5 ms·

> if the edge case is possible, it will happen By that argument, you will: * beat your wife * murder an enemy * shoot up a school full of children * commit

> if the edge case is possible, it will happen By that argument, you will: * beat your wife * murder an enemy * shoot up a school full of children * commit arson * jump bail * evade arrest * die in a hail of bullets So, assuming all those eventualities, why shouldn't we just put you to death now? To spare you the rhetorical exercise, the answer is because we don't punish you for the things you might do, but only punish you for a) the things that you have done, b) that we can prove, c) beyond a reasonable doubt, d) in a court of law, e) before a jury of your peers.

dEnigma 8y ago
I think we're getting a little sidetracked here. What the grandparent wanted to say was just that the corset of laws that binds a judge might not be as tight as you think; hence e.g. activist judges.
- bmelton 8y ago
  I think my point stands, which is that not every possibility is an eventuality, and we shouldn't assume that to be true without a willingness to accept a very bad panoply of preventative measures masquerading as corrective measures. That said, whether or not an activist judge allows a presumptively lawful merger to occur is hardly a hill worth dying on. We have remedies for activist judges through an appeal process. Where an appeals process is not available after the merger, we have remedy for anti-competitive companies through regulatory influence, regulatory agency, rule of law, and a court system to back that up.
grasshopperpurp 8y ago
No, not at all. This is closer to what the parent was saying By that argument, someone will: * beat his wife - true * murder an enemy - true * shoot up a school full of children - true * commit arson - true * jump bail - true * evade arrest - true * die in a hail of bullets - true You see, all these things do happen. The parent is not arguing that because something is possible any one individual will do it. You're arguing a very different thing.

dEnigma 8y ago

I think we're getting a little sidetracked here. What the grandparent wanted to say was just that the corset of laws that binds a judge might not be as tight as you think; hence e.g. activist judges.

bmelton 8y ago
I think my point stands, which is that not every possibility is an eventuality, and we shouldn't assume that to be true without a willingness to accept a very bad panoply of preventative measures masquerading as corrective measures. That said, whether or not an activist judge allows a presumptively lawful merger to occur is hardly a hill worth dying on. We have remedies for activist judges through an appeal process. Where an appeals process is not available after the merger, we have remedy for anti-competitive companies through regulatory influence, regulatory agency, rule of law, and a court system to back that up.

grasshopperpurp 8y ago

No, not at all. This is closer to what the parent was saying By that argument, someone will: * beat his wife - true * murder an enemy - true * shoot up a school full of children - true * commit arson - true * jump bail - true * evade arrest - true * die in a hail of bullets - true You see, all these things do happen. The parent is not arguing that because something is possible any one individual will do it. You're arguing a very different thing.