Puzzles of Criminal Causation

[Terrapin Station]

I have been on non-reversible routes (Yosemite, Royal Arches) where I might well not have taken a first drink until after the no return point (a pendulum).

What are you talking about? First off, what is a "non-reversible" route? For anywhere you go as a hiker, you should be able to go back/retrace your steps (at least barring some sort of major disaster), otherwise you shouldn't be hiking without someone who knows what they're doing.

And you're saying that you've hiked more than a day without drinking any water??? Haha.

By the way, it seems in general that you're kind of responding with the aim of us coming to some agreement on things we didn't previously agree on re what to do in various moral and legal situations. Why are you approaching this that way? Figuring that out might save us a lot of time. I gave my opinion, but you don't seem satisfied with it. (Why should my opinion satisfy you anyway? It's my opinion. You likely have a different one.) And one thing that seems weird to me is that you keep talking about what other people think, what's normal (to think), etc. Why do you keep appealing to that?

[Terrapin Station]

TSBU, yes or no, do you feel that police should be officially allowed to selectively enforce laws per their personal views?

For every statement that star by "should be officially" my answer is "That doesn't mean anything in my head, call it oficiall if you want".

It's not about your head. "Official" would just be that it's legal and a matter of police department policy that police officers are allowed to slectively enforce laws per their personal views. So yes or no, do you feel that should be legal and a police department policy?

[TSBU]

TSBU, yes or no, do you feel that police should be officially allowed to selectively enforce laws per their personal views?

For every statement that star by "should be officially" my answer is "That doesn't mean anything in my head, call it oficiall if you want".

It's not about your head. "Official" would just be that it's legal and a matter of police department policy that police officers are allowed to slectively enforce laws per their personal views. So yes or no, do you feel that should be legal and a police department policy?

Official and legal are the same, in practice, so my answer would be the same. I can't controll that kind of things, look, it's like... "Do you feel that people should have three legs?" I don't think about that. Well, Being written in a book (well, not that, that's impossible, being something written, and when it comes to the moment, somoene interpretation is something similar to that) means nothing, and I can't write the book.
If policemen want to do what they want, who cares about a book? Going to a particular case, I'm not going to treat them bad if they think before pulling the trigger (only if I think that they thought "bad" or not enough... or... in the end, if I don't agree with them, that's what you can't change, no matter how many books you write, there will (I hope) always be people guided by their own thoughts, more or less).

[Terrapin Station]

TSBU, response not accepted. I asked you a yes or no question. Answer yes or no or specifically explain why you can not answer yes or no.

[TSBU]

TSBU, response not accepted. I asked you a yes or no question. Answer yes or no or specifically explain why you can not answer yes or no.

OK, but you have to anwer me this before that: Should humans have three legs? I can't controll if things are official or not, law or not, also, I don't really see sense in that words, I think they implie nothing. So maybe I should ask you "Should humans be turoaildoa?"

[Terrapin Station]

I'm not asking whether you can make this come about. I'm just asking if you'd prefer it. Pretend that you could be king. Would you decree that selective enforcement is legal and encourage it if you were king?

[TSBU]

I'm not asking whether you can make this come about. I'm just asking if you'd prefer it. Pretend that you could be king. Would you decree that selective enforcement is legal and encourage it if you were king?

I'm already in that situation.
My next "order",brave warrior, is to follow your own thoughts and not my orders, I say the same to all brave warriors. I won't put that in a fucking piece of paper, you can remember that without it, feel free to do a graffity yourself if is pretty. I also encourage you to think more before acting, use violence when you think it's needed, listen to other people, try to understand them, and don't try to controll what you can't (for example, people you don't even know, nobody can do that, well, they can... but it never ends fine). Remember always that you'll never be the smartest or the most stupid man in the world, don't doubt too much or too little, and above all, be honest. If I catch you doing something bad to my people... you'll regret.

[Lawrence Crocker]

I have been on non-reversible routes (Yosemite, Royal Arches) where I might well not have taken a first drink until after the no return point (a pendulum).

What are you talking about? First off, what is a "non-reversible" route? For anywhere you go as a hiker, you should be able to go back/retrace your steps (at least barring some sort of major disaster), otherwise you shouldn't be hiking without someone who knows what they're doing.

And you're saying that you've hiked more than a day without drinking any water??? Haha.

By the way, it seems in general that you're kind of responding with the aim of us coming to some agreement on things we didn't previously agree on re what to do in various moral and legal situations. Why are you approaching this that way? Figuring that out might save us a lot of time. I gave my opinion, but you don't seem satisfied with it. (Why should my opinion satisfy you anyway? It's my opinion. You likely have a different one.) And one thing that seems weird to me is that you keep talking about what other people think, what's normal (to think), etc. Why do you keep appealing to that?

The non-reversible route in question involved a roped rock climb up a Yosemite wall. It cannot be reversed because, the pendulum, (rope goes through sling above blank face; climber runs across blank face grabbing flake on other side) cannot be done in the other direction (no placement point for the rope above the face). Pretty sure I took my first drink of the day after the pendulum. From that point it was several more pitches, a nearly all day climb for us. Then a sweater bivouac at the top, and bushwacking to a long trail back down the next day. For non-reversibility of hikes without a rock climbing component, I have on a couple of occasions crossed avalanche prone slopes early that could not be safely recrossed later in the day (making it effectively a one way loop), and once, I think, made a stream crossing with rising water levels that would have made it hazardous a little later. Fortunately that too was on what was planned to be a loop.

It is not important that one of us should convince the other, although it sometimes happens. I have certainly changed my mind on many philosophical issues. It is in any event worthwhile to test the assumptions and arguments. Hence my interest in whether the distinction you draw between direct and indirect, which you have as decisive for whether contributory fault negatives criminal liability, can be worked out in a satisfactory way.

[Terrapin Station]

The non-reversible route in question involved a roped rock climb up a Yosemite wall. It cannot be reversed because, the pendulum, (rope goes through sling above blank face; climber runs across blank face grabbing flake on other side) cannot be done in the other direction (no placement point for the rope above the face).

Rock/mountain climbing are different than hiking. Hiking doesn't involve ropes/etc. There can be climbs where you need to use hand holds, etc., but they'd be traversable in both directions. You might hike to a rock/mountain climbing point, but there's a difference between hiking and mountain climbing. I hike. I don't mountain climb.

It is in any event worthwhile to test the assumptions and arguments.

Sure, although when we're talking about moral stances, it's not as if they can be correct/incorrect or true/false. But sure, if one is using a principle-oriented approach, it can be useful to think of difficult cases for the principle. I'm not a fan of principle-oriented approaches.