The right to offend and the right to be offended

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That would be just like if two banks rob each other.

Law is ALWAYS a blame game. That doesn't in anyway undermine its importance.

You were not talking about law you were talking about who "you" fault as a matter of opinion.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: DBCowboy

You do have the right to get punched in your mouth if you say the wrong thing to someone.

After all, we are an arrogant planet of brilliant idiots....as history hints time and again.

originally posted by: daskakik

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
That would be just like if two banks rob each other.

Law is ALWAYS a blame game. That doesn't in anyway undermine its importance.

You were not talking about law you were talking about who "you" fault as a matter of opinion.

We're talking about rights. I presumed that meant legal rights.

One could argue that because keeping a large amount of money in a vault can motivate desperate people to try and rob it, and the robbery might result in someone being shot and killed, that it is therefore wrong to keep a large amount of money in a vault. Because if you get robbed and someone dies, that is because you kept money in the vault.

It's not because of any choice the robber made. It's because of a choice you made, which affected the choice the robber made.

You can make quite a lot of arguments to the effect that a decision I make, which might affect someone else's decision, therefore makes me accountable for their decision.

But if you argue that I am accountable for someone else's choices, you're essentially arguing that I have the obligation to deprive them of freedom. At a minimum you're saying I have an obligation to deprive them of opportunity to make a wrong choice, by never presenting it to them in the first place.


...........do you see where these kinds of arguments lead?

When Charlemagne committed the massacre of Verden in 782 AD, by killing 4,500 Saxons for refusing to convert to Christianity, his argument was that, as their king he was accountable for their choice not to convert. If he didn't massacre them, it would be his fault that they freely chose to remain pagans.

Not their fault. His.

originally posted by: bloodymarvelous
We're talking about rights. I presumed that meant legal rights.

In the sentence, "I would place 99.999999999999999999999% of the fault on the listener.", you are talking about where "you" would place the fault. Not where a court of law might place it.

One could argue that because keeping a large amount of money in a vault can motivate desperate people to try and rob it, and the robbery might result in someone being shot and killed, that it is therefore wrong to keep a large amount of money in a vault. Because if you get robbed and someone dies, that is because you kept money in the vault.

It is, in part, because of that. That doesn't mean you are liable.

It's not because of any choice the robber made. It's because of a choice you made, which affected the choice the robber made.

That is also part of it.

You can make quite a lot of arguments to the effect that a decision I make, which might affect someone else's decision, therefore makes me accountable for their decision.

No.

But if you argue that I am accountable for someone else's choices, you're essentially arguing that I have the obligation to deprive them of freedom. At a minimum you're saying I have an obligation to deprive them of opportunity to make a wrong choice, by never presenting it to them in the first place.

Good thing I'm not arguing that.

...........do you see where these kinds of arguments lead?

When Charlemagne committed the massacre of Verden in 782 AD, by killing 4,500 Saxons for refusing to convert to Christianity, his argument was that, as their king he was accountable for their choice not to convert. If he didn't massacre them, it would be his fault that they freely chose to remain pagans.

Not their fault. His.

Not sure what the justifications of one person has to do with it but, OK.