On 2/8/2012 7:45 AM, John Clark wrote:
On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 8:00 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com <mailto:whatsons...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    > If it were completely dependent though, there would no experience of 
decision at all.

I don't understand why people insist on infusing great mystery and significance and resort to mystical crap like "free floating glow" to explain the commonplace observation that you don't know what the result of a calculation will be until you've finished the calculation and you don't know what you will decide to do until you have decided to do it.

    > This is why US law

And there is no better place to seek answers to existential questions than to 
ask a lawyer.

    > includes a continuum of possibilities of intention, like premeditated 
    second degree murder, voluntary manslaughter, involuntary manslaughter, 
negligent manslaughter, and not guilty.

And that's why US criminal law makes absolutely no sense. You are not responsible for your crime, that is to say you should not be punished, if you did the crime because you had bad genes or because you had bad potty training when you were a baby, or because of random circumstances and were just unlucky; so you should not be punished if you did it for a reason or if you did it for no reason, and yet US laws nevertheless finds millions of people worthy of punishment. Idiotic!

You think it's idiotic to provide different punishment for killing someone in a fight as compared to killing them in a plan to collect insurance? I don't see that your rant against considering mitigating backgrounds has anything to do with the categories of crime Craig listed. None of them depend on potty training.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to