Lurker > StealThisSheen

Team Lara
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Nightmare Geese

MM having a second life definitely matters, and I think anybody saying Geese isn't a major threat for Potemkin is pretty damn silly.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Raiden
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

I liked Aries, and at first wanted him to go over Neville

But then I Aries just kept seeming so... Entirely mediocre, that it made me want Neville to keep winning.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

I don't think so

Homey don't play that
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Some states/jurisdictions actually have heat of the moment fall under justification, which is why I mentioned it, which does nothing to help simplify it.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

The overall issue with taking justification as being by the letter is that many states allow a "heat of the moment" defense, which kinda flies in the face of all of that. There's a reason it's a gray area in general.

We're getting into semantics at this point, though.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

That definition of an insanity defense is more for "They did it, but they're crazy." Which, yes, is an excuse.

When you get into cases of "They felt they were in danger and they're crazy," then it's usually no longer an excuse, since the insanity isn't the entire defense anymore, it's just a factor. Doesn't make the killing any less wrong, but if it's a case of something like "They've seen this person numerous places in the day and thought they were being followed to be killed because they believe the government is out to kill them," then it becomes a justification.

EDIT: Eh, wrongdoing isn't that simple. An excuse is "They did something horrible, but they're insane." In justification, you're not technically admitting wrongdoing. You're admitting that it happened, but not that what you did overall was wrong/a crime, because of self-defense or whatever. It's splitting hairs, but it's important.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Wanglicious posted...

LordoftheMorons posted...

I've tried to shift the conversation several times to no avail!

i mean it's not like i've been silent on other subjects. haven't really reacted much to yours because they're just kinda "meh, yeah" topics.

StealThisSheen posted...

"Right" and "reasonable" don't have static definitions for every situation, though. If something is "reasonable" for a crazy person to do, then it's justified, even if it's NOT "just." That's why things like mental state and emotions factor into crimes. That's why there's such a thing as a crime of passion. Killing somebody isn't just... But if it can be explained as an action brought about by severe emotion in the moment, then it is considered justified for that situation and it can change the charge. That doesn't make it morally right, but it does make it "reasonable" for the situation.

This is fairly common in law. If a crazy person kills somebody, but it's proven that they're crazy, then being crazy becomes the justification and not just an excuse, and that changes things... Even though it's not saying the killing itself was right or just.

surprisingly no, if you start to argue the difference between the two in legal terms the difference between justification and excuse is actually really important and more pronounced than the common usage we've been talking about. in criminal law, justification is when you basically say yes you broke the law but if you hadn't something more wrong/illegal would've been done. like yeah you trespassed but you were being chased by a guy trying to kill you. or self defense for the commonly used one. legally, when you're justified you get away with it. you committed something technically illegal but it protected a greater wrong.

excuses are different. this would include insanity and changes to mental state. these things would still need to have some reasonable basis and are not guaranteed to have you go free though it can lessen the charge. for your example, a crazy person killing someone due to their insanity would not be considered a legal justification, it would be considered a legal excuse. that does change things from murder (which requires mental state), though they'd still be hit with manslaughter. if they were justified though, they'd walk.

but these two are very different legally. this is neither here nor there to the rest of the convo, but just mostly trivia.

The definition of legal justification is:

"A sufficient or acceptable excuse or explanation made in court for an act that is otherwise unlawful; the showing of an adequate reason, in court, why a defendant committed the offense for which he or she is accused that would serve to relieve the defendant of liability."

So you're a bit off. Insanity can, in fact, be justification, as can something like self-defense. It's only an excuse if they admit wrong-doing. If they don't admit wrong-doing, then it's justification.

So, for example, if a crazy person says they killed somebody because they fully believed that the person was a government agent out to kill them, and thus they believe they did nothing wrong, that is justification, not an excuse.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

If you get into saying something like, "Well, this person is crazy, so expect X reaction," you're basically getting into justifying it by going "Well, they're crazy" in the first place. If you're expecting something unjustified because of X, well... 9 times out of 10, X is the justification to begin with. They're crazy, they're emotional, they're young, and so on. There's a reason stuff like that shows up in defense of actions.

that's not an actual justification though. that's why i got into the definition, what you're describing here is somebody trying to justify it but then failing at it. justifying doesn't mean simply coming up with an excuse, which is what you've described here. none of those arguments - crazy, emotional, young, etc - are ever considered as actual justifications, just excuses. those two words don't mean the same, you can see the definition earlier.

for something to be justified, it needs to be just. has to be right, reasonable, well-grounded, sensible, etc. it's not just an excuse, it's an excuse with a strong, reasonable basis that vindicates this person's actions as something correct. that is what justification means. if you say "I can't justify this," you're saying that you can't find a just reason for that action.

i feel you confuse the idea of any excuse meaning the same thing.
and maybe you aren't alone in that.

"Right" and "reasonable" don't have static definitions for every situation, though. If something is "reasonable" for a crazy person to do, then it's justified, even if it's NOT "just." That's why things like mental state and emotions factor into crimes. That's why there's such a thing as a crime of passion. Killing somebody isn't just... But if it can be explained as an action brought about by severe emotion in the moment, then it is considered justified for that situation and it can change the charge. That doesn't make it morally right, but it does make it "reasonable" for the situation.

This is fairly common in law. If a crazy person kills somebody, but it's proven that they're crazy, then being crazy becomes the justification and not just an excuse, and that changes things... Even though it's not saying the killing itself was right or just.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Not to start the debate up again, but to expand a bit on why I believe it's very rare to actually have a situation where you should expect unjustified situations...

Taking your example of somebody being highly emotional, or even mentally unstable. If you get into saying something like, "Well, this person is crazy, so expect X reaction," you're basically getting into justifying it by going "Well, they're crazy" in the first place. If you're expecting something unjustified because of X, well... 9 times out of 10, X is the justification to begin with. They're crazy, they're emotional, they're young, and so on. There's a reason stuff like that shows up in defense of actions. Once you get into the action of expecting something, you're already justifying why it's right to expect that.

Now, you can justify something without AGREEING with it, to be fair. Justifying and agreeing are two different things, but that's a whole different discussion.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Explaining actions isn't really the same as saying that actions were expected

Explaining that Joe Schmoe shot a guy because he felt disrespected isn't the same as going "Well, of course Joe shot him. He disrespected him."

Again, it's all about tone.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Anagram posted...

Did he steal Reinhardt's charging people into walls mechanic?

They don't really function anything alike, so no
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Wanglicious posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Well, when you more or less are going "Well, of course people are doing X, so-and-so did Y," you're getting into justification territory.

It's like "Of course Adam got mad, Dan punched him in the face."

It's the tone.

that's an explanation, not a justification.
you don't have to agree with it, you aren't trying to justify it, you're explaining what happened and why it happened. using your example yeah, that explains why Adam got mad. and you can say he's justified by it or not depending on the circumstances (e.g., "but he told Dan to do it so he doesn't have much ground to stand on"). if you're confusing basic explanations with justification you're making a major mistake.

if you still get confused by that somehow then the least i'd expect is for you to keep reading what's actually written. which in this case has me literally saying that it's not justifying or approving anything so don't put words in my mouth.

which KP immediately did after.

Eh, I think we'll have to agree to disagree.

I think saying that something is an expected reaction is basically saying it's a justified reaction, because you shouldn't EXPECT unjustified reactions.

Like, that's where the "It's just an animal/baby/etc." thing comes in. You expect a dog to bite if you keep poking it in the face, and that's basically justifying it by saying "Well, yeah, it's just an animal."

Again, I'm NOT putting words in your mouth because I am NOT saying you are justifying it. You are not.

But the tone and language you used can certainly come off that way to people.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

To be fair to Wang, I think he's a good guy, despite our differences.

Passionate arguer to a fault? Absolutely.
Bit of a disconnect in how clear he thinks something he's saying is, compared to how it's actually coming off? Yes.

But I honestly don't think Wang ever tries to be disingenuous or anything, and I don't think he's as bad as he comes off at times. He's just very stubborn and will argue his point to the end... Even if the point sometimes gets clouded by other things.

Like, he's clearly not at all actually saying people at CNN deserve to be attacked... But he's not gonna back down from thinking what they did is scummy, either, which obviously complicates things a bit as details progress.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

I'm not saying you ARE justifying it, obviously. Just that the tone of your post can be taken that way.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Well, when you more or less are going "Well, of course people are doing X, so-and-so did Y," you're getting into justification territory.

It's like "Of course Adam got mad, Dan punched him in the face."

It's the tone.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

To be fair, your post was kinda justifying it. You may not mean to, of course, but it comes off that way.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

I'm not stuck on reproduction

It's just a very easy way to say that nature has decided there are definite biological differences between species, and between male and female, and thus you can't just say it's all a human social construct.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri, I think my argument is simple enough.

If birds know that they want to reproduce with birds, not snakes
And in most cases, male animals of a species know that they want to reproduce with female animals of that species

How are the differences "arbitrary" and things only humans decided are differences?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

A human can't fuck a dog and have bappies either but they're both mammals so I'm not sure why you're picking this hill to die on, there are obviously different systems of classification than the one you've chosen.

No, we went beyond this and got specific, since you said we could just make up a classification that says birds and snakes are the same thing.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Furthermore, birds don't go around actively trying to reproduce with snakes, suggesting that birds are also aware... Yes, these things are different.

Humans didn't tell birds that they can't fuck snakes and have snakebird babies. They didn't go "Sorry, birds, we classified you as 'not snakes.' "

We're not keeping birds from fucking snakes to try and have snakebird babies.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Doesn't nature classify by the fact that birds can't fuck snakes and have snakebird babies?

Nope! Because "can reproduce with each other" would be a form of classification humans decided on, and only one of many.

...This is a really dumb argument.

If a bird can't fuck a snake and have snakebird babies, then that is nature basically saying... Yes, these things are different.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Doesn't nature classify by the fact that birds can't fuck snakes and have snakebird babies?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

You literally told me "Even if birds aren't reptiles, the difference is arbitrary."

My dude I am seriously done with this argument and have nothing more to add, but if you're gonna keep claiming I said whatever, you should quote the actual posts where I said it instead of paraphrasing what you think my argument is, cuz you've already admitted multiple times that you don't know what I'm arguing.

I don't know what you're arguing not because I don't understand it, but because you literally haven't actually made a point yet.

So far your only argument is "What's 'same' and 'different' is arbitrary."
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Sorry, Kenri. I'll be fair. You didn't directly say "The difference is arbitrary."

But you did say

"Yeah well we've established I was uninformed about the latter but I'd still say it's arbitrary. What changes about the world if we classify them as one or the other?"

Which, at the time, you most certainly were not making the arguments LS is. So you were basically telling me "What changes about if we call birds 'snakes?' It's arbitrary."
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

Regardless of which side we're on, here, can we agree that Kenri's argument of "The difference between birds and other reptiles is arbitrary, just like the difference between XX and XY is arbitrary" is a horrible argument?

That's definitely a horrible argument but I don't think I ever said anything even close to that, so.

You literally told me "Even if birds aren't reptiles, the difference is arbitrary."
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Regardless of which side we're on, here, can we agree that Kenri's argument of "The difference between birds and other reptiles is arbitrary, just like the difference between XX and XY is arbitrary" is a horrible argument?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

JetJaguar posted...

Not a single match on the card looks like a bathroom break to me except maybe Miz/Ambrose, only because I've seen it a million times.

But have you seen it with The Miztourage?!
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Like, why is it so easy to handwave "mammal-like reptiles" with "Oh, we just call them something else, now"

But then you stand so firmly on "Birds must be reptiles!"
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

The argument of "We call diaspids reptiles, just calling lepidosaurs reptiles is arbitrary" just sounds like one big "We called this thing reptiles first and don't feel like changing it because because."

Which also sounds like the argument of "Evolutionary only, nothing else ever!"

Either way, I think saying "birds = reptiles is a consensus" is incredibly disingenuous.

Going "We want to be as specific as possible. ...Except for what we classify as 'reptiles'" just seems so silly to me.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

...If you're claiming that you're not saying that, then what are you even arguing for in the first place?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

I'm saying that the point at which "same" becomes "different" is arbitrary and decided on by people.

...But you're the one trying to arbitrarily change what "different" is by going "I say that's not different enough."
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

MariaTaylor posted...

if you're saying the SEX based distinction is arbitrary then you're saying they are essentially the same except for the fact that we chose to call them different things. this is not the case. they ARE different.

This has been his argument, yeah, which is why I'm super confused what his end game is
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

I don't claim that they aren't?

So then why do you claim that classifying them as two different things is arbitrary?

EDIT: Like, you admit they're different. But you... Don't want them referred to as being different?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

But when you say the distinction between birds and reptiles is arbitrary, and "the main distinguishing characteristic is if they have feathers or not," it kinda gets tough to find that point. >_>

Yeah well we've established I was uninformed about the latter but I'd still say it's arbitrary. What changes about the world if we classify them as one or the other?

Because classifying two things that aren't the same as being the same shouldn't be done...?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

To be fair to you, Kenri, you probably had a definite point like that hidden somewhere in there that you didn't convey very well

But when you say the distinction between birds and reptiles is arbitrary, and "the main distinguishing characteristic is if they have feathers or not," it kinda gets tough to find that point. >_>
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Kenri posted...

and the distinguishing characteristic between the two is basically "do they have feathers y/n"

I really don't think that's the main or only distinguishing characteristic between birds and other reptiles.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Emily is a self described anarchist who posted photos that the 9/11 attacks were an "inside job"

Fair, next.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Is it really that hard to lift the seat to pee and then put it back down? Like, is that the amount of effort that's finally going to put you over your limit for the day, and you're just going to collapse after?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

I don't think there's anything arbitrary at all in classifying birds and reptiles separately.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Yeah, Corrik's right about the phone issues. Don't think it's fair to get on his case for that.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Corrik, since I didn't notice if you ever answered, what's your response to the fact that there aren't enough full time jobs for everybody and thus some people HAVE to make a living off part time jobs?
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Well then whoever said that is mistaken

You were in the topic, so you should be aware the only "Calling out" I did was when I initially asked you the questions

But instead you apparently remember me saying "n/m i didn't mean full time" which I... Didn't do?

And yet you accuse other people of making stuff up about you.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

I didn't pass any judgement on Corrik once he actually answered, because by that point I didn't care and couldn't decide if I believed him or not, anyway. He ignored my questions twice, went "What questions?" and then took hours to answer, so I just dropped it.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Corrik posted...

Do you acknowledge your lie then? Because you are blatantly lying that full time k mart associates are not offered insurance.

Read my post again

I never replied to you. Therefore, I can't be lying.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Corrik posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

I can't remember who it was, but Corrik made a bunch of claims about how certain jobs did health care and got called out by a KMart manager, after which Corrik cowarded the fuck out.

But in general he just said anybody who disagreed with him lied about their positions, and that it wasn't possible to trust anyone he argued with because everyone is "has it out for him", and anyone who worked part time wasn't an adult.

Cuz the dude is lying. If you are full time, kmart offers you insurance. I worked there. He is lying. And I am pretty sure he backtracked he wasnt referring to full time.

It was me, and I never replied to you because you didn't reply until like, several hours later.

Nice to see that you can make stuff up, though.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!

Peace___Frog posted...

StealThisSheen posted...

LapisLazuli posted...

Oh boy, is it time for the "Corrik know more about you than you do" game again, where any time you disagree with Corrik he calls you a liar?

Nothing is gonna top last topic where Corrik insisted people were lying about what kind of jobs they've held

I


what

I'm glad i didn't suffer through that idiocy

His argument was that any full time job ever will give you good and affordable health insurance

When people brought up full time jobs that they've held that did not, he called them liars and said they must've been part time, under the table, or didn't exist at all.
---

Seplito Nash, Smelling Like the Vault since 1996
Step FOUR! Get Paid!