Thanks, Denise. I consider that high praise. No I don't like to get serious very often. I understand your points, and I especially appreciate your injecting porn into the discussion. But I still disagree back at ya. I didn't leave the house intending to get as wasted as possible, and then go barrelling through the streets of Petworth in my, um, green Camry. I got carried away and made a stupid decision in an altered state of mind. It's all a matter of when you think intent enters the scenario. If I find your wallet and make use of the cash and plastic rather than seeking the rightful owner, yes, I am a scuzzball and I am ripping you off intentionally. But I didn't steal a wallet or have the intent to steal one. I was simply unable to resist the temptation this opportunity presented. While the end result may be the same, it's just not as bad as holding someone up at gunpoint. It's just not!
--- In [email protected], "denisesudell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "James" <ttlsccr@> > wrote: > > > > Hannah, you always make a convincing argument, and not only that, > > you're funny when you want to be, too, which is why I'm glad you > > contribute to this group. But let Capt. Analogy take another stab > > at this. > > > > Say you're shopping and leave your credit card somewhere, and an > > unscrupulous fellow shopper picks it up and runs it up with a > bunch > > of crap purchases. Say he fills up his 2005 Aspen green Camry and > > buys tickets to Bob Dylan on Saturday, for instance. Yes, this > > person is as guilty as if he had picked it directly from your > > pocket. But to some degree, you did fuck up. We live in a world > in > > which you need to protect yourself, your loved ones who can't > > protect themselves, and your valuables. These are unfortunate and > > undeniable truths. If you don't do this, or worse, do the exact > > opposite, you have to bear a certain degree of responsibility. > > Whether it is naivete' or carelessness, society is unlikely to > make > > concessions for you. The person who picked up your card saw an > > opportunity, and may not have had the intent to steal a card that > > day. But still, you're screwed. > > > > Now to Gene's remark about drunk driving vs. tax evasion. Okay, > now > > I'm drunk at a bar. I have my car and I have my keys. I have the > > opportunity to sleep in my own bed, to be comforted by my own > cats, > > to apply my own icepacks, steaks, cucumber slices, and do whatever > I > > need to do in my own bathroom. There is no intent to harm > anyone. > > The crime lies between the poor judgement, and the opportunity to > > drive to where I want to be. Tax evasion is a crime of intent. > The > > repercussions about sucking up resources and depriving money that > > might have gone into social programs, blah blah won't get into > that, > > particularly under this administration. > > > > Say you're walking by a parked convertible with the top down, and > > there's a $100 bill on the front seat. Most of us will think, > this > > is a set up, ain't touching that thing. But we're special. What > > percentage of society do you think will grab that thing, compared > to > > breaking into a locked car with a bill on the seat? A far greater > > percentage. You're basically an idiot for leaving a $100 in an > open > > car. Only a real douchebag will break someone's window for a > lousy > > $100. I think Gene thinks a crime of intent is worse than a crime > > of opportunity. > > > > So what I'm getting at is yes, your kids should not be walking > home > > alone, especially if you have dressed them up as little freakin' > > whores. > > > > This ain't the garden of eden, there ain't no angels above. > Things > > ain't what they used to be, and this ain't the summer of love. - > > Blue Oyster Cult > > > > Wow. James, I think this is the first time I've seen a serious post > from you. And it's extremely well-written and well-reasoned. > > But I'm still going to disagree with you. > > I think there are clear differences between the "leaving your credit > card" scenario, the driving drunk scenario, and the tax evasion > scenario. The differences relate to both intentions and > consequences. > > In the credit card scenario: yeah, you screwed up, but your screwup > was not intentional, and it was not the ultimate cause of your > getting stuck with the cost of the Dylan tickets. The creep who > owned the green Camry had to take intentional action to use your > card. He had to know, when he handed the card to the cashier to pay > for his tank of gas, that he was committing a crime. He was > gambling on not getting caught / paying the consequences, but he was > acting intentionally. > > In the tax evasion scenario: as you point out, you've got to take > intentional action -- in fact, a whole bunch of intentional actions - > - to commit the crime. And your actions are clearly the direct and > ultimate cause of your violation of the law. Again, you gamble on > not getting caught or paying the consequences, but you know > perfectly well (at least in this hypothetical case) that you're > doing wrong. (No Ken Lay defenses permitted here.) > > Now we get to the drunk driving scenario. Yeah, it's understandable > that you might want to recover in your own bed, snuggle with your > teddy bear, watch your own porn videos, etc. But *you are still > taking intentional action* in getting into that car and turning the > ignition. You know you're doing something wrong; you may even be > aware, through that alcoholic haze, that you're about to commit a > crime. But you still choose to take the gamble, and hope that you > don't suffer the consequences. > > The only difference I see between the credit card theft scenario and > the drunk driving scenario has to do with the probability of > consequences. In the credit card scenario, Mr. Aspen Green Camry > knows for damn sure that his intentional actions are going to make > somebody else suffer. In the drunk driving scenario, you don't know > *for sure* whether your longing for your teddy bear and raw steaks > are going to make somebody else suffer, but you decide that your > comfort is worth risking the lives of everybody else who happens to > be on the road with you. > > I admit, this discussion goes down a slightly different road from > the discussion of victim responsibility. As a recovering Catholic > whose friends have a bit of experience with the topic, though, I do > want to point out to Hannah that it isn't just "defrocked" priests > that parents should worry about. > Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/weingartenchatters/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
