Discussion about Ultimate Law

"If there is a victim, there is a crime."

For the purpose of the law, yes. Law is practical, not just philosophy. Yes, it come out of high emotions, ethics, philosophy and whatever, but the goal is simple: solve conflicts in a fair way. There's no point bringing the law if there's no proper victim and no suspected law breaker.

When we talk about a victim in a general sense of the word, we can imagine myself a victim of the situation, if only because something in the environment is forcing me to select between evils. Then there would be no crime because environment cannot be sued

Is it legal to give negative Karma to a post in a discussion thread in which we do not participate?

Is it legal to give negative Karma to a post in a discussion thread in which we do not participate?

I believe it is. Our karma is ours to give or take freely, within reason. If you see something you don't like, or is offensive, etc. you can give negative karma without participating. I don't see it going against any part of the law.

I've done this myself. If a user gets fussy, and starts retaliating with bad language and rude remarks, instead of partaking in the argument (unless I feel mod intervention is necessary) I usually ding them and move on. It seems more effective than commenting and potentially escalating the conversation. It goes back to the "lesser of two evils" idea. Both options aren't necessarily good (telling the user to stop the language could make them angrier; giving negative karma hurts reputation) but I believe giving someone negative karma is a better way about it.

Quote from: Piotr on May 13, 2013, 06:03:10 PM

Is it legal to give negative Karma to a post in a discussion thread in which we do not participate?

I believe it is. Our karma is ours to give or take freely, within reason. If you see something you don't like, or is offensive, etc. you can give negative karma without participating. I don't see it going against any part of the law.

I've done this myself. If a user gets fussy, and starts retaliating with bad language and rude remarks, instead of partaking in the argument (unless I feel mod intervention is necessary) I usually ding them and move on. It seems more effective than commenting and potentially escalating the conversation. It goes back to the "lesser of two evils" idea. Both options aren't necessarily good (telling the user to stop the language could make them angrier; giving negative karma hurts reputation) but I believe giving someone negative karma is a better way about it.

I agree with this. Karma does not really mean anything  (at least to me anyways). But I feel you should be allowed to voice your opinion. What if somebody was being rude and you did not want to start a ruckus by commenting? Passing a negative Karma silently allows you to voice your opinion and not stir up trouble or make a scene. If that person flips out then they are the ones who have an issue with the increase of a negative digital number on their screen.

From a moderator perspective I really think it is valid. I personally up and down vote mostly in threads I dont participate in. I only want to post if I have the time to do that post justice. A up or down vote is an easy way to encourage or discourage good or bad behavior respectively. It is also less likely a up or down vote will be misunderstood.

As a user it seems to make less sense, unless you have a strong interest in encouraging good discussion and behavior as well as discouraging unnecessary or rude behavior. Those people will probably become mods if they arent already anyways.

You can only do to others what they wouldn't want to be done to them if you are dealing punishment. True or false?

Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?

Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?

I do not understand what you are implying here

Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:15:18 AM

Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?

I do not understand what you are implying here

Kidnapping in progress is a form of killing someone intentionally?

(sorry I hit Modify instead of Quote)

Quote from: Mentonin on May 22, 2013, 11:26:21 AM

Quote from: Piotr on May 22, 2013, 11:15:18 AM

Kidnapping in progress is a form of murder. True or false?

I do not understand what you are implying here

Kidnapping in progress is a form of killing someone intentionally?

(sorry I hit Modify instead of Quote)

I do not understand the logic in this reasoning. If the person hasn't died yet, it shouldn't be considered killing her. Why should it be considered murder?

Not exactly murder, a form of. Like: exaggerating is a form of lying rather than a form of murder, nor it is form of stealing.

Kidnapping is definately not murder. You lost me there, Piotr.

Not exactly murder, a form of. Like: exaggerating is a form of lying rather than a form of murder, nor it is form of stealing.

What?

Murder: The unlawful premeditated killing of one human being by another.
Kidnapping: Take (someone) away illegally by force, typically to obtain a ransom.

Kidnapping, many times, leads to murder, showing that no, they are not the same thing.  If you put a gun to someone's head and pull the trigger, that is murder.  If you put a gun to someone's head and tell them to follow you, that is kidnapping.  While they are related, in a way, they are most definitely not the same thing. 

I would only disagree with murder needing to be premeditated

I'm curious why you brought up kidnapping, Piotr.  Could you give some more context for your question?