🇳🇱
Humans are unbearable with their little imaginary obsession with "who is at fault"... fault is a construct with almost no relevance.. there is an infinite chain of events leading up to everything that happens and any one of them could have changed the course. All we do is obsess over the one that pisses us off the most like it is somehow special.
@LouisIngenthron Just is just as much a fabricated fiction as fault. Just a hold over and trick of evolution we evolved to help reinforce our little tribes. It may have served a purpose once, but it is time for that myth to die too.
@LouisIngenthron Just to be clear, I dont mean we dont have court trials or put people in prison, nor am i suggesting a lack of consequences.
What i am suggesting is that at a society jail and court cases and consequences be focused on taking dangerous people off the street to reduce harm and suffering to the population. It isnt because they are at "fault" or because of "justice" it is because we dont want them hurting other people like they have int he past.
Similar the focus at that point is making the person no longer a danger, and once we can have a reasonable amount of confidence in this release them. That means the focus of prison is not punishment but containment and rehabilitation.
@freemo Yeah, but first you need to establish guilt, or fault, beyond a reasonable doubt. We can't Minority Report the situation.
@freemo To be clear, I agree it can be taken too far. When laying blame becomes an obsession or a culture, it's a problem.
But, as with almost everything, it's good in moderation.
@LouisIngenthron Only guilt, not fault... different things.
Guilt is a way of saying that it has been found, beyond a reasonable doubt, you carried out an undesirable action. Guilt focuses on something you did that is wrong, and whether or not you did it.
Fault is a very different thing.. fault is saying that your action is to blame for some effect. It isnt about if you did an act or not, it is about if one of your actions caused some eventuality to happen or not.... this is very different and in truth makes no sense when you think deeply about it.
Perhaps examples might help too:
Guilt: "Bill shot Jeff in the face, it has been proven, he should go to jail"
Fault: "The company failed, it was because Bill said mean words to Jeff that made him sad and then Jeff couldnt go to work and because he was the CEO the company failed and its Bill's fault!"
Very different things I think you'd agree.
@freemo I think your example for "fault" just caused several hundred insurance adjusters to roll over in their graves, lol, and with a more accurate example, your argument wouldn't hold up so well.
Fault and guilt are intrinsically linked. You can be at fault without being guilty, sure, but you can't be guilty without being at fault.
> I think your example for "fault" just caused several hundred insurance adjusters to roll over in their graves, lol, and with a more accurate example, your argument wouldn't hold up so well.
Every example of fault should sound ridiculous. Its just that sometimes when fault and guilt match people think fault has value, when in fact its just the guilt of a bad deed and fault is as fictitious as ever.
> Fault and guilt are intrinsically linked. You can be at fault without being guilty, sure, but you can't be guilty without being at fault.
If you believe int he fantasy of fault, then yea, in that mental framework of course their linked. Guilt says you did a bad actions, fault says your actions caused a bad thing to happen. so for fault to exist you must do a bad act that in turn causes a bad result. Since guilt is any bad act regardless of what results it has, then yes of COURSE you must be guilty of a thing in order for fault to exist.
But two things being intrinsicly links does not mean they are the same thing, or even that one concept has value or meaning compared to the other.
Assuming for a minute fault was meaningful:
I can do a bad act that has no consequences to it. In which case I am guilty but not at fault. For example shooting a gun into the air, its illegal and a bad thing so the act itself makes me guilty. But if no one was hurt then im not at fault for anything. In such a case you should still be locked up because you getting lucky really doesnt even matter or at least shouldnt.
If i had shot someone I would be guilty still but also at fault, ... but of course this is just silly, fault being a fiction and all. Because we could also blame the person who sold me the gun and say that his morally bad act (according to some) is the only reason I had a gun. Some could blame the gun manufacturers. The truth is any event is "caused" by a near infinite chain of previous events. There is no "fault"
@freemo Hard disagree. Humans need to be held accountable for their actions and justice is how we do that.
@LouisIngenthron They are held accountable... if your actions do harm then you will be sent to jail... no one is suggesting people shouldnt be held accountable.
Its just that you arent doing it as punshment or justice, your motivation is to minimize harm in society, not vengence (just another word for justice)
@freemo Agree. We need to stop blaming, and start providing. Any "we cannot do that" arguments on economy are invalid. We clearly can, and we should. Blame game is something for those outside of the harrowing circle of providing for oneself.
"guys trust the government and the banks. stop blaming them. it's iNfiNiTELy cOmplICaTed durrrr"
the stuff that comes out of your instance. it's astounding. reads like PhDs on aderall. lots of words but incapable of having an opinion
the level of boot licking that goes on over there is utterly disgusting
You:
"Agree. We need to stop blaming,"
then
"arguments on economy are invalid"
as i said, dumbest shit i've ever read.
end private control over central banking
end fractional reserve
prosecute money laundering and financial crime
lots of stuff you can do that require BLAME. i have lots of valid arguments for sound money and prosecuting financial fraud and crime.
you guys just like to make these weasely shill arguments then deny it and pretend like you aren't
@freemo There’s a general feeling that we can’t solve a problem before we place blame on the person who caused the issue in the first place
@realcaseyrollins There is yes... which is exactly why we are so shitty at fixing things. Scapegoats make it easy to be blind to most of the actual problem.
couldn't say
@icedquinn @freemo Fair, but I suspect what freemo is complaining about here is the seeking out of not the cause but who caused it
Sort of... in case any readers pass this thread by I answer this question here:
Ther eis a linguistic subtlety that is hard to capture here...
We need to look at actions that are good because they **usually** have good effect and actions that are bad because they usually have bad effects. Not if one particular action in one particular case had the bad effect.
Let me give an example... shooting a gun in the air for no reason is a bad action.. its still a bad act even when it doesnt hit anyone. To say. So perfectly ok to say "You did something you shouldnt have done, you should be punished"
But cause and effect would be different... that would be like saying "This guy got shot in the head, and after investigating we found out it was because bill shot a gun in the air randomly.... therefore we would have given him 1 year in prison if it hadnt killed anyone, but now that it has there will be murder charges to it will be 20 years"...
The fact that two people taking the same action, with exactly the same motives will get drastically different punishments due to a happenstance, a roll of the dice... that seems like a very silly and counter productive way of operating.
Now take that idea and extract away from law and crime.. that same realization is valuable in life and our reasoning more generally.
They were, they were just hidden in the subtlety of english
(Translation: I communicated it very poorly but I wont admit that :) )
i tend to look at fault/blame as a chain of events, since somebody might rob the bank because their child was taken hostage (and the legal apparatus doesn't really care about that so much), but this can run in to the Horizon Problem of how many actions do you include during the evaluation, and then you need Bayesian Regret to quantify the individual actors... bleh.
the natural method seems to work more than it doesn't, though rather inaccurately, though that seems to be the kind of thing nature likes to do.
You and me, we know enough to think of it as it is, as a staticician with an understanding would... you cant judge most people by those standards though.
its just hard to look through fields of probabilities to find who that is if you didn't see it happen.
:firefox: :bing: 
@freemo well, going back over this chain is a way to extrapolate lessons to be learned. But yes, blame could and probably should be seen as "what I could've done differently"
@freemo Fault seems pretty relevant, and necessary, to enacting justice.
And we tend to most seek someone to blame... when we face a perceived injustice.