I do. Always!scott nathaniel wrote:I don't know what kind of person believes it's ok to cross a street at a point of convenience!beats me wrote:scott nathaniel wrote:
This is classic. One criminal opines the other criminal's lack of morality.
Yes, there’s a special circle of hell reserved for those who cross the street in front of a bar without using the crosswalk.
The one thing he didn't tell you was that he was wearing sweatpants....while drunk and crossing the road. So get the whole story, ok, V!TomViolenz wrote:Absolutely! I mean he was drunk in public, he should obviously never again opinion on morality, EVER!scott nathaniel wrote:
This is classic. One criminal opines the other criminal's lack of morality.
Yes! sarcasm has evaded you once again.TomViolenz wrote:I do. Always!scott nathaniel wrote: I don't know what kind of person believes it's ok to cross a street at a point of convenience!
Something wrong with doing my own risk assesment?
(Or did I miss the joke again?)
Damnscott nathaniel wrote:Yes! sarcasm has evaded you once again.TomViolenz wrote:I do. Always!scott nathaniel wrote: I don't know what kind of person believes it's ok to cross a street at a point of convenience!
Something wrong with doing my own risk assesment?
(Or did I miss the joke again?)
)Well, humour may be a side-effect of sarcasm, but it is not its main purpose. Sarcasm is best when the given responses are based on the respoder thinking that the sarcastic statement was serious and actually worthy of panty-bunching. That gives me pleasure!TomViolenz wrote:
Damn
(Am I the only non native english speaker left in the Lounge after Myrnovas timely demise? This seems to put me at quite a disadvantage...Hm, or maybe we Germans really do have that cliché shit sense of humor, we are always accused of...hm.....hm....hm....hm......maybe I should start a war, we are good at that
Yes, I should def start a war!scott nathaniel wrote:Well, humour may be a side-effect of sarcasm, but it is not its main purpose. Sarcasm is best when the given responses are based on the respoder thinking that the sarcastic statement was serious and actually worthy of panty-bunching. That gives me pleasure!TomViolenz wrote:
Damn
(Am I the only non native english speaker left in the Lounge after Myrnovas timely demise? This seems to put me at quite a disadvantage...Hm, or maybe we Germans really do have that cliché shit sense of humor, we are always accused of...hm.....hm....hm....hm......maybe I should start a war, we are good at that
TomViolenz wrote:I do. Always!scott nathaniel wrote: I don't know what kind of person believes it's ok to cross a street at a point of convenience!
I thought you have been to Berlin?!The Finn wrote:TomViolenz wrote:I do. Always!scott nathaniel wrote: I don't know what kind of person believes it's ok to cross a street at a point of convenience!
Having been to Germany quite a few times in the last few years, I find this hard to believe.
I have never seen a German pedestrian cross a street except in almost a painfully lawful manner.
Well that's the only exception I also make.The Finn wrote:Bonn, Hamburg, Cologne.
Where the people still believe in being "an example for the children"...
But there is already a seperation into a civil and a criminal justice system, exactly for this reason.Galt wrote:@ everybody
You guys are fun. Just to clarify a few points, when I say that a libertarian justice system will primarily be comprised of fines, forced labor and executions, I am not describing a system but rather a predictable market trend. I am not condoning anything, I am simply speculating. See the difference?
Now let me explain why I make those predictions, taking the example of forced labor:
Imagine a person of medium income, who one night gets shit-faced, causes a car crash that totals 5 cars. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that no one is injured. At this point, the man owes $X, but how much exactly? The cost of repairing or replacing the cars, that much is certain, but what about damages? Either he and the offended can come to some agreement, at which point everybody walks away happy, or no agreement can be found. Enter the private court system...
You with me so far?
Good examples: I think paying a fine for crimes like this would be outragous, but sending them directly to forced labour camps?!andydes wrote: What if someone mugs a little old lady on the street?
What if someone murders their partner?
I would do away with criminal sentencing altogether. If all offended parties are content with the settlement, no harm no foul.TomViolenz wrote:But there is already a seperation into a civil and a criminal justice system, exactly for this reason.Galt wrote:@ everybody
You guys are fun. Just to clarify a few points, when I say that a libertarian justice system will primarily be comprised of fines, forced labor and executions, I am not describing a system but rather a predictable market trend. I am not condoning anything, I am simply speculating. See the difference?
Now let me explain why I make those predictions, taking the example of forced labor:
Imagine a person of medium income, who one night gets shit-faced, causes a car crash that totals 5 cars. For simplicity's sake, let's assume that no one is injured. At this point, the man owes $X, but how much exactly? The cost of repairing or replacing the cars, that much is certain, but what about damages? Either he and the offended can come to some agreement, at which point everybody walks away happy, or no agreement can be found. Enter the private court system...
You with me so far?
So the only thing that should effect his ciminal sentencing (IMO) should be the drunk driving. The damages to be paid should be determined in a civil court.
