The Danes really have it going for them

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Blake
**** **** ****, ****ing hell, ****ing hell! How could I be such an idiot!!!
****, this guy is going to take me to the ****ing cleaners.
Oh my god, how am I going to pay for all this?! It'll probably be like thousands of dollars and raise my premiums!
My wife is going to ****ing kill me!!!
**** **** **** how could I be such an idiot?!!! Is it THAT hard to just pay attention? Goddamnit! Goddamnit! Goddamnit! You idiot!
****, here he comes, what am I going to say?!!

Is that really the way you believe the "unenlightened" tend to think? I rear-ended someone a few years back, and guess what I did? I just calmly acknowledged my sole responsibility and we agreed to square it away in cash. I wasn't anxious or desperate for forgiveness, and he wasn't angry. We each just decided to be a man about it and reach an equitable solution.

Yet again, there is no moral judgment in this conception of fault no matter how much you like to tell yourself there is. There is just a mature mutual acknowledgement of the core principle of equity.

[Blake]

Originally posted by Aeson
That had nothing to do with what I said. You asked (in a mocking manner) how who was at fault could be determined.

Actually if you read up, you asked that question .

You clearly were trying to imply that there was no "fault" that could be determined. We clearly have tools capable of determining fault in a good number of cases though.

I made no such claim and I only point out the truth. Like it's a simple truth that you can't get involved in a fender bender if you aren't on the road.

Furthermore I know there are some people in the world who are so desperately poor, who have debt collectors knocking on their door, that there is simply no realistic chance in hell that they'll be able to pay a repair bill - it'll just become another bill they end up forfeiting. You'll just say "WELL THAT'S WRONG, THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT!", but it's what happens. In that case, you can choose to stick to your guns and wait for them to pay (you'll wait forever), or you can pay the repair bill yourself.

The choice you make depends on how much you value peace of mind, versus how much you value principles...

You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth. When I say "Whoever pays the repair bill...", that's simply what I meant. Who pays the repair bill? Whoever pays it. Simple truth.

In some cases, getting the perpetrator to pay the repair bill, will be like extracting blood from a rock, if they have OTHER bills which are even more threatening, your one will be forgotten. Then you have to decide what you're going to do; you can either pay the bill yourself, or you can make your bill even MORE threatening than the other bills this person has to pay - you can be more evil than the debt collectors, or sic more evil debt collectors onto him.

It kind of depends on what you're willing to do. Like say it would take 5 hours of your work time to pay the bill. Is it worth spending 10 hours chasing around a desperately poor person trying to make them pay and thus forfeit some OTHER persons bill? Or is it better for you to just pay the bill?

Like is sticky and hard, it's not clean and easy...


One thing I have to say; people get the idea that something TERRIBLE will happen if they don't stick to their principles - like if you cut someone a little slack, they'll go totally out of control...
In reality, from experience, this doesn't happen. And that is from experience, it's not about what logically should happen according to system of belief about reality XYZ, but what does happen in reality.

For quite a while now I've been experimenting, that's how I learn, I experiment with people. I mean this now is an experiment, I'm not really trying to achieve anything, I have no expectations, I'm just experimenting.

When I read Buddhist Scripture, it reads like a big experiment. The Buddha kept on adding more training rules, as people came up with creative ways to keep straying from the path of what is good and sensible. Sometimes his advice didn't work as he intended and he had to change it.
The beautiful thing about Buddhism is how pragmatic it is, there is NO high-minded theory, simply experience of what works and what doesn't... because people are deluded beings by nature, you don't know in advance what actually works and what doesn't, you have to experiment with these things and not just keep on doing what you've always done in the past.
For example, before I started the Better AI project, I would not have said it was possible for me to be employed by Firaxis. That was because I was deluded about how reality works... The Better AI project WAS an experiment, which is why it produced results for me. And one of the things it did for me, was convince me of the value of experimenting - trying something to see what the result is. The moderating factor in this, is having good intentions and good motivations - that is, to experiment with generosity, rather than to experiment with cruelty...


One final thing; When you try to convert pragmatism into idealism, you get absurdity...

[Blake]

Originally posted by Darius871


Is that really the way you believe the "unenlightened" tend to think? I rear-ended someone a few years back, and guess what I did? I just calmly acknowledged my sole responsibility and we agreed to square it away in cash. I wasn't anxious or desperate for forgiveness, and he wasn't angry. We each just decided to be a man about it and reach an equitable solution.

This is the annoying thing about talking to multiple people at once.

When I'm communicating with exactly one person, I read their mind (this is much easier when they speak it ) and tailor what I say precisely to their understanding, to the best of my ability.

But that can't be done when talking to multiple people *shrug*.

In any case, ALL people are different. Everyone who rear-ends someone WILL react in a slightly different way.

Someone who has no money to pay the bill, will freak out, or do a runner.
Someone who has plenty of money to pay the bill, will quickly and calmly pay it as to avoid future troubles - such as people questioning "Hey, why'd you rear-end that car anyway?!". Those kind of questions are very inconvenient and may lead to questions of ones driving skills, ones ability to pay attention, or ability to maintain his car.

But everyone will react differently, so an example is just that - it's one possible hypothetical thing which can happen.

There is no universal model of an unenlightened person. There is just the guarantee they'll be fettered by greed hatred and delusion.

[Darius871]

Even someone with no money to pay the bill upfront could still have peace of mind given that insurance will pay for it. That's what insurance is for, and why it's universally required by law. Anybody who'd "freak out" in the way you described over having to hand over an insurance card isn't some sort of victim conditioned to be terrorized by an overly blaming and judgmental society; he/she's just an extremely paranoid person who ought to get a grip.

Unless of course it's someone who committed a criminal offense by driving without insurance, but in that case paying a repair bill is just an inevitable risk that driver has to accept. You of all people must recognize that.

[Blake]

Um...

I talk from my OWN experience.

And in New Zealand there is no law saying people have to have car insurance, no law whatsoever.

So there are quite a few people who don't have car insurance, and don't break law of the land in doing so.

[Blake]

Hopefully that example helps you to understand a little bit of what "delusion" is about .

And why it's good to never make a big deal over what someone else says - you might be genuinely not understanding their point of view... there might be mutual miscomprehension at work.

[Darius871]

Originally posted by Blake
Um...

I talk from my OWN experience.

And in New Zealand there is no law saying people have to have car insurance, no law whatsoever.

So there are quite a few people who don't have car insurance, and don't break law of the land in doing so.

I'm talking about here in the real world, not some fairy-tale la-la land called New Zealand.

Originally posted by Blake
Hopefully that example helps you to understand a little bit of what "delusion" is about .

And why it's good to never make a big deal over what someone else says - you might not be understanding their point of view...
And it's stupid to judge from a position of ignorance

I can't guess what you're referring to here.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
Actually if you read up, you asked that question .

No.

I asked the question, "Who would pay?"

You responded and asked, "Or do you live in a perfect world where you can actually FORCE people to do the right thing?" Implying that who should pay is not feasible to ascertain.

I answered by explaining to you that in most cases there are methods to determine who was at fault, and there are laws that will force people to "do the right thing". I noted that it isn't perfect.

I made no such claim and I only point out the truth. Like it's a simple truth that you can't get involved in a fender bender if you aren't on the road.

So? When you are out on the road, you are responsible for obeying traffic laws. If while obeying those laws, someone not obeying those laws crashes into you, they are at fault. That is what fault is. There can be grey areas where no one is clearly at fault, but there can also be clear cut areas where the accident is entirely the fault of one party.

Getting in your car and driving is not in and of itself a fault in a traffic accident. It increases your risk of being at fault (making a mistake) or suffering from someone else's fault (they make a mistake), but it is not a fault.

And you are incorrect. You could be involved in a fender bender even if you are not on the road. Someone could run into your car parked in your garage. Does that mean you are to blame for the accident since you had your car in your garage?

Go ahead and forgive fault if you want, but to pretend it doesn't exist, or worse, to pretend the victim is to blame for what has been forced on them, is asinine.

Furthermore I know there are some people in the world who are so desperately poor, who have debt collectors knocking on their door, that there is simply no realistic chance in hell that they'll be able to pay a repair bill - it'll just become another bill they end up forfeiting.

It happens. Doesn't change who was at fault in the accident though.

You'll just say "WELL THAT'S WRONG, THEY SHOULDN'T DO THAT!", but it's what happens.

No, that is neither what I would say (see above), nor how I would say it even if I were to express that sentiment.

You're putting an awful lot of words into my mouth. When I say "Whoever pays the repair bill...", that's simply what I meant. Who pays the repair bill? Whoever pays it. Simple truth.

I didn't put the words in your mouth, unless somehow I am controlling what you post. Here was what I was referring to:

"Or do you live in a perfect world where you can actually FORCE people to do the right thing?" - Blake

One thing I have to say; people get the idea that something TERRIBLE will happen if they don't stick to their principles - like if you cut someone a little slack, they'll go totally out of control...

You are not talking about cutting someone a little slack. You are talking about abolishing personal responsibility completely by not making any evaluations as to whether any given action was right or wrong. (Except if it's a woman being raped, in which case she was a whore and deserved it. Or any victim for that matter, they deserved it.)

In reality, from experience, this doesn't happen. And that is from experience, it's not about what logically should happen according to system of belief about reality XYZ, but what does happen in reality.

And group of people need a set of guidelines about how to coexist. For small groups this can be implied, as is often the case with families (though not often enough). For larger groups, a codified set of laws are necessary to ensure that anarchy doesn't destroy the community.

It only takes a few who would stomp on others' rights to ruin it for everyone. By standing together and agreeing on a code of conduct, a community gains stability.

For quite a while now I've been experimenting, that's how I learn, I experiment with people. I mean this now is an experiment, I'm not really trying to achieve anything, I have no expectations, I'm just experimenting.

I would suggest you experiment with reality for a bit.

The moderating factor in this, is having good intentions and good motivations - that is, to experiment with generosity, rather than to experiment with cruelty...

You are very generous with the heapings of blame you pile on innocent victims.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Darius871
I can't guess what you're referring to here.

He's being hypocritical again.

He's saying that one should not raise issue with what has been said by others, or at least not be overly emphatic about it, since one could be mistaken in what was meant. Even though this whole discussion he has been raising issues with what has been said by others, and he has been resorting to hysterics (both in content and formatting).

(I personally have no qualms with such. In fact I think that's the main purpose of internet forums.)

[Blake]

Aeson,

Who pays the repair bills if someone crashes into you while you are stopped at a red light?

There is no "should" in there. The way I read that is:
Who does pay the repair bill.
Or who would pay the repair bill.

And that is how I answered your question.

Maybe that's not what you meant, but I think it's the most logical way to interpret your question (Even if it's not the way you wanted me to interpret it).

[Blake]

Originally posted by Aeson
He's saying that one should not raise issue with what has been said by others, or at least not be overly emphatic about it, since one could be mistaken in what was meant. Even though this whole discussion he has been raising issues with what has been said by others, and he has been resorting to hysterics (both in content and formatting).

(I personally have no qualms with such. In fact I think that's the main purpose of internet forums.)

hysterics. a fit of uncontrollable laughter or weeping; hysteria.

I too think that laughing and crying is just fine.

The important thing, is to not get ANGRY over the things people say, to not start attacking their character.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
There is no "should" in there. The way I read that is:
Who does pay the repair bill.
Or who would pay the repair bill.

And that is how I answered your question.

Then you offered this:

"Or do you live in a perfect world where you can actually FORCE people to do the right thing?" - Blake

Which is what I was refering to with:

"You asked (in a mocking manner) how who was at fault could be determined." - Aeson

You responded by stating:

"Actually if you read up, you asked that question." - Blake

I did not ask the question about how fault could be determined. My question was about who would pay. You made an attempt at a rhetorical question insinuating that who was at fault was not possible to ascertain and/or the determination not possible to enforce. That was the question I was obviously referring to as it was the only question I quoted when making the response.

How you determined that I was referring to "Whoever ends up paying the repair bill..." by "You asked..." is beyond me, as that statement of yours is clearly not a question.

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake
I too think that laughing and crying is just fine.

That is not the only definition of the term. I was using it in reference to your "mindreading" which was a somewhat hyperbolic example of what a person might think, as well as your resorting to CAPS and italics for inflection at various points in the discussion. Forum hysterics.

The important thing, is to not get ANGRY over the things people say, to not start attacking their character.

I consider blaming someone for being raped an attack on their character. I consider ascribing all the difficulties that arise in a person's life as deserved due to their actions (even in past lives) as an attack on their character.

In both cases (being raped or living with the effects of past lives' transgressions) unwarranted.

If I "attack" a person's character, it will be warranted. That is to say, I will give as accurate an assessment as I can. (Outside some forum games with willing parties.) And I don't get angry about it, or angry at anything for that matter. I'm probably the calmest person you'll ever meet, even if you do end up living with monks.

[Blake]

Aeson,

I want to point something out to you. On a post on the previous post, you quoted me as saying something:

Originally posted by Aeson

"So Blake, you are saying that a man raping a woman is not a problem?" - Aeson

"The rape is not a problem." - Blake

Notice you offered no qualifications. You simply said that a man raping a woman is not a problem.

Aeson, I promise that I haven't edited my posts.

Now please search for the words "The rape is not a problem" and see where it comes up in this thread... see if I actually EVER said that, or if you just put those words in my mouth, LITERALLY.

For bonus points, find what I ACTUALLY said, and quote that....

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Blake

Now please search for the words "The rape is not a problem" and see where it comes up in this thread... see if I actually EVER said that, or if you just put those words in my mouth, LITERALLY.

What reality are you living in? Seriously. You are completely whack Blake. I asked the question, you quoted it, and responded with those exact words. It's right there for everyone to see.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=5248511#post5248511

Originally posted by Blake

Originally posted by Aeson
So Blake, you are saying that a man raping a woman is not a problem?

The rape is not a problem.

You then went on to confirm it was not a problem since it was in the past. And assorted other gibberish.