5 ms·
If you convince someone not to have kids, is that harmful?
by dqpb 4y ago
If you convince someone not to have kids, is that harmful?
- seydor 4y agohow can convincing (not coercing) be harmful? What's the definition of harm
- jojobas 4y agoYou can convince someone to go shoot up a school, good luck arguing convincing is not coercing in court.
- rootusrootus 4y agoThe court won't need to get that far, convincing itself falls under conspiracy without having to conflate it with coercion.
- OkayPhysicist 4y agoThat strongly depends on how you convince them. If you one-on-one talk someone into shooting up a school, that's conspiracy. If you tell a large audience that teachers and children are a scourge upon society that must be eliminated and count on some small fraction to be unhinged enough to connect the dots, well, that's just, like, your opinion, man.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoEven the private conversation does not raise to the level of conspiracy without a plan.
- seydor 4y agoit's not coercing though
- gowld 4y agoOne action is a crime, the other (in)action isn't.
- jojobas 4y agoConvincing someone to commit suicide (not a criminal act per se anymore) is still a crime in many jurisdictions. Not having children is a life decision that's harmful to the society the same way suicide is harmful to the society. Childfree groups should be treated as suicide cults.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoIt really depends on what you did to convince them. See the top level post. The law does not only care about causality. It is also cares free speech, reasonable interpretation, and comparative responsibility. I could craft and publish an argument School shootings are in fact a positive good a we should have more of them. I am legally in the clear, even If someone finds my argument convincing and goes and shoots up a school because of it.
- giantg2 4y ago"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is. That can vary wildly. There are laws on the books in which the statute specifies "reasonable" and a judge has determined that it's an absolute liability offense because determining reasonableness is too hard and would frustrate the legislatures intent. (Even though this conflicts with other precedential opinion which states you can't ignore the letter of the law to pursue it's spirit). In short, "reasonable" means nothing until the people in power tell you what it means.
- s1artibartfast 4y agoI was speaking about what the law philosophically cares about - how it was crafted. When it comes to this example, it is a lot more clear. I can write a book on why you should shoot up schools and it would be protected. Reasonable does not come in to that part of the question.
- giantg2 4y agoSure, I'm just saying in practice the ideals that the laws were crafted on tend to go out the window - to the point that the law (through opinion) contradicts the written statute.
- freejazz 4y ago>"Reasonable" can be whatever the judge/jury say it is." Not really. The boundaries of "reasonable" are... wait for... it reasonableness. I.e. if a jury or a judge isn't reasonable, then an appeals court can overturn it. A judge or jury is not given free reign to determine anything to be reasonable.
- wonderwonder 4y agoWoman convinced her boyfriend to kill himself and was convicted: https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-found-guilty-encouraging-boyfriend-s-suicide-text-messages-n773306 https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/michelle-carter-found-g...
- freejazz 4y agoShe was convicted because she breached her duty of care after he informed her that he attempted suicide, and she told him to get back in the car and then proceeded to do absolutely nothing about it. The judge was spot in noting that by having the conversations with him that she did, at the time, she had a duty of care that she did not uphold. Your characterization of her liability is completely inapposite what the court found, it is misleading, and it is being done so to serve your own political beliefs regarding speech.
- wonderwonder 4y agointeresting. What are my beliefs regarding freedom of speech? I attempted to provide an example of what the OP spoke of, might have been wrong. My beliefs regarding freedom of speech is that is should be just shy of absolute. Only limit should be believable threats of violence. I appreciate you telling me what I believe and my political beliefs though.
- freejazz 4y agoWhen did I say what your political beliefs were? It's obvious to anyone reading your post, that you shared what you did to further your beliefs. Sheesh! And go figure, you're just shy of an absolutist. Who would have guessed that? (me! I would have!)
- wonderwonder 4y agoLol, I'm guessing all of your posts are to hamper you political beliefs? Sheesh indeed my friend, sheesh indeed.
- dqpb 4y agoTerminating a millions-years-old family line is pretty harsh imo.
- yoyohello13 4y agoIs it? Nature does it all the time. Maybe it's a sentimentality thing.
- dqpb 4y agolol, what? If I killed someone, I can't be like "Whats the problem? Nature kills people all the time. Why are you so sentimental?"
- s1artibartfast 4y agoHarm and causality are not the sole factors that the law turns on. I can convince people to do all types of terrible things, but that does not make it illegal