4 ms·

If you deliberately loaded a single round into a revolver, spun the cylinder and then put the gun against your neighbors head and pulled the trigger, would that

by JackCh 8y ago

If you deliberately loaded a single round into a revolver, spun the cylinder and then put the gun against your neighbors head and pulled the trigger, would that not be murder in the 1-in-6 chance that your neighbors brains were blown out? Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it?

kbenson 8y ago
> Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it? Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent). Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.
- JackCh 8y ago
  Selling the blood was pulling the trigger, both done with intent. Whether that action would result in a death was unknown to them in the strict sense, but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6. Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.
  - kbenson 8y ago
    > but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6. So, what exactly is the percentage of risk that makes it intentional? Listen, Bayer did a horrible thing, and while it clearly hasn't been proved here that it's intentional, as that word has an actual definition which is not met here, it's definitely criminally negligent to an unbelievable degree. All I'm saying is there's no need to start using labels that don't apply or trying to change the meaning of words just to make it sound worse. Language is only as useful as it is clear. There is a real negative effect in using hyperbole to describe the misdeeds of others. The inaccuracy allows them wiggle room to supply carefully worded denials that are true, in reality if not in spirit. For example, if a defender of Bayer were here, they could say "Bayer did not intentionally spread HIV in Asia" and they would not be lying, even if they are skirting the issue and relying on a technicality. This allows for third parties to be confused, and the issue to be muddied. The overreaching of the original statement allows for this type of denial, whereas a more specific statement about the facts would not. For example, the statement "Bayer repurposed goods that were not correctly sterilized from HIV that it knew would be too risky to use in first world markets to Asian markets, resulting in thousands of hemophiliacs that used the drugs to become HIV positive. When problems started occurring, Bayer assured health officials that the product was safe." As a side-effect, in trying to make sure the statement is actually correct and accurate, it may lead the people making it to look closer at the issue, and realize it's not necessarily as cut-and-dry as that (as I just did), while still being plenty bad. One final note: I, and I'm sure many others, use imprecise and accusatory language such as used in the original comment as a red flag to identify people pushing an agenda (even if that agenda is outrage to drive views). When I just searched this issue, I came across a result that said "Bayer deliberately infected asians and latinos with HIV." That's the kind of wording that's meant to spark outrage (as indeed there should be), but outrage without information (because there can't be much or it would discredit the title), which is never useful. When people use language such as that accidentally, they should be gently corrected (as I attempted to do). When they do it on purpose, they should be ignored or scorned, as they are trying to manipulate you.

by JackCh 8y ago

kbenson 8y ago

> Wouldn't you be a murderer for even playing that 'game', despite the stochastic nature of it? Maybe, depending on the definition of murder we go by. At a minimum, it's manslaughter. The point is, that describes a factual state, not intent (again, depending on whether you are using murderer to describe intent). Whether someone kills someone, or someone purposefully kills someone are differentiated by intent. The original assertion was "Intentionally Spreading HIV in Asia". Their intent was to make money, that was a horrible, and avoidable byproduct of that intent. There's no need to make this sound worse than it is, because it's already horrible. I'm not defending Bayar, I'm calling out an inaccurate statement.

JackCh 8y ago
Selling the blood was pulling the trigger, both done with intent. Whether that action would result in a death was unknown to them in the strict sense, but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6. Whether you want to split hairs over manslaughter or murder doesn't interest me. Anybody who 'plays' Russian roulette with their neighbor is a depraved psychopath who belongs behind bars at the very least. If you played Russian roulette with your neighbor because I offered you $20 to do it, having a monetary motivation wouldn't make you any less a murderer.
- kbenson 8y ago
  > but they knew there was significant risk. Frankly my example is probably being generous to Bayer since I'd wager the combined probability in the case of Bayer was greater than 1/6. So, what exactly is the percentage of risk that makes it intentional? Listen, Bayer did a horrible thing, and while it clearly hasn't been proved here that it's intentional, as that word has an actual definition which is not met here, it's definitely criminally negligent to an unbelievable degree. All I'm saying is there's no need to start using labels that don't apply or trying to change the meaning of words just to make it sound worse. Language is only as useful as it is clear. There is a real negative effect in using hyperbole to describe the misdeeds of others. The inaccuracy allows them wiggle room to supply carefully worded denials that are true, in reality if not in spirit. For example, if a defender of Bayer were here, they could say "Bayer did not intentionally spread HIV in Asia" and they would not be lying, even if they are skirting the issue and relying on a technicality. This allows for third parties to be confused, and the issue to be muddied. The overreaching of the original statement allows for this type of denial, whereas a more specific statement about the facts would not. For example, the statement "Bayer repurposed goods that were not correctly sterilized from HIV that it knew would be too risky to use in first world markets to Asian markets, resulting in thousands of hemophiliacs that used the drugs to become HIV positive. When problems started occurring, Bayer assured health officials that the product was safe." As a side-effect, in trying to make sure the statement is actually correct and accurate, it may lead the people making it to look closer at the issue, and realize it's not necessarily as cut-and-dry as that (as I just did), while still being plenty bad. One final note: I, and I'm sure many others, use imprecise and accusatory language such as used in the original comment as a red flag to identify people pushing an agenda (even if that agenda is outrage to drive views). When I just searched this issue, I came across a result that said "Bayer deliberately infected asians and latinos with HIV." That's the kind of wording that's meant to spark outrage (as indeed there should be), but outrage without information (because there can't be much or it would discredit the title), which is never useful. When people use language such as that accidentally, they should be gently corrected (as I attempted to do). When they do it on purpose, they should be ignored or scorned, as they are trying to manipulate you.