mass shooting at movie theatre in Aurora,Colorado
- Thread starter J.LOTTO
- Start date
something that blew my mind is one of the people that died was a sports lady and she was in canada at that mall that had the shooting about a month ago and she got out of the mall ok but than she got killed in the batman shooting. thats some final destination type shit. i hope they kill the guy in jail or death penalty
I apologize for any typos.
Thanks, but I could use a little more help because I am not understanding.
Are all crimes with possible detrimental outcomes excluded from being malum in se? Say i set up paper targets in my front window. The targets make it so i can no longer see out my window. I then shoot the targets. Its not likely the bullets would hit anyone, but there is a small chance someone maybe standing in front of my window or walking by on the sidewalk at that moment. I can only think blindly shooting a gun out my front window would be malum in se? How would you classify if someone knowingly has aids and doesnt tell their partner?
Correct me if im wrong, but the way I understand this is that categorizing crimes into these two categories is not black and white. As I previously said, i thought crimes are categorized into these categories by a civilized society.
I did a quick search trying to find any stats of peoples opinions on drunk driving but couldnt fin. However, I strongly believe if you were to take a poll, the vast majority would say drunk driving is wrong, and not because a law says that it is.
I did come across this article which I thought was kind of funny:
"If you ask 100,000 people whether drunk driving is good or bad, 100,000 of them will wonder why you're asking them such a dumb question.
"Bad," they'll say. "Drunk driving is bad. You're the worst pollster ever.""
So I still dont believe me categorizing drunk driving as malum in se is as outlandish as you made it seem.
Maybe we are not on the same page. When I say something like "I think DUI would be categorized as malum in se" I am trying to say how I believe it would be categorized by a civilized society between malum prohibitum or malum in se. I am starting to get the idea you are arguing your personal opinion that you dont think DUI is wrong?
I am not sure what you think I am misunderstanding and i am not sure why you keep going back to this "human idea". I dont think I ever said your idea was a "third world idea" or that it wasnt a human idea. I just stated that you are using third world countries/ideals to support your idea. At least thats what I thought (apparently incorrectly) you did here:
I guess since you included early America as an example I shouldve said third world AND/OR not modern, civilized societies rather than solely third world ideals. My apologies.
Regardless of that though, I understand it is a "human" idea. What isnt a human idea?
Along that line of thought, would anything be considered a third world ideal? Couldnt you argue the same thing for human sacrifice? While the there are still people in America that believe in it, I would personally considerate it a third world ideal.
Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing this was a commonly practiced tactic of early america. Im not sure if you have any examples?
Looking back, Dfresh77 seems to have a similar opinion as mine, so I dont believe I am totally coming from right field with this
I previously overlooked/didnt answer this from you
I would like to believe we do not employ these tactics of shared culpability, although im sure SOME people do carry out these actions. However, these tactics are crimes of war (which should give you a good idea on how a civilized society feels on this matter). Do you have any examples of this occurring, preferably on a wider scale?
Yes, you can argue what a civilized society is. I do not care to go there with you haha. I believe we all understand what is meant by a civilized society and for the purpose of this discussion I will simply use modern America as an example. Just because there isnt a universally agreed upon definition doesnt mean there isnt a commonly accepted definition. Did i ever say there was a universally agreed upon definition of a civilized society? If not, why are you asking a leading question?
Perhaps you could give me a highly logical and universally accepted definition of heinous, since you mentioned it?
You seem against this civilized society term. To remind you, im not the one that brought up malum prohibitum and malum in se. If you do not like the term "civilized society" would you mind explaining malum prohibitum and malum in se without using this term or the like?
My fault. My questions in this case was more rhetorical. I was just using it to support my case that shared culpability is not a wide-spread belief shared by the majority of people in a modern, civilized society like america. Your statement of "all it would take" seems to coincide with my belief that it is not an ideal currently held by the majority of the people in this country, so i think we can put that to rest.
And you very well may be right that it would be easy to get this idea supported by the majority, and we will probably never find out, but I dont think it would be that easy to do. When more than 1/3 of the states have gotten rid of the death penalty i have a hard time believing it would be a simple task to get the majority to support the idea of killing the offender and the offender's family members.
No you didnt, and im sorry, that wasnt my point. I am basically trying to understand what you would consider a third world ideal, or rather, why you dont think shared culpability is a third world ideal. It seems we agree it is not a commonly accepted ideal by people in a civilized society, and the only examples you have presented are third world countries and early america. But yet we are stuck butting heads. I am just not understanding why you dont believe shared culpability is a third world ideal. Maybe I need a definition of "human idea" if its something other than what it sounds, or like i said above, an example of something that would be considered a third world ideal.
above
Guess what? I disagree again haha. If I could say you were wrong for certain, there would be no doubt. If I cant say for certain, there is some doubt. It would be illogical for me to say that i do not know all of the facts, but that i am certain you are incorrect.
I am more than capable of using my knowledge/education, common sense, and reasoning to form an educated idea on a topic that I do not know all of the facts about. It doesnt matter if i openly state my background on the subject, the logic is the same. Making that statement openly gives you more information which will change your confidence and perception of my statement, but it doesnt make my statement more logical or illogical.
For instance, you make the statement "the population of the US is 20,000 people". It wouldnt matter if i said, "I cant say youre wrong for certain since i dont know the exact figure off the top of my head, but I highly doubt the population is 20,000 people. I think the population is slightly above 300 million." or if I said, "I disagree, i think the population is slightly above 300 million". The difference isnt the logic, its the amount of background information ive given you.
Now that I think about it, I can remember hearing of a couple countthat used to cut off family members hands and sometimes limbs if the father or whoever wasnt working hard enough, but no, I cant name them off the top of my head. But im not sure what impact this has on our argument anyway...
To go back a little, this little sub-argument started when I said that "If the laws and shared culpability worked so well in third world countries, why are people still committing inherently evil acts in these countries."
You responded:
As I asked before, do you have any support that this is true? Could you give me 1 example of a country that had shared culpability in the past and now has no inherently evil crimes committed? Judging by the fact that it has occurred "in many places" as you said, maybe you could give me more than one example? If not, maybe you could post some data showing a significant decrease in inherently evil crimes in a country that employed shared culpability. Or really any statistical data showing successes/failures of shared culpability and its affect on overall crime rates.
Do you have any support or evidence showing that the failure of this tactic is in fact linked to a lack of enforcement?
I believe it is fine to state your knowledge/credentials. You know where I am coming from when I do so. Obviously it would be more meaningful if you knew me personally, but I am being forthright and not trying to overstate my knowledge or infer I am more knowledgeable on the topic than i am, which i do not think is a problem. Your above statements make it sound as though you know all of the answers and have all the data to/for the questions that I am asking, which Im looking forward to learning.
above
yes
Sorry for relying on a plethora of logical fallacies. I am here to learn so hopefully in the future I wont have to rely on these fallacies.
I understand what you believe to be is the right "level" of deterrence and that my statement crossed your line. No need to go further with that.
Thanks, but I could use a little more help because I am not understanding.
Are all crimes with possible detrimental outcomes excluded from being malum in se? Say i set up paper targets in my front window. The targets make it so i can no longer see out my window. I then shoot the targets. Its not likely the bullets would hit anyone, but there is a small chance someone maybe standing in front of my window or walking by on the sidewalk at that moment. I can only think blindly shooting a gun out my front window would be malum in se? How would you classify if someone knowingly has aids and doesnt tell their partner?
Correct me if im wrong, but the way I understand this is that categorizing crimes into these two categories is not black and white. As I previously said, i thought crimes are categorized into these categories by a civilized society.
I did a quick search trying to find any stats of peoples opinions on drunk driving but couldnt fin. However, I strongly believe if you were to take a poll, the vast majority would say drunk driving is wrong, and not because a law says that it is.
I did come across this article which I thought was kind of funny:
"If you ask 100,000 people whether drunk driving is good or bad, 100,000 of them will wonder why you're asking them such a dumb question.
"Bad," they'll say. "Drunk driving is bad. You're the worst pollster ever.""
So I still dont believe me categorizing drunk driving as malum in se is as outlandish as you made it seem.
Maybe we are not on the same page. When I say something like "I think DUI would be categorized as malum in se" I am trying to say how I believe it would be categorized by a civilized society between malum prohibitum or malum in se. I am starting to get the idea you are arguing your personal opinion that you dont think DUI is wrong?
I am not sure what you think I am misunderstanding and i am not sure why you keep going back to this "human idea". I dont think I ever said your idea was a "third world idea" or that it wasnt a human idea. I just stated that you are using third world countries/ideals to support your idea. At least thats what I thought (apparently incorrectly) you did here:
I guess since you included early America as an example I shouldve said third world AND/OR not modern, civilized societies rather than solely third world ideals. My apologies.
Regardless of that though, I understand it is a "human" idea. What isnt a human idea?
Along that line of thought, would anything be considered a third world ideal? Couldnt you argue the same thing for human sacrifice? While the there are still people in America that believe in it, I would personally considerate it a third world ideal.
Nevertheless, I have a hard time believing this was a commonly practiced tactic of early america. Im not sure if you have any examples?
Looking back, Dfresh77 seems to have a similar opinion as mine, so I dont believe I am totally coming from right field with this
I previously overlooked/didnt answer this from you
I would like to believe we do not employ these tactics of shared culpability, although im sure SOME people do carry out these actions. However, these tactics are crimes of war (which should give you a good idea on how a civilized society feels on this matter). Do you have any examples of this occurring, preferably on a wider scale?
Yes, you can argue what a civilized society is. I do not care to go there with you haha. I believe we all understand what is meant by a civilized society and for the purpose of this discussion I will simply use modern America as an example. Just because there isnt a universally agreed upon definition doesnt mean there isnt a commonly accepted definition. Did i ever say there was a universally agreed upon definition of a civilized society? If not, why are you asking a leading question?
Perhaps you could give me a highly logical and universally accepted definition of heinous, since you mentioned it?
You seem against this civilized society term. To remind you, im not the one that brought up malum prohibitum and malum in se. If you do not like the term "civilized society" would you mind explaining malum prohibitum and malum in se without using this term or the like?
My fault. My questions in this case was more rhetorical. I was just using it to support my case that shared culpability is not a wide-spread belief shared by the majority of people in a modern, civilized society like america. Your statement of "all it would take" seems to coincide with my belief that it is not an ideal currently held by the majority of the people in this country, so i think we can put that to rest.
And you very well may be right that it would be easy to get this idea supported by the majority, and we will probably never find out, but I dont think it would be that easy to do. When more than 1/3 of the states have gotten rid of the death penalty i have a hard time believing it would be a simple task to get the majority to support the idea of killing the offender and the offender's family members.
No you didnt, and im sorry, that wasnt my point. I am basically trying to understand what you would consider a third world ideal, or rather, why you dont think shared culpability is a third world ideal. It seems we agree it is not a commonly accepted ideal by people in a civilized society, and the only examples you have presented are third world countries and early america. But yet we are stuck butting heads. I am just not understanding why you dont believe shared culpability is a third world ideal. Maybe I need a definition of "human idea" if its something other than what it sounds, or like i said above, an example of something that would be considered a third world ideal.
above
Guess what? I disagree again haha. If I could say you were wrong for certain, there would be no doubt. If I cant say for certain, there is some doubt. It would be illogical for me to say that i do not know all of the facts, but that i am certain you are incorrect.
I am more than capable of using my knowledge/education, common sense, and reasoning to form an educated idea on a topic that I do not know all of the facts about. It doesnt matter if i openly state my background on the subject, the logic is the same. Making that statement openly gives you more information which will change your confidence and perception of my statement, but it doesnt make my statement more logical or illogical.
For instance, you make the statement "the population of the US is 20,000 people". It wouldnt matter if i said, "I cant say youre wrong for certain since i dont know the exact figure off the top of my head, but I highly doubt the population is 20,000 people. I think the population is slightly above 300 million." or if I said, "I disagree, i think the population is slightly above 300 million". The difference isnt the logic, its the amount of background information ive given you.
Now that I think about it, I can remember hearing of a couple countthat used to cut off family members hands and sometimes limbs if the father or whoever wasnt working hard enough, but no, I cant name them off the top of my head. But im not sure what impact this has on our argument anyway...
To go back a little, this little sub-argument started when I said that "If the laws and shared culpability worked so well in third world countries, why are people still committing inherently evil acts in these countries."
You responded:
As I asked before, do you have any support that this is true? Could you give me 1 example of a country that had shared culpability in the past and now has no inherently evil crimes committed? Judging by the fact that it has occurred "in many places" as you said, maybe you could give me more than one example? If not, maybe you could post some data showing a significant decrease in inherently evil crimes in a country that employed shared culpability. Or really any statistical data showing successes/failures of shared culpability and its affect on overall crime rates.
Do you have any support or evidence showing that the failure of this tactic is in fact linked to a lack of enforcement?
I believe it is fine to state your knowledge/credentials. You know where I am coming from when I do so. Obviously it would be more meaningful if you knew me personally, but I am being forthright and not trying to overstate my knowledge or infer I am more knowledgeable on the topic than i am, which i do not think is a problem. Your above statements make it sound as though you know all of the answers and have all the data to/for the questions that I am asking, which Im looking forward to learning.
above
yes
Sorry for relying on a plethora of logical fallacies. I am here to learn so hopefully in the future I wont have to rely on these fallacies.
I understand what you believe to be is the right "level" of deterrence and that my statement crossed your line. No need to go further with that.
I saw these earlier., is this information legit and well known?
This one was intresting.
Sorry if repost
Posted on my phone, if pics aint working here is the link to both pics
http://i.imgur.com/tVU47.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3lE8m.jpg
This one was intresting.
Sorry if repost
Posted on my phone, if pics aint working here is the link to both pics
http://i.imgur.com/tVU47.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/3lE8m.jpg
This guy is an idiot. At NO POINT IN TIME did ANY of the survivors (includes those who were present but did not get hit with bullets) suggest that there were multiple shooters or anything like that. So if he is implying that, he's wrong but if he is implying a sleeper then that is something different.
This nigga just wants to sound intelligent or skeptical. But you know what? He looks like HE would commit a crime like this so maybe he knows what he is talking about.
This nigga just wants to sound intelligent or skeptical. But you know what? He looks like HE would commit a crime like this so maybe he knows what he is talking about.
i just downloaded the whole uncensored police scanner audio from that night. initial witness reports clearly state 2 shooters, and reports of 2 men w backpacks running from the scene. several reports of man in white and plaid shirt w red backpack. ppl stated another person propped open the door for the shooter, and ppl also stated shooter threw gas, began shooting, then another person threw gas from the opposite side of the theatre while the gunman was firing. Reports also indicate someone left theatre 8, went into theatre 9 to stage this coordinated attack. very suspicious after hearing all the aurora pd audio. lets remember NOBODY saw James Holmes shooting, it was a guy in full tactical gear. In initial media interviews some guys state shooter about 5'8, 5'9..isnt Holmes 6'4? If you believe 9/11 conspiracy these people would blow up skyscrapers and kill thousands, why is it a stretch to think they would shoot up a movie theatre?
http://www.qsl.net/ke4znr/AuroraCoShooting/AuroraCoAudio1211am0241am.mp3
download this
it is a stereo track with the left track the fire channel and right channel is the police channel. if you have a audio progam just listen to the right channel or it gets confusing... 28 mins is when the shooting starts
*a few of the anomolies of the mainstream version ive listed are from initial tv reports, alot still on youtube*
download this
it is a stereo track with the left track the fire channel and right channel is the police channel. if you have a audio progam just listen to the right channel or it gets confusing... 28 mins is when the shooting starts
*a few of the anomolies of the mainstream version ive listed are from initial tv reports, alot still on youtube*