Explosion in Boston?

#2,326
#2,326
Vol Main said:
"When I wrote "Wow" in response to your assertion regarding Tamerlan's wife, what I felt was that I wished you were standing next to the backpack last Monday instead of the 8-year old boy. But, I wrote wow, because I knew that even though that is how I felt, that it was wrong. Dispassionately, I think you are a piece of **** and a blight on humanity; however, I don't think you deserve to be killed."

Emotion is the mother of thought. Original thought exists first as emotion.

What is emotion? It's vibe.
NOVA | The Elegant Universe: Series ...

All emotions which determine our thoughts pre-exist our birth. How can we witness the birth of our emotions and thoughts? How can we choose which emotions and thoughts to entertain and nourish with our lives? That'll cost you a quarter, when Freak sets up a Pay Pal account.
Click to expand...

You're a determinist? Good to know. I've always been fascinated by determinists that also believe in punishment.
 
#2,327
#2,327
therealUT said:
You're a determinist? Good to know. I've always been fascinated by determinists that also believe in punishment.
Click to expand...

Not at all. My emotions and thoughts pre-existed my birth, but they are not determined in my life. Well, to some extent they are, but I now witness many of them at conception... or excretion lol and freely choose among them. Yours on the other hand are determined. You are not a free man, imo.
 
#2,329
#2,329
Vol Main said:
Not at all. My emotions and thoughts pre-existed my birth, but they are not determined in my life. Well, to some extent they are, but I now witness many of them at conception... or excretion lol and freely choose among them. Yours on the other hand are determined. You are not a free man, imo.
Click to expand...

Huh?!?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#2,330
#2,330
PKT_VOL said:
Why? They are just carrying out fate.
Click to expand...

It is no longer punishment but only "punishment". It is a mere name, as the concept must absolutely disappear in a deterministic setting. At best, something that looks as if it is punishment is used as a corrective. But, punishment qua punishment is an absurd concept from the point of view of a determinist.
 
#2,332
#2,332
therealUT said:
It is no longer punishment but only "punishment". It is a mere name, as the concept must absolutely disappear in a deterministic setting. At best, something that looks as if it is punishment is used as a corrective. But, punishment qua punishment is an absurd concept from the point of view of a determinist.
Click to expand...

You are merely shoveling the excretia of consciousness into assorted piles with your intellectual labor. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that. I gotta hop.
 
#2,333
#2,333
therealUT said:
It is no longer punishment but only "punishment". It is a mere name, as the concept must absolutely disappear in a deterministic setting. At best, something that looks as if it is punishment is used as a corrective. But, punishment qua punishment is an absurd concept from the point of view of a determinist.
Click to expand...

Not any more absurd than any other concept: love, choice, free will, probability, original thought, etc.
 
#2,335
#2,335
PKT_VOL said:
Not any more absurd than any other concept: love, choice, free will, probability, original thought, etc.
Click to expand...

Much more so, as punishment is internally inconsistent within the paradigm of determinism.

There is no argument for or against free-will, and thus no argument for or against determinism. Going one way or the other is not absurd, in itself. It is absurd, however, to go the way of determinism and then hold individuals responsible for their actions, when the very foundation of determinism is that individuals are not responsible for their actions.

Now, there certainly exist compatibilist accounts, where some determinism and some free will coexist. Again, those accounts are no absurd, as they are open options as well. However, the only things that one can be punished for according to said accounts are those things in which the degree of determination is not sufficient to cause the actions; that is, where whatever environmental factors are at play (emotion, socialization, etc.) are not enough to override reason and agency.

Again, in said contexts, correction makes sense; but, punishment is absurd if the agent is not responsible.
 
#2,337
#2,337
therealUT said:
Much more so, as punishment is internally inconsistent within the paradigm of determinism.

There is no argument for or against free-will, and thus no argument for or against determinism. Going one way or the other is not absurd, in itself. It is absurd, however, to go the way of determinism and then hold individuals responsible for their actions, when the very foundation of determinism is that individuals are not responsible for their actions.

Now, there certainly exist compatibilist accounts, where some determinism and some free will coexist. Again, those accounts are no absurd, as they are open options as well. However, the only things that one can be punished for according to said accounts are those things in which the degree of determination is not sufficient to cause the actions; that is, where whatever environmental factors are at play (emotion, socialization, etc.) are not enough to override reason and agency.

Again, in said contexts, correction makes sense; but, punishment is absurd if the agent is not responsible.
Click to expand...

1) There can certainly be arguments for/against free will and determinism. They are not philosophical (logical) but rooted in physics.

2) You are mixing free will into the equation. If one is predestined to commit an act, they are also predestined for the punishment (or lack their of) for their act. The fact that their punishment is carried out by another person who wishes (in their own mind, apart from whether it is free will) does not undermine punishment in determinism. It just means that punishment is not rooted in free will. However, neither is love, choice, probability, original thought, etc. under determinism.
 
#2,338
#2,338
PKT_VOL said:
1) There can certainly be arguments for/against free will and determinism. They are not philosophical (logical) but rooted in physics.
Click to expand...

Of course their are "arguments" in a loose sense, as in reasons that suggest one can reasonably believe something. There are no arguments in the deductive proof, sense. They do not go through. And, using physics to justify metaphysics is a level confusion.

PKT_VOL said:
2) You are mixing free will into the equation. If one is predestined to commit an act, they are also predestined for the punishment (or lack their of) for their act. The fact that their punishment is carried out by another person who wishes (in their own mind, apart from whether it is free will) does not undermine punishment in determinism. It just means that punishment is not rooted in free will. However, neither is love, choice, probability, original thought, etc. under determinism.
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with "mixing free will into the equation". Strict determinism means that nobody is responsible for their actions (only compatibilism and free will theorists can make such claims). If one is not responsible, then harm cannot justly be inflicted upon said individual for their actions.

The concept of punishment qua punishment (not corrective action, deterrence, etc.) absolutely depends upon the concept of responsibility (and, not simply causal responsibility, but moral responsibility). There are no two ways around it.
 
#2,339
#2,339
You are merely shoveling the excretia of consciousness into assorted piles with your intellectual labor. I'm sorry that you cannot understand that.
 
#2,341
#2,341
First time i saw those guys was their 2112 tour...Temples of syrinx baby....mid seventies perhaps ?? That was alot of brain cells ago.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#2,342
#2,342
Two guys on welfare going to party!

"Though there was speculation that Boston bombing suspects Tamerlan and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev were considering New York as a potential target for terrorist attacks, according to police, the brothers were thinking about the city for a different reason — to party. "The information that we received said something about partying or having a party," NYPD Police Commissioner Ray Kelly said. The information reportedly came from surviving brother Dzhokhar, who allegedly revealed that the pair were heading to Manhattan on Thursday to celebrate the bombings."
 
#2,343
#2,343
therealUT said:
Of course their are "arguments" in a loose sense, as in reasons that suggest one can reasonably believe something. There are no arguments in the deductive proof, sense. They do not go through. And, using physics to justify metaphysics is a level confusion.
Click to expand...

Physics and metaphysics have been chasing each other since the beginning of time.

therealUT said:
It has nothing to do with "mixing free will into the equation". Strict determinism means that nobody is responsible for their actions (only compatibilism and free will theorists can make such claims). If one is not responsible, then harm cannot justly be inflicted upon said individual for their actions.

The concept of punishment qua punishment (not corrective action, deterrence, etc.) absolutely depends upon the concept of responsibility (and, not simply causal responsibility, but moral responsibility). There are no two ways around it.
Click to expand...

All one needs is the perception of free will in order to get a sense of "punishment". Determinism does not preclude a perception of free will.
 
#2,344
#2,344
SIAP. Jeff Bauman, Boston Marathon Hero, Gives Birthday Present To Fellow Bombing Victim Sydney Corcoran (PHOTO)

BIk4-3wCAAAXfSc.jpg


On Tuesday, Bauman, who was hit with one of the bomb blasts and lost both his legs at the knee, visited Sydney Corcoran, a high school senior who was also critically injured in the blasts. Bauman brought her a gift in celebration of her 18th birthday:
Click to expand...
 
#2,346
#2,346
Dzhokhar was unarmed when the police found him, and Dzhokhar has opted to stop talking now that he has been read his Miranda Rights. These first revelation is huge, especially if what he said to the interrogators is non-admissible in court.

If Tamerlan had the only firearm, then the murder of the MIT Officer might only be, from a legal standpoint, on Tamerlan. It appears that any serious conviction might now ride on the testimony of one individual (the individual whose car was stolen) and the Lord & Taylor video.

What is the possibility that a 19-year old terrorist ends up being convicted on lesser charges, receiving some 20-year sentence, and is paroled in 10 to 15? That's getting back out at 29-35 years old. Further, since he is a naturalized citizen, he will not be getting deported over this.

This is some crazy ****.
 
#2,348
#2,348
therealUT said:
Dzhokhar was unarmed when the police found him, and Dzhokhar has opted to stop talking now that he has been read his Miranda Rights. These first revelation is huge, especially if what he said to the interrogators is non-admissible in court.

If Tamerlan had the only firearm, then the murder of the MIT Officer might only be, from a legal standpoint, on Tamerlan. It appears that any serious conviction might now ride on the testimony of one individual (the individual whose car was stolen) and the Lord & Taylor video.

What is the possibility that a 19-year old terrorist ends up being convicted on lesser charges, receiving some 20-year sentence, and is paroled in 10 to 15? That's getting back out at 29-35 years old. Further, since he is a naturalized citizen, he will not be getting deported over this.

This is some crazy ****.
Click to expand...

felony murder
 
#2,349
#2,349
vols4sure said:
felony murder
Click to expand...

If Tamerlan was the individual with the firearm and the individual who killed Collier, then Dzhokhar will not be tried for felony murder in Massachusetts, if the following representation of felony murder in Massachusetts is correct:

As with first degree murder, this crime is defined by statute: Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 265, Section 1. That legal definition of Murder In the Second Degree is:

“Any murder that is not first degree murder. More specifically, second degree murder includes (1) An unlawful killing that was committed 2) With malice aforethought but without deliberate premeditation; or (3) A murder that was committed in the course of committing a felony not punishable by death or life in prison.” The last of these (3) is known as second degree felony murder, and is discussed further below.

...

For a homicide to qualify as second degree felony murder, the same requirements apply as do for first degree murder. However, the separation point between these two crimes and charges is that, for a second degree felony murder conviction to result, the underlying felony must be one that is inherently dangerous or that shows a conscious disregard for human life, but carry a penalty of less than death or a life sentence. As an example, burglaries or car thefts such as Larceny of A Motor Vehicle would fall under this category.

West Roxbury Second Degree Murder Attorney :: Second Degree Murder and Felony Murder :: West Roxbury Court Murder Lawyer
Click to expand...

Seems to me that, according to the law in Massachusetts, one would have to argue that it was Dzhokhar, and not Tamerlan, who shot Collier.
 
#2,350
#2,350
therealUT said:
Dzhokhar was unarmed when the police found him, and Dzhokhar has opted to stop talking now that he has been read his Miranda Rights. These first revelation is huge, especially if what he said to the interrogators is non-admissible in court.

If Tamerlan had the only firearm, then the murder of the MIT Officer might only be, from a legal standpoint, on Tamerlan. It appears that any serious conviction might now ride on the testimony of one individual (the individual whose car was stolen) and the Lord & Taylor video.

What is the possibility that a 19-year old terrorist ends up being convicted on lesser charges, receiving some 20-year sentence, and is paroled in 10 to 15? That's getting back out at 29-35 years old. Further, since he is a naturalized citizen, he will not be getting deported over this.

This is some crazy ****.
Click to expand...

Bill Ayers - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

right your kids or grandkids, could end up having him as a college professor, ie Bill Ayers, from the Weather Underground
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement

Back
Top