is important.

Will it make you feel better?

No

Do you think it will make others feel better?

Some better, some worse.

Are you 'honest' with yourself?

Yes

Could you do more?

Of course

[papasmurf]

I don't want people to feel guilty, I want people to be honest with themselves.

How someone feels as a result of that honesty (whether it be guilt or any other emotion) is unimportant to me, however, I believe it is important to that person as an individual.

Really? Some 30 years ago I removed some "youffs" from a place of danger to a place of safety. (They were more or less comatose on drink/drugs/glue sniffing at the time. ) Had I known the problems they would cause in the ensuing years, I would have rolled them over the cliff instead of away from it.