Which is worse?

[Sava]

Kuci and I were debating which was worse... drunk driving or plagiarism.

Kuci's point is that plagiarism involves active deceit. And drunk driving is just stupidity and negligence.


I say drunk driving, even though one is drunk and impaired, is still a choice and that you are responsible for your actions. I think that by far, drunk driving is worse than plagiarism.


Kuci maintains that in choosing a political candidate, he thinks plagiarism is a far worse offense than drunk driving. And that such an offense reveals more about a person's character than drunken driving.


I say that drunk driving reveals more of a character flaw because one cannot be trusted with holding a government position if they cannot make such simple decision as not driving drunk!

So I leave it to Poly to choose.

Which is worse.

Plagiarism or drunk driving!

[SlowwHand]

Drunk driving is worse. No innocent person has died from plagarism.

[Kuciwalker]

Put this in the proper context of which I would consider worse, had a Presidential candidate done it earlier in his life.

[VetLegion]

Plagiarism never killed anybody. Drunk driving did. So drunk driving is far worse.

This was too easy. Consider:

A man is sleeping in the desert. Another man comes and poisons his water, a third man comes (unknowing of the second) and slashes his water pouch open.

Tommorow, the man, having no water in the desert, dies of thirst.

Which of the two evildoers would you convict of what?

[SlowwHand]

I never would have voted for Ted Kennedy, but I liked JFK, and thought Bobby ruled.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Put this in the proper context of which I would consider worse, had a Presidential candidate done it earlier in his life.

so you are changing your argument now?

okay...

but I still don't see how that makes any difference

you are free to present your argument in this thread... or link to the other thread so people can see how the original argument developed


I thought this was about drunk driving vs plagiarism in general... but if you want to play it like that, that's fine.

actually in the OP in this thread, I think I put it in the context you describe...

choosing a political candidate...

[MrFun]

Drunk driving can cost the life of the drunk driver, and the life of another person.

Has plagarism ever involved senseless death?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by VetLegion


A man is sleeping in the desert. Another man comes and poisons his water, a third man comes (unknowing of the second) and slashes his water pouch open.

Tommorow, the man, having no water in the desert, dies of thirst.

Which of the two evildoers would you convict of what?

Assuming the poison was usually or intended to be fatal, the first evildoer is guilty of attempted murder.

The second evildoer may be guilty of murder if it can be proven the act of slashing the water was intended to cause harm. It may have simply been vandalism /damage to property

[Sava]

Originally posted by VetLegion
Consider:

A man is sleeping in the desert. Another man comes and poisons his water, a third man comes (unknowing of the second) and slashes his water pouch open.

Tommorow, the man, having no water in the desert, dies of thirst.

Which of the two evildoers would you convict of what?

well... probably neither...

guy number one is innocent of murder because the victim did not die of poisoning...

guy number two is innocent of murder because the victim would have died of poisoning had the victim had the water...

even though guy number two didn't know about the poison, there really isn't enough evidence to connect him to the death...

plus, if those two guys can get in the desert to poison and slash the water pouch and escape, why can't the victim get out of the desert?

sorry, I watch too much Law and Order...

this would end in NOT GUILTY verdict

best chance would be to try and negotiate a plea... but FAT CHANCE unless there is some physical evidence or maybe a witness

[VetLegion]

Wait, but what difference did the second evildoer make, if the man was going to die anyway?

(crosspost with Sava)

[SlowwHand]

So you poison someone to give them the runs?

[VetLegion]

Well two people responded so far, two different responses. See, the answer is not as easy as it looks.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Sava



guy number one is innocent of murder because the victim did not die of poisoning...

right-- thats why he is guilty of attempted murder-- whether the poisoned water was was consumed or not is irrelevant ASSUMING the poison was believed to be fatal. If it were merely something that would make you sick but could never kill you, then it would be a form of assault. (actual charge would depend on the jurisdiction)

Originally posted by Sava


guy number two is innocent of murder because the victim would have died of poisoning had the victim had the water...

Irrelevent -- If I shoot the cancer victim and kill him, his impending death is irrelevant. But again its only murder if there is intent. If the water thingy was slasked as a lark and it never occurred to the evildoer that the victim would proceed into the desser without checking his water, he may at most be guilty of some forms of manslaughter (ie criminal negligence causing death)

[Sava]

Flubber: you are talking about in principle... I am talking about reality... there is not enough evidence to get a conviction... the victim died, this is in the desert, there are no witnesses

so both guys will go free

[:) Smiley]

Drunk driving can have high consequences, but there are limits to how much damage one can do with a single motor vehicle.

Plagiarism, which has its roots in laziness towards doing good research, has low consequences for most people, but scales with the amount of power the person has. Case in point: current Iraq war.