3 ms·
... because it's a good idea? If a person with Tourette's said profanities to you during your Zoom meeting, would you hold them equally responsible as a perso
by pyentropy 5y ago
... because it's a good idea?
If a person with Tourette's said profanities to you during your Zoom meeting, would you hold them equally responsible as a person not having it? No, because it's a symptom and you assume it is out of their control and they didn't have a malicious intent. If both persons said "sorry it wasn't in my control", you'd think
1) the person A didn't do bad, because they have a tic and they definitely don't have negative feelings towards me
2) the person B has an anger management issues and may or may not have negative feelings towards me, maybe he's bad
We assume intent is malicious when a person has the capability to stop themselves from doing something negative towards us and yet they "chose" not to.
A CPU that doesn't work when power is off could be a good CPU, but a CPU that doesn't work when power is on is a faulty CPU.
- guerrilla 5y ago> t is out of their control and they didn't have a malicious intent We just established nobody chooses what they do or how they feel, so at best it's like a matter of degree and at worst it's completely arbitrary.
- pyentropy 5y agoYou can replace "out of their control" with "almost zero chance to go in the else{} branch". And "can choose to" with "can go to else{} if rx is true" - and social interaction and reward/punishment can make rx == true.