Alec Baldwin

General chit-chat

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:37 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:52 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 10:50 am Am I missing something here? Alec Baldwin was on a film set. Live ammunition is not allowed on a film set. Actors shoot guns on film sets all the time. Film sets employ ammunition experts who take care of ammunition and firearms on said film sets. This has nothing whatsoever to do with the actors. Actors have every right to believe it when they are told that the guns they are handling don't have live ammunition in them. They don't have any choice. Brandon Lee was shot and killed on a film set by another actor yet no one was ever charged, certainly not the actor who rightfully believe that the gun had blanks in it.
A lot of people don't like Alec Baldwin's politics, therefore, according to American Republican intellectual giants, he MUST be guilty of SOMETHING (they don't seem to know 'what' exactly) because a person's politics is the definitive yardstick for measuring a person's guilt or innocence in events that have absolutely nothing to do with politics.
Now, could the gun-toting religious nut-job American Trump-loving Republicans on here (you know who you are) explain to me what exactly Alec Baldwin is 'guilty' of, since it's a given that you will be in the 'guilty Baldwin corner' because he doesn't vote the same way you do (which is guilt, in and of itself).

The only possible guilty party is whoever took live ammunition onto the filmset.

Besides. Y'all love guns so much. What do you think guns do? Shouldn't y'all be applauding him for not using those 'pussy dummy bullets'? :shock:
He had a live round in his gunbelt (not placed there by the armorer). He broke procedure by pointing the gun at the person he shot when he should not have. IOW he went against gun use on set protocols and he's been on sets with guns for a long time and had the double role as producer. There had been incidents on set involving live fire on set, which he knew about. IOW it was known on a set he was producer on that live rounds were getting into film guns. He also had tension or dispute with this person. He's not being charged for intentionally doing this, but given all the facts, this would have been a possible charge. We do not know that the armorer failed though she is also charged. But for all we know she did her job. Why the hell did have a live round on his gunbelt? Why did he point the gun at her and pull the trigger?

Personally, I think he was criminally negligent, at least. What the exact charge should be, I don't know. Above my paygrade. I don't care about his politics. My guess is we overlap quite a bit, but I don't know. I can't take the politics of celebrities seriously. I wouldn't let a celebrity fix my leaky kitchen sink pipe, spay my cat, teach comparative religion or, yeah, advise me on politics. What do they know about the real world?
Are you suggesting he had taken his own real bullets onto the set and had them in a 'gunbelt' (is that like a bum bag with bullets in it?)? How do you know this? I can't find anything that says that. Where did you read that live ammunition had been found on the set prior to the incident? I can't find anything that says that either. The only gun concerns I could find were complaints that prop guns were going off accidentally--something that happened to Baldwin's stunt double. Prop gun quality is a different matter from live ammunition.
See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

Me, I'm no less "fractured and fragmented" about this too.

What's crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it's still all just a subjective "leap of faith" to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?

That's the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I'm hopelessly "drawn and quartered" myself. But others here are "fiercely fanatical objectivists". You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the "usual idiocy from a resident idiot".

For the objectivists, what's crucial is that there can only be but one optimal, rational conclusion. And it is not your conclusion if your conclusion is not their conclusion.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

From ILP:
Flannel Jesus wrote:
iambiguous wrote:Then the objectivists on both sides who insist that, no, unless you think as I do, you are flat out wrong.
I'm not a moral objectivist personally, but... You say this like it's an inherently bad thing. But is it? Is it bad to think that you believe something that is correct, and other people who disagree with you are incorrect?
No, in a No God world where the value judgments of mere mortals are not either inherently/necessarily good or bad, but just the embodiment of subjective prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, there is what is able to be established as in fact true about the Rust shooting...and there is the extent which any of us can demonstrate that our own reaction to the fact that Baldwin was charged is inherently/necessarily right or wrong.

I merely take this frame of mind to any other moral and political context in which some insist that others must think as they do about what is correct...or else.

In other words, the part where in regard to things like abortion and guns and capital punishment and homosexuality etc., some acquire the power in any particular community to actually punish those who don't think "correctly".

The Baldwin case is just particularly ambiguous given the fact that it all unfolded on a film set where there is often a considerably greater gap between pretend and reality.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:37 pm
Iwannaplato wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 1:52 pm
He had a live round in his gunbelt (not placed there by the armorer). He broke procedure by pointing the gun at the person he shot when he should not have. IOW he went against gun use on set protocols and he's been on sets with guns for a long time and had the double role as producer. There had been incidents on set involving live fire on set, which he knew about. IOW it was known on a set he was producer on that live rounds were getting into film guns. He also had tension or dispute with this person. He's not being charged for intentionally doing this, but given all the facts, this would have been a possible charge. We do not know that the armorer failed though she is also charged. But for all we know she did her job. Why the hell did have a live round on his gunbelt? Why did he point the gun at her and pull the trigger?

Personally, I think he was criminally negligent, at least. What the exact charge should be, I don't know. Above my paygrade. I don't care about his politics. My guess is we overlap quite a bit, but I don't know. I can't take the politics of celebrities seriously. I wouldn't let a celebrity fix my leaky kitchen sink pipe, spay my cat, teach comparative religion or, yeah, advise me on politics. What do they know about the real world?
Are you suggesting he had taken his own real bullets onto the set and had them in a 'gunbelt' (is that like a bum bag with bullets in it?)? How do you know this? I can't find anything that says that. Where did you read that live ammunition had been found on the set prior to the incident? I can't find anything that says that either. The only gun concerns I could find were complaints that prop guns were going off accidentally--something that happened to Baldwin's stunt double. Prop gun quality is a different matter from live ammunition.
See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

Me, I'm no less "fractured and fragmented" about this too.

What's crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it's still all just a subjective "leap of faith" to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?

That's the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I'm hopelessly "drawn and quartered" myself. But others here are "fiercely fanatical objectivists". You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the "usual idiocy from a resident idiot".

For the objectivists, what's crucial is that there can only be but one optimal, rational conclusion. And it is not your conclusion if your conclusion is not their conclusion.
It's not that hard to think critically. No one needs a 'god' to do that. If Alec Baldwin was a Trump-loving gun enthusiast my opinion would be exactly the same, but it certainly wouldn't be the same for the gun-loving, die-hard Republicans who want to see him brought down. They would be saying the exact opposite. It's the same kind of hypocrisy you see in wokiedom-- except that it's about guns instead of faux-offence-on-behalf-of.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:47 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Tue Jan 24, 2023 6:37 pm

Are you suggesting he had taken his own real bullets onto the set and had them in a 'gunbelt' (is that like a bum bag with bullets in it?)? How do you know this? I can't find anything that says that. Where did you read that live ammunition had been found on the set prior to the incident? I can't find anything that says that either. The only gun concerns I could find were complaints that prop guns were going off accidentally--something that happened to Baldwin's stunt double. Prop gun quality is a different matter from live ammunition.
See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

Me, I'm no less "fractured and fragmented" about this too.

What's crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it's still all just a subjective "leap of faith" to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?

That's the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I'm hopelessly "drawn and quartered" myself. But others here are "fiercely fanatical objectivists". You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the "usual idiocy from a resident idiot".

For the objectivists, what's crucial is that there can only be but one optimal, rational conclusion. And it is not your conclusion if your conclusion is not their conclusion.
It's not that hard to think critically. No one needs a 'god' to do that. If Alec Baldwin was a Trump-loving gun enthusiast my opinion would be exactly the same, but it certainly wouldn't be the same for the gun-loving die-hard Republicans who want to see him brought down. They would be saying the exact opposite. It's the same kind of hypocrisy you see in wokiedom, except that it's about guns instead of faux-offence-on-behalf-of.
See what I mean?

Do you think critically? Or are you an idiot?

Think critically yourself here regarding who gets to determine that.

Hint:

vegetariantaxidermy

Only, I suspect, it's not just in regard to Baldwin.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:53 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:47 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 pm

See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

Me, I'm no less "fractured and fragmented" about this too.

What's crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it's still all just a subjective "leap of faith" to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?

That's the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I'm hopelessly "drawn and quartered" myself. But others here are "fiercely fanatical objectivists". You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the "usual idiocy from a resident idiot".

For the objectivists, what's crucial is that there can only be but one optimal, rational conclusion. And it is not your conclusion if your conclusion is not their conclusion.
It's not that hard to think critically. No one needs a 'god' to do that. If Alec Baldwin was a Trump-loving gun enthusiast my opinion would be exactly the same, but it certainly wouldn't be the same for the gun-loving die-hard Republicans who want to see him brought down. They would be saying the exact opposite. It's the same kind of hypocrisy you see in wokiedom, except that it's about guns instead of faux-offence-on-behalf-of.
See what I mean?

Do you think critically? Or are you an idiot?

Think critically yourself here regarding who gets to determine that.

Hint:

vegetariantaxidermy

Only, I suspect, it's not just in regard to Baldwin.
Clearly you are insane, judging by this post, and the insane aren't worth discussing 'anything' with.
promethean75
Posts: 4881
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2018 10:29 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by promethean75 »

Who wants to discuss something with a sane person?

Boooooooriiiing.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:55 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:53 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:47 pm

It's not that hard to think critically. No one needs a 'god' to do that. If Alec Baldwin was a Trump-loving gun enthusiast my opinion would be exactly the same, but it certainly wouldn't be the same for the gun-loving die-hard Republicans who want to see him brought down. They would be saying the exact opposite. It's the same kind of hypocrisy you see in wokiedom, except that it's about guns instead of faux-offence-on-behalf-of.
See what I mean?

Do you think critically? Or are you an idiot?

Think critically yourself here regarding who gets to determine that.

Hint:

vegetariantaxidermy

Only, I suspect, it's not just in regard to Baldwin.
Clearly you are insane, judging by this post, and the insane aren't worth discussing 'anything' with.
Absolutely shameless!!!








Note to others:

Please imagine a "dancing banana" emoji above. It's a damned shame that there isn't one here at PN. Again, over at ILP posters can choose from 17 different dancing bananas!!!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

promethean75 wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 7:31 pm Who wants to discuss something with a sane person?

Boooooooriiiing.
Complicating it all the more, I can be a sane polemicist!!

I am often provocative here just for the sake of being provocative here. Why? In order to rile up those up who, ironically enough, I often have the greatest respect for intellectually.

Provoking them to dig all the deeper. Only VT often just goes deeper into her own self-righteous contempt for those who refuse to think exactly like she does about, well, everything.

Actually, I can help her here if she'll let me.
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 pm See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.
Yeah, nothing can be resolved by examining the facts. Court cases are all shams. All of them. Neither side can ever produce better evidence or show that other people's supposed facts are incomplete or not facts.

We can just throw our hands up about this stuff also. Your repeatedd juxtoposition of moral facts vs facts about who is President or some such fact example no longer holds. We can't know or resolve anything. Everything is like morals.
What's crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it's still all just a subjective "leap of faith" to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?
Yes, to resolve any issue we need omniscience. Though oddly you didn't need omniscience to determine this and a host of other implicit and explicit assertions in this post of yours. Oh, wait, maybe you are omniscient. Apologies.
That's the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I'm hopelessly "drawn and quartered" myself. But others here are "fiercely fanatical objectivists". You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the "usual idiocy from a resident idiot".
Excuse me, don't attribute an attitude to me that I don't have, in this case in relation to vt. Maybe that's how you feel about people who don't agree with you, but don't assume that about me. You're skeptical about us knowing all sorts of things - and on a number of them I agree - but you seem unafraid to pretend you're psychic. If you just meant vt in that first part (where you talk about you and others), plural, well, you wrote this quite poorly. Fiercely fanatical objectivists, lol. Not you though, labelling others here, in contradistinction to you, this way. You've got the bad breath of a moral objectivist, lol, but I know, you're not. You're not saying other people here are displaying the usual idiocy and are resident idiots. The difference between the objectivist insult - resident idiot - and yours - fiercely fanatical objectivist - is very, very important. In fact yours isn't even an insult, nor does it have objectivist morals in it. That's those objectivists. Not you.
For the objectivists,
Hey, thinks he's looking in the mirror but even that not well.. I know that you only see your issues when you read other people's threads and posts, but even you have separated out issues of moral value from other kinds of issue.

Can you see how you're trolling here. You insulted, well, I don't know how many are included in your insults here. You claim to read their minds. You mislabelled some. There isn't the slightest feather of something on topic here. And for some reason you're think it's either random and nothing can possibly be sorted out unless we have omniscience. And for the cherry on the cake, you conflate objectivism, which for you seems to have meant moral objectivism, with being able to work out anything.

You'd be toxic if you were a little more on point.
Last edited by Iwannaplato on Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 1:53 pm
vegetariantaxidermy wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 12:09 pm Well then they had better charge the lawmakers for allowing real guns and ammunition on film sets.
So sick of hearing gun fetishists with their bullshit claims like 'guns are safe. People aren't'. 'Guns don't kill people, people kill people' (guns just make it a WHOLE lot easier). They are just like those moronic dog owners who say 'there are no dangerous dogs, just bad dog owners'. Tell that to the parents of the little girl in the US who was just ripped apart by a 'gentle fur baby' pit bull.Yeah, well the kind of moron who wants to have a dog with the lethal capacity of a bear is never going to be a decent human being anyway. And by the way, dogs are intelligent beings with a mind of their own, and they are perfectly capable of making decisions ON THEIR OWN without their control freak owners. That breed is NOTHING like the way it was in the 1930s, when Little Rascals was made. Selective breeding has turned it into a lethal weapon. It's a creation of arseholes.
If I've given the impression I am pro-dangerous dogs or don't think there are dangerous dogs, I communicated poorly.
It was only the first sentence that was specifically for you. The rest was general observation which should probably have been a separate posting.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:02 pm
iambiguous wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 6:23 pm See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.
Yeah, nothing can be resolved by examining the facts. Court cases are all shams. All of them. Neither side can ever produce better evidence or show that other people's supposed facts are incomplete or not facts.
Misconstruing my point [again] of course.

The point? That in regard to the Rust shooting and Baldwin's criminal liability, she notes one collection of facts based on what she has read and heard and he notes another based on what he has read and heard. Then there are the facts as accumulated by those who chose to charge Baldwin. Now, which set of facts reflects beyond all doubt the optimal assessment? Such that all rational people would be obligated to accept it? And such that we really would know the objective truth here?

Like, in a No God world, that actually does exist?

Then the assumption others make that in a court of law, a jury verdict establishes this. And in some cases, sure, the evidence is so overwhelming that the verdict almost certainly is the correct one. But in a case like this?

On a movie set? Where pretend and reality often become entangled? Where the points raised by either side are not clearly irrational? Where, in my view, only a fool would argue that he is "beyond all doubt whatsoever" guilty or not guilty?

No, instead, in my opinion, only the most arrogant objectivists among us hold in contempt others that do not think exactly as they do about a context this inherently ambiguous.
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:02 pmWe can just throw our hands up about this stuff also. Your repeatedd juxtoposition of moral facts vs facts about who is President or some such fact example no longer holds. We can't know or resolve anything. Everything is like morals.
Look, my perspective on morality in a No God world is that neither philosophers nor ethicists nor scientists can establish that, in regard to conflicting goods, some behaviors are inherently/necessarily/objectively moral while others are inherently/necessarily/objectively immoral. And that would include Baldwin deliberately shooting someone. That includes all human behaviors. Up to and including the Holocaust. After all, as some insist, "in the absence of God all things are permitted".

And if someone can't see the distinction between arguing that in fact Joe Biden is now president of the United States and that in fact Joe Biden is the greatest president there has ever been...?

Establishing one as opposed to the other?
What's crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it's still all just a subjective "leap of faith" to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:02 pmYes, to resolve any issue we need omniscience. Though oddly you didn't need omniscience to determine this and a host of other implicit and explicit assertions in this post of yours. Oh, wait, maybe you are omniscient. Apologies.
No, my point is that omniscience is clearly not necessary to establish that Baldwin did in fact shoot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Rust set. And that she died. But given the complexity of all the variables intertwined here, how would someone who is not "all knowing" unequivocally establish that he broke the law?

With the law, however, we can get closer to a truth. The laws are on the book in regard to killing another human being. Technically, he either broke the law or he didn't. Only given all of the conflicting assessments of what unfolded there -- Baldwin the actor, Baldwin the producer, Baldwin taking the "cold" gun from the armaments expert, and on and on, there are all manner of subjective narratives that might come into conflict.

Let alone establishing whether anything that any of us do is either objectively moral or immoral.
That's the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I'm hopelessly "drawn and quartered" myself. But others here are "fiercely fanatical objectivists". You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the "usual idiocy from a resident idiot".
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:02 pmExcuse me, don't attribute an attitude to me that I don't have, in this case in relation to vt.
Huh?

Who was I referring to above when I posted this...

"You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it's the 'usual idiocy from a resident idiot'".

Him?

Then over the edge he tumbles...
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:02 pmMaybe that's how you feel about people who don't agree with you, but don't assume that about me. You're skeptical about us knowing all sorts of things - and on a number of them I agree - but you seem unafraid to pretend you're psychic. If you just meant vt in that first part (where you talk about you and others), plural, well, you wrote this quite poorly. Fiercely fanatical objectivists, lol. Not you though, labelling others here, in contradistinction to you, this way. You've got the bad breath of a moral objectivist, lol, but I know, you're not. You're not saying other people here are displaying the usual idiocy and are resident idiots. The difference between the objectivist insult - resident idiot - and yours - fiercely fanatical objectivist - is very, very important. In fact yours isn't even an insult, nor does it have objectivist morals in it. That's those objectivists. Not you.
Note to others:

I have reason to believe that Iwannaplato is Moreno/Karpel Tunnel from ILP. And we go way back there. He was one of my very own Three Stooges there. Along with phyllo and felixdacat. And they were Stooges not because they disagreed with my moral philosophy but because in discussing it their posts were often all about me instead. I was the problem.

Exemplified in my view by this very post.

All of them seemed to react in a perturbed manner to my argument that in a No God world it is reasonable to suggest that being "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments makes sense.

One way or another they seemed convinced that, yes, God or No God, mere mortals are capable of coming up with the Humanist equivalent of Commandments.

And the idea that their own life might be essentially meaningless ontologically and essentially purposeless teleologically in a No God world? Well, that too had to be shooed away. Couple that with my prediction that death = oblivion?

Then as he gets more and more worked up about me...
Iwannaplato wrote: Wed Jan 25, 2023 10:02 pmCan you see how you're trolling here. You insulted, well, I don't know how many are included in your insults here. You claim to read their minds. You mislabelled some. There isn't the slightest feather of something on topic here. And for some reason you're think it's either random and nothing can possibly be sorted out unless we have omniscience. And for the cherry on the cake, you conflate objectivism, which for you seems to have meant moral objectivism, with being able to work out anything.

You'd be toxic if you were a little more on point.
As I noted of gib on our collapsing thread here: https://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.p ... &start=550
"[my moral philosophy] is such a grim, gruesome and ghastly way to think about the 'human condition', that this alone makes it something to avoid at all costs."

It's basically just another rendition of how those once reacted to Nietzsche's proclamation that "God is dead". Why? Because we killed him.

And now we must live in a world where, "in the absence of God all things are permitted". And since this "for all practical purposes" can be, given any number of circumstantial contexts, terrifying to accept, it must be wrong.
Admittedly, I do thrive on polemics. I revel in provocative exchanges. Why? Well, that too is rooted existentially in dasein. In the Benjamin Button Syndrome. Fortunately for others, however, no one is required to read anything that I post. Don't like me? Okay, as with those like henry quirk, put me in your "penalty box".

Problem solved. I'll be out of your head altogether. No "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy for you!
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

Yo, Iwannakarpelmoreno!

You're up!! 8)
Iwannaplato
Posts: 6591
Joined: Tue Aug 11, 2009 10:55 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by Iwannaplato »

iambiguous wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:54 pm Misconstruing my point [again] of course.

The point? That in regard to the Rust shooting and Baldwin's criminal liability, she notes one collection of facts based on what she has read and heard and he notes another based on what he has read and heard. Then there are the facts as accumulated by those who chose to charge Baldwin. Now, which set of facts reflects beyond all doubt the optimal assessment? Such that all rational people would be obligated to accept it? And such that we really would know the objective truth here?
That was exactly the point I thought you were making and the point I responded to. In my dialogue with VT she knew some facts. But also had facts that were incorrect. She also knew less of the facts. Here, for some reason, you are asking for beyond all doubt. And this seems to lead you to the conclusion that such situations cannot be resolved and one cannot be objective about it. Is anyone here saying that we can have 100% knowledge? No. For some reason you have decided that this is exactly like morals - and you bring in God below - as if this is like the objectivism issue. That's just silly. Do you really think court cases are just like the task of determining whether abortion is moral? You've repeatedly distinguished between questions of fact - like, did the doctor remove the fetus from the mother OR was it a good thing to do? But now that distinction gone.
Like, in a No God world, that actually does exist?
LOL

You start with this silly generalization about 'these discussions'
See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.
Note make the other person's facts go away completely. That certainly wasn't my intention, nor is that extreme criterion necessary in many cases. Versions can share facts, for example. This stacking the deck type wording is silly.

And you end up by bringing God in as what could resolve if, but we're in a No God world.

So, not just this particular discussion, but discussions in general where people disagree over the facts. Hands must be thrown up in the air.

Yah, those can't be resolved without omniscience or God because it's like a moral objectivism discussion (no way to demonstate who is right) because to be objective or to demonstate something requires complete certainty, unequivocal conclusion, complete elimination of all assertions made by the other person and every human on the planet would immediately bow down to the conclusion. These are the kinds of criteria you claim are needed for objective conclusions, so...throw the hands up in the air.

Earlier you saw a division between some kinds of disagreements that could be resolved and others. Now it is just a sea of unknowing. Well, except for your own mindreading and knowledge that his case cannot be objectively resolved.

And I notice that you make not the slightest effort to be specific. You don't list her facts and mine and compare them or go into how they relate to each other or what evidence each person brought forward. You stay up in the clouds in abstraction. We somehow have these two lists of facts and one cannot possibly judge between them and the court will have the same problem. You see categories and draw some general position and throw up your hands. Whereas one can see that I added facts, cited sources, could demonstrate that at least some of her facts were wrong and incomplete and not all her facts need be false for him to be guilty. This can happen with things that are not issues of conflicting goods. And it's not some rare exception in the world of events. Well, unless you throw in the 100% certain criterion, one that you don't apply to your own conclusions in this thread while being rude to people or telling us that the court case can't resolve this.
Then the assumption others make that in a court of law, a jury verdict establishes this. And in some cases, sure, the evidence is so overwhelming that the verdict almost certainly is the correct one. But in a case like this?
What facts about the case -lol - indicate to you that this case is in one category and not in the other. You seem to think, having read about the case, that there cannot be overwhelming evidence one way or the other. So, you have made a decision yourself that you seem to think others cannot. You think you know objectively that there is no clear case either way. But if we were to take a position that it looks like he's guilty, we can't know that. Or the opposite. (I know, you'll claim you never said you knew, you never made claims...walks like a duck, talks like a duck, when this is pointed out, you claim not to ever have though you were a duck. Even though socially you went so far as to insult people for not being ducks like you)

I don't know for sure that he is guilty. From what BOTH sides have said, I think it was criminal negligence. But we can see if his experts can counter what the FBI says, for example. If they can't, then he probably lied. For example. Other things we already know.

I think that vt dismissed the prosecution without knowing things like he said he didn't pull the trigger. Or without considering that he was a producer on set and with decades of having to deal with gun rules on set. She said actors are morons or kids or something. And did not mention that he was a producer on set and had long experience of using guns on set, so he can't just throw up his arms and claim ignorance. Further she didn't seem to know that he says he knew the rules, the ones he didn't follow. I watched the video of him speaking about it. You get that. Her position is 1) he is innocent AND 2) the prosecution are being idiots because of X and Y. My response had to do with both positions.

In any case I added and corrected information. Is it fully damning? I can't know. Can we determine that the facts she presented were a more limited less factual rendition? Yes, I think we can. He was a producer. That's a fact not in her rendition. He has held guns in films for many years. (check what she says about actors and see if you can that her version of the facts could be improved) That's a fact. He claims he did know protocols. That's a fact. And one missing from her rendition.

But you, for some reason, pop in and throw up your hands and in a general way. We can't determine anything. Then for no reason at all bring in God. Then call out for omniscience. Here to defend yourself any decision would have to be 100% and you assume, for reasons of your own, the people other than you in the thread are claiming their positions must be 100% correct.

Then you make claims about what we are all thinking when we disagree with each other.
No, instead, in my opinion, only the most arrogant objectivists among us hold in contempt others that do not think exactly as they do about a context this inherently ambiguous.
I didn't hold her in contempt. You just projected your own contempt for objectivists onto the scenario. I didn't insult her. She insulted Skepdick but not me. I disagreed with her version. I did not insult her. She started off disagreeing with me and did not insult me. You came in an insulted everyone in the thread before you got there. Anyone who thought we could determine which versions were likely to be weak or weaker or better.

You insulted everyone as if we insulted each other in the manner you insulted everyone as fiercely fanatical objectivists.

And when this is pointed out you can't even admit it.
Look, my perspective on morality in a No God world is that neither philosophers nor ethicists nor scientists can establish that, in regard to conflicting goods, some behaviors are inherently/necessarily/objectively moral while others are inherently/necessarily/objectively immoral. And that would include Baldwin deliberately shooting someone. That includes all human behaviors. Up to and including the Holocaust. After all, as some insist, "in the absence of God all things are permitted".

And if someone can't see the distinction between arguing that in fact Joe Biden is now president of the United States and that in fact Joe Biden is the greatest president there has ever been...?
All I can say is that if you go back and read the post you purportedly responding to here, I clearly understand what you meant.
No, my point is that omniscience is clearly not necessary to establish that Baldwin did in fact shoot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Rust set. And that she died. But given the complexity of all the variables intertwined here, how would someone who is not "all knowing" unequivocally establish that he broke the law?
Again, you seem to think it has to be 100%. Unequivocably.

Her version was less accurate then mine and I presented support for that. If you think my version was not better, let me know why. (ah, don't bother, or at least not for my sake or our interaction's sake) This is all just up in the clouds stuff, on your part, as you would say.

I then rendered my opinion about his guilt. I believe I left room for more information to come out, for my mind to be changed later. I thought there was enough to have a court case. And guess what. In a court case they can decide there is not enough evidence.

For some reason this got me painted as an objectivist - now including not just related to moral realism but for thinking there can be objective conclusions about where people have differing opinions about anything. And further that I am, amongst others, someone with contempt for people who disagreed with me. And as if the people involved couldn't be civil with each other. I was civil with vt and she was civil with me. I don't know why she wasn't with Skepdick but perhaps it might occur to you that it didn't depend on his position but on his way of writing to her or past experiences she had with him. Have you interacted with Skepdick much? Oh, perhaps that's bringing the discussion of your insults too far down to the ground. Stay up in the clouds and don't look at any details or contexts.

Now you may claim...oh, but I don't really know. But that's after making assertions and insulting people and writing about their motivations (things in other minds than yours you claim to know about). For someone skeptical about the possibilities for knowledge you'd think you'd be more careful about the labels you give others and the assertions you make about their internal states. When you make claims and assertions it is never intended as claims (lol). When others say anything, it is meant as 100% and further when they insult it is a sign of objectivism, when you do it is a sign of...I don't know a cognitive fart??

But no, you come in, certain enough in your judgments to mind read, insult
and missing the irony
that you are categorizing people insultingly while judging them for.....

categorizing people insultingly.

Understand. You seem to think you had enough evidence to draw conclusion about other people's internal states, including mine, didn't throw up your hands, but felt you could draw a conclusion. Is the problem of other minds a problem for you? Seems not to be.

And...you think you have enough facts to think it is unlikely this case can actually be resolved objectively. Which means....
you evaluated what you see as the facts and drew an objective conclusion.

Most of this was clear in my previous post.

I'm sure you're a nice neighbor or whatever, but next time you flail into a conversation and start categorizing and insulting people...I dunno, maybe find that beam in your own eye. Cause it's really annoying when people take the high moral ground - Oh, I'm not an objectivist like you guys - then you do all the things you are complaining the objectivists are doing. Showing contempt. Insulting. And seeming to think you have evaluated the facts enough to draw an objective conclusion (that we can't really know if he's guilty, nor could they determine this in a court).

The ironies abound.

A small request. Leave me out of your insulting, mind reading claims in the future. I'll focus on other people's posts and not yours. It's like wading through your twisting things. I'll pass, again, for a while.

I find myself, in such discussions with you, so far here, going over the same ground in a few different paraphrases in the hopes that some, perhaps small, point of concession will arise. Of course, it's not your fault that I have this reaction to your misrepresentations, denials, convenient reframings and seeming (also convenient) hypocrisy. But regardless, it's suddenly like being at work. I find myself acting as if it is so unlikely you will actually take any of this seriously and take a real look at your behavior. Hence the long-windedness and rewordings.

So, I'll stop here, since you're senstive to other people's huffing and puffing (but not your own).

And yes, I know. I made you the issue. Oh wait, no, you took that tack and I pointed out the philosophical problems with it and returned the favor. You don't always make people the issue, but you often do. Then play the victim.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pm
iambiguous wrote: Sat Jan 28, 2023 10:54 pm Misconstruing my point [again] of course.

The point? That in regard to the Rust shooting and Baldwin's criminal liability, she notes one collection of facts based on what she has read and heard and he notes another based on what he has read and heard. Then there are the facts as accumulated by those who chose to charge Baldwin. Now, which set of facts reflects beyond all doubt the optimal assessment? Such that all rational people would be obligated to accept it? And such that we really would know the objective truth here?
That was exactly the point I thought you were making and the point I responded to. In my dialogue with VT she knew some facts. But also had facts that were incorrect. She also knew less of the facts. Here, for some reason, you are asking for beyond all doubt. And this seems to lead you to the conclusion that such situations cannot be resolved and one cannot be objective about it. Is anyone here saying that we can have 100% knowledge? No. For some reason you have decided that this is exactly like morals - and you bring in God below - as if this is like the objectivism issue. That's just silly. Do you really think court cases are just like the task of determining whether abortion is moral? You've repeatedly distinguished between questions of fact - like, did the doctor remove the fetus from the mother OR was it a good thing to do? But now that distinction gone.
No, my point [over and again] revolves around those who insist that their own collection of facts establishes the objective truth here. And that those who don't agree are, among other things, idiots. And that, given all of the ambiguous interpretations of what constitutes "the whole truth" here, mere mortals are not equipped to pin that down.

Only here at least we are talking about the law as opposed to morality. Laws are either broken or they are not. But even the law here has to untangle all of many, many variables that can be assembled to support Baldwin's contentions as opposed to the state's contentions.

Did he break the law? Well, we'll need to follow the trial ourselves and note all the evidence. And then both sides narratives regarding it.

But my point in regard to objectivism on most threads focuses in on morality. Is there an objective morality? If Balwin had deliberately shot someone dead for his own personal reasons it could clearly be established that he broke the law. But can it be established [philosophically or otherwise] that killing another human being for your own personal reasons is inherently/necessarily immoral in a No God world?
Like, in a No God world, that actually does exist?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmLOL
Laugh all you want, but there are many people right here who insist "that all rational people would be obligated to accept their own moral and political and religious dogmas". And that "they really do know the objective truth here."

This frame of mind historically has brought us those like Hitler.
See? That's how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.

And neither is really able to make the other's facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it's reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death...no it's unreasonable that he was charged.

Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmNote make the other person's facts go away completely. That certainly wasn't my intention, nor is that extreme criterion necessary in many cases. Versions can share facts, for example. This stacking the deck type wording is silly.
Again, my point is precisely to critique those who do insist on stacking the deck in discussions like this. Those who argue that only fools don't think as they do.

Google "alec balwin is innocent": https://www.google.com/search?q=+alec+b ... s-wiz-serp

Google "alec baldwin is guilty": https://www.google.com/search?q=alec+ba ... s-wiz-serp

Tons of conflicting accounts of what happened. Tons of conflicting reactions to the charge.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmAnd you end up by bringing God in as what could resolve if, but we're in a No God world.

So, not just this particular discussion, but discussions in general where people disagree over the facts. Hands must be thrown up in the air.
Again, that's your account of my account. In a No God world mere mortals have no choice but to do the best they can in situations like this. To not let their own personal/political prejudices as VT notes interfere with an attempt to establish what did in fact happen...and whether the law was broken. It's simply preposterous to advise people to just "throw up their hands" in regard to whatever we do in a community. Again, that's the iambiguous in your head here, not the iambiguous that I actually am. Polemics aside.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmAnd I notice that you make not the slightest effort to be specific. You don't list her facts and mine and compare them or go into how they relate to each other or what evidence each person brought forward. You stay up in the clouds in abstraction. We somehow have these two lists of facts and one cannot possibly judge between them and the court will have the same problem. You see categories and draw some general position and throw up your hands. Whereas one can see that I added facts, cited sources, could demonstrate that at least some of her facts were wrong and incomplete and not all her facts need be false for him to be guilty. This can happen with things that are not issues of conflicting goods. And it's not some rare exception in the world of events. Well, unless you throw in the 100% certain criterion, one that you don't apply to your own conclusions in this thread while being rude to people or telling us that the court case can't resolve this.
Once again, from my frame of mind, this is you making it all about me. You don't like me. So, sure, I speculate as to why that is.

I've read a number of accounts. But I'm waiting to follow the actual trial. It's a truly interesting case precisely because it all unfolded on a film set...where real and make-believe can get all tangled up. Just as what we think happened in our head there and what really did happen can. Instead, my point was to note how in situations like this, as with the controversy I noted above...
I recall the courtroom scene from the film Reversal of Fortune. Sunny von Bülow is hovering like a ghost above the proceedings below. Speculating on what the outcome of the trial might be. Now, there was "the fact of the matter": Claus is either guilty or not guilty of putting her into an irreversible coma. The jury acquitted him. But was their own decision in fact the right one?

In a No God world there is often no way to get around this even in the either/or world.
...mere mortals in a No God world can sometimes act as though they are God. VT in particular here but lots of others from other threads. But that can only be but my own subjective personal opinion rooted existentially in dasein. I don't exclude myself from my own point of view.
Then the assumption others make that in a court of law, a jury verdict establishes this. And in some cases, sure, the evidence is so overwhelming that the verdict almost certainly is the correct one. But in a case like this?

On a movie set? Where pretend and reality often become entangled? Where the points raised by either side are not clearly irrational? Where, in my view, only a fool would argue that he is "beyond all doubt whatsoever" guilty or not guilty?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmWhat facts about the case -lol - indicate to you that this case is in one category and not in the other. You seem to think, having read about the case, that there cannot be overwhelming evidence one way or the other.
Over and again: my aim was to note how in controversial cases like this, well before it ever comes to trial, some will present their own assessment of "the facts" as though they themselves were omniscient and really were justified in calling others names if they did not agree with them.

And that even in the trial itself both sides are going to have to deal with the ambiguities involved. Neither side, I suspect, will succeed in making the other side's points just go away such that in the end all rational people can say, "yeah, that really is exactly what happened and Alec Baldwin really is unequivocally guilty or innocent".

So, sure, after the trial, let's come back and argue it out. Unless, in the interim, a plea deal is made.

Then [of course] back to smearing me:
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmSo, you have made a decision yourself that you seem to think others cannot. You think you know objectively that there is no clear case either way. But if we were to take a position that it looks like he's guilty, we can't know that. Or the opposite. (I know, you'll claim you never said you knew, you never made claims...walks like a duck, talks like a duck, when this is pointed out, you claim not to ever have though you were a duck. Even though socially you went so far as to insult people for not being ducks like you)
And...
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmBut you, for some reason, pop in and throw up your hands and in a general way. We can't determine anything. Then for no reason at all bring in God. Then call out for omniscience. Here to defend yourself any decision would have to be 100% and you assume, for reasons of your own, the people other than you in the thread are claiming their positions must be 100% correct.
No, instead, in my opinion, only the most arrogant objectivists among us hold in contempt others that do not think exactly as they do about a context this inherently ambiguous.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmI didn't hold her in contempt. You just projected your own contempt for objectivists onto the scenario. I didn't insult her. She insulted Skepdick but not me. I disagreed with her version. I did not insult her. She started off disagreeing with me and did not insult me. You came in an insulted everyone in the thread before you got there. Anyone who thought we could determine which versions were likely to be weak or weaker or better.
Exactly. My point is clearly aimed at her. But the points I raise about situations like this are no less applicable to most of us, in my view. And it's less a contempt for objectivists [after all, that too is no less rooted existentially in dasein, right?] and more the need to point out how dangerous they can be when they come to acquire political power in any particular community. For example, imagine if VT were to become a moderator or an administer here at PN? How long would I be around?

Also, I am quick to point out that moral nihilists can be equally if not more dangerous. The rich and the powerful who own and operate the global economy, the Vladimir Putins and the Xi Jinpings, the sociopaths among us.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmYou insulted everyone as if we insulted each other in the manner you insulted everyone as fiercely fanatical objectivists.

And when this is pointed out you can't even admit it.
On the contrary, I have sustained any number of exchanges with members here that involved no insults. The latest being this one: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=39252

And, given what some construe to be my pessimistic, cynical, if not downright disturbing "fractured and fragmented" moral philosophy, it is often they who start in on the insults. Though, as I have noted, I am prone to provocative polemical exchanges. That's true.

Still, anytime anyone here wishes to sustain an exchange with me regarding the things that interest me philosophically, I can assure them it won't be me who becomes insulting if they'd prefer a straight up exchange of opinions.
Look, my perspective on morality in a No God world is that neither philosophers nor ethicists nor scientists can establish that, in regard to conflicting goods, some behaviors are inherently/necessarily/objectively moral while others are inherently/necessarily/objectively immoral. And that would include Baldwin deliberately shooting someone. That includes all human behaviors. Up to and including the Holocaust. After all, as some insist, "in the absence of God all things are permitted".

And if someone can't see the distinction between arguing that in fact Joe Biden is now president of the United States and that in fact Joe Biden is the greatest president there has ever been...?
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmAll I can say is that if you go back and read the post you purportedly responding to here, I clearly understand what you meant.
No, from my frame of mind, you clearly did not. Instead, I think your reaction to me here revovles more around this:
Note to others:

I have reason to believe that Iwannaplato is Moreno/Karpel Tunnel from ILP. And we go way back there. He was one of my very own Three Stooges there. Along with phyllo and felixdacat. And they were Stooges not because they disagreed with my moral philosophy but because in discussing it their posts were often all about me instead. I was the problem.

Exemplified in my view by this very post.

All of them seemed to react in a perturbed manner to my argument that in a No God world it is reasonable to suggest that being "fractured and fragmented" in regard to moral and political value judgments makes sense.

One way or another they seemed convinced that, yes, God or No God, mere mortals are capable of coming up with the Humanist equivalent of Commandments.

And the idea that their own life might be essentially meaningless ontologically and essentially purposeless teleologically in a No God world? Well, that too had to be shooed away. Couple that with my prediction that death = oblivion?
Unless, of course, I'm wrong.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmYes, to resolve any issue we need omniscience. Though oddly you didn't need omniscience to determine this and a host of other implicit and explicit assertions in this post of yours. Oh, wait, maybe you are omniscient. Apologies.
No, my point is that omniscience is clearly not necessary to establish that Baldwin did in fact shoot cinematographer Halyna Hutchins on the Rust set. And that she died. But given the complexity of all the variables intertwined here, how would someone who is not "all knowing" unequivocally establish that he broke the law?

With the law, however, we can get closer to a truth. The laws are on the book in regard to killing another human being. Technically, he either broke the law or he didn't. Only given all of the conflicting assessments of what unfolded there -- Baldwin the actor, Baldwin the producer, Baldwin taking the "cold" gun from the armaments expert, and on and on, there are all manner of subjective narratives that might come into conflict.

Let alone establishing whether anything that any of us do is either objectively moral or immoral.
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmAgain, you seem to think it has to be 100%. Unequivocably.
No, I'm pointing out that in a No God world, some mere mortals act as though they were God. All-knowing. And that this particular context is more open to ambiguity and to subjective assumptions than others.

At this point [well before the trial] all we have are "versions" based on accounts from those who may or may not have their own personal agendas in noting "the facts".

And my points here [as noted above] were directed at VT.

Then, of course, in my opinion, back to what this is really all about for you:
Iwannaplato wrote: Mon Jan 30, 2023 9:49 pmNow you may claim...oh, but I don't really know. But that's after making assertions and insulting people and writing about their motivations (things in other minds than yours you claim to know about). For someone skeptical about the possibilities for knowledge you'd think you'd be more careful about the labels you give others and the assertions you make about their internal states. When you make claims and assertions it is never intended as claims (lol). When others say anything, it is meant as 100% and further when they insult it is a sign of objectivism, when you do it is a sign of...I don't know a cognitive fart??

But no, you come in, certain enough in your judgments to mind read, insult
and missing the irony
that you are categorizing people insultingly while judging them for.....

categorizing people insultingly.

Understand. You seem to think you had enough evidence to draw conclusion about other people's internal states, including mine, didn't throw up your hands, but felt you could draw a conclusion. Is the problem of other minds a problem for you? Seems not to be.

And...you think you have enough facts to think it is unlikely this case can actually be resolved objectively. Which means....
you evaluated what you see as the facts and drew an objective conclusion.

Most of this was clear in my previous post.

I'm sure you're a nice neighbor or whatever, but next time you flail into a conversation and start categorizing and insulting people...I dunno, maybe find that beam in your own eye. Cause it's really annoying when people take the high moral ground - Oh, I'm not an objectivist like you guys - then you do all the things you are complaining the objectivists are doing. Showing contempt. Insulting. And seeming to think you have evaluated the facts enough to draw an objective conclusion (that we can't really know if he's guilty, nor could they determine this in a court).

The ironies abound.

A small request. Leave me out of your insulting, mind reading claims in the future. I'll focus on other people's posts and not yours. It's like wading through your twisting things. I'll pass, again, for a while.

I find myself, in such discussions with you, so far here, going over the same ground in a few different paraphrases in the hopes that some, perhaps small, point of concession will arise. Of course, it's not your fault that I have this reaction to your misrepresentations, denials, convenient reframings and seeming (also convenient) hypocrisy. But regardless, it's suddenly like being at work. I find myself acting as if it is so unlikely you will actually take any of this seriously and take a real look at your behavior. Hence the long-windedness and rewordings.

So, I'll stop here, since you're senstive to other people's huffing and puffing (but not your own).

And yes, I know. I made you the issue. Oh wait, no, you took that tack and I pointed out the philosophical problems with it and returned the favor. You don't always make people the issue, but you often do. Then play the victim.
Note to others:

You tell me.
User avatar
iambiguous
Posts: 7106
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2010 10:23 pm

Re: Alec Baldwin

Post by iambiguous »

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/02/10/arts ... ldwin.html

Baldwin’s Lawyers Say Manslaughter Charge Was Based on Wrong Law

They filed a motion in the “Rust” case asserting that prosecutors had applied a new version of a firearms statute that did not exist when the fatal shooting occurred.

Lawyers for Alec Baldwin argued in a court filing on Friday that prosecutors had incorrectly charged the actor under a version of a New Mexico firearm law that was passed months after he had fatally shot the cinematographer on the “Rust” film set in 2021.

The law in question includes a firearm enhancement that carries a minimum prison sentence of five years. In their filing, Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers argue that the version of the law prosecutors appear to be using — based on their legal filings and public statements — is one that was not passed until 2022.

Mr. Baldwin’s lawyers asked the judge to prevent the firearm enhancement from being used, meaning that if Mr. Baldwin were convicted, he could be sentenced to only up to 18 months in prison.

“The prosecutors committed a basic legal error by charging Mr. Baldwin under a version of the firearm enhancement statute that did not exist on the date of the accident,” Luke Nikas, one of his lawyers, wrote.

In a statement, Heather Brewer, a spokeswoman for the prosecution, said the motion was an “attempt to distract from the gross negligence and complete disregard for safety on the ‘Rust’ film set that led to Halyna Hutchins’s death.”

“The special prosecutor’s focus will always remain on ensuring that justice is served and that everyone — even celebrities with fancy attorneys — is held accountable under the law,” the statement said.


The state does establish that "under the law" Baldwin was guilty of "gross negligence and complete disregard for safety" on the Rust set. But he's only sentenced up to 18 months rather than five years?

Or, sure, the jury decides that the state did not prove this, and he goes free.

My guess: that either way it will change absolutely nothing among those who have already made up their minds here.
Post Reply