4 ms·

Them finding two completed bombs is not evidence that he planned to plant them.

by siftrics 3y ago

irq 3y ago
Who wants to keep live bombs in their house? Obviously he was going to put them elsewhere. Which is what planting is.
- siftrics 3y ago
  I'm not claiming to know the timeline, but he could have built them before "the deal", then made the deal and decided not to plant them. Innocent until proven guilty. There is more than enough evidence to put away Teddy K for life. Lean on real evidence. Don't stretch the truth and muddy the waters for the innocent. Your line of reasoning could be used to convict the innocent.
  - shreyshnaccount 3y ago
    Like the French arresting people for using encryption and linux
  - op00to 3y ago
    Isn’t it illegal to have a bomb intended to maim or kill?
  - jstarfish 3y ago
    There was only one live bomb found and he did intend to use it. > Kaczynski replied Penthouse was less "respectable" than The New York Times and The Washington Post, and said that, "to increase our chances of getting our stuff published in some 'respectable' periodical", he would "reserve the right to plant one (and only one) bomb intended to kill, after our manuscript has been published" if Penthouse published the document instead of The Times or The Post. Don't do victims of terrorism a disservice by suggesting a mass murderer deserves the benefit of the doubt as to whether he has any qualms about reneging on "deals" made with a society he doesn't respect. His calculus for who got to live and die hinged on factors as arbitrary as nitpicking over which periodical was willing to publish his bullshit. He was a fucking Narcissist to the extreme, who would waste no time coming out of retirement at the next perceived slight. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to the fucking Unabomber. Bombing people is kind of his thing. He proved it, what, 16 times?
    - siftrics 3y ago
      Just because he bombed people previously doesn't mean he intended to do it again. You have to have stronger evidence, like writings or postage stamps, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these two bombs were going to be planted. (I'm not arguing this evidence doesn't exist.) I don't get what the big deal is. We already have more than enough evidence from his previous plantings to convict him as a bomb planter and put him away for life. Is it just that you can't compartmentalize and separate the two things in your mind?
      - watwut 3y ago
        He does not need any of that. He is not about to put Kaczynsky to jail. He is doing moral judgement and that one requires only reasonable probability. > Is it just that you can't compartmentalize and separate the two things in your mind? They are not separate. Past behavior predicts future one. And ignoring probabilities is just demanding that people act as if they were stupid.
        siftrics 3y ago
        Yeah but I only have to come up with a reasonable doubt. It's analogous to coming up with one counterexample to disprove something in mathematics. I can reasonably theorize that he fully intended to stop bombing people based on this "deal". There. Done. I can doubt he planned to bomb people in a reasonable way. The onus is on you to remove all reasonable doubt. You have not done so by simply showing that there are bombs in his cabin. He could have built them before he made the deal to stop bombing people. That's a completely reasonable scenario.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > The onus is on you to remove all reasonable doubt. No it's not. Again, that's the standard for criminal punishment. Not moral judgement. And have you heard of civil law? Despite the high stakes that's usually decided based on the preponderance of evidence.
- sillysaurusx 3y ago
  As asinine as it sounds, I agree with them. In this specific case, there’s no reason to believe that a completed bomb is the same as an intent to bomb anybody. I’d be surprised if any 20-year veteran bomb builder didn’t have a couple fully-working prototypes, the same reason I’d be surprised a 20-year veteran coder had no fully functional prototypes. Crafting is crafting, whether you’re doing woodworking or killing. Is it impossible to believe that someone like Ted might find bomb building every bit as gratifying as we find programming? He was unhinged. But it’s hard to argue he wasn’t a master craftsman. Few lone-wolf bomb makers survive 20 years without accidents, let alone evade authorities till their family turned them in. I know very little about Ted, and almost nothing about his philosophies or any of the subject matter. But it seems entirely consistent and reasonable that there would be deployable bombs that were sitting around for unknown amounts of time when he was captured. Dude’s a murderer. I’m glad he was stopped, and it’s sad he wasn’t caught on day one.
  - op00to 3y ago
    Dude. There is a difference between a bomb that has significant ability to kill and destroy and sample code.
    - sillysaurusx 3y ago
      Is there? Whoops. I’ve been doing it wrong for about 20 years now. (My sense of humor has gotten me in hot water more than once, so I may as well go all-in. Probably a matter of time till it nips me though.) In seriousness, the goal here is to have curious conversation, and follow that curiosity wherever it leads. I agree it sounds asinine, but think of the sheer number of details he had to get right merely to survive. He was one inch away from blowing himself up, quite literally, for years. I’m not at all ashamed to point out the obvious skill required. If he pulled the pin on a few grenades and casually tossed them at people, we’d be having a different conversation. But he built things, just as we do. Certainly a different kind of thing, as you say, but he was still a builder.
      - bbor 3y ago
brezelgoring 3y ago
A guy with a history of bombing buildings has more bombs at his house and you say it's not demonstrative of future bombings? I don't see it, man, I think you just want to go against the grain, here. Explain yourself.
- bsdetector 3y ago
  I suppose it would be like how the U.S has a history of using nuclear bombs, has a bunch more assembled and ready to be used, but claims to have no plans to actually use them.
  - edgyquant 3y ago
    Except they do plan have specific plans to use them and what criteria would entail doing so

Them finding two completed bombs is not evidence that he planned to plant them.

irq 3y ago

Who wants to keep live bombs in their house? Obviously he was going to put them elsewhere. Which is what planting is.

siftrics 3y ago
I'm not claiming to know the timeline, but he could have built them before "the deal", then made the deal and decided not to plant them. Innocent until proven guilty. There is more than enough evidence to put away Teddy K for life. Lean on real evidence. Don't stretch the truth and muddy the waters for the innocent. Your line of reasoning could be used to convict the innocent.
- shreyshnaccount 3y ago
  Like the French arresting people for using encryption and linux
- op00to 3y ago
  Isn’t it illegal to have a bomb intended to maim or kill?
- jstarfish 3y ago
  There was only one live bomb found and he did intend to use it. > Kaczynski replied Penthouse was less "respectable" than The New York Times and The Washington Post, and said that, "to increase our chances of getting our stuff published in some 'respectable' periodical", he would "reserve the right to plant one (and only one) bomb intended to kill, after our manuscript has been published" if Penthouse published the document instead of The Times or The Post. Don't do victims of terrorism a disservice by suggesting a mass murderer deserves the benefit of the doubt as to whether he has any qualms about reneging on "deals" made with a society he doesn't respect. His calculus for who got to live and die hinged on factors as arbitrary as nitpicking over which periodical was willing to publish his bullshit. He was a fucking Narcissist to the extreme, who would waste no time coming out of retirement at the next perceived slight. "Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to the fucking Unabomber. Bombing people is kind of his thing. He proved it, what, 16 times?
  - siftrics 3y ago
    Just because he bombed people previously doesn't mean he intended to do it again. You have to have stronger evidence, like writings or postage stamps, to prove beyond reasonable doubt that these two bombs were going to be planted. (I'm not arguing this evidence doesn't exist.) I don't get what the big deal is. We already have more than enough evidence from his previous plantings to convict him as a bomb planter and put him away for life. Is it just that you can't compartmentalize and separate the two things in your mind?
    - watwut 3y ago
      He does not need any of that. He is not about to put Kaczynsky to jail. He is doing moral judgement and that one requires only reasonable probability. > Is it just that you can't compartmentalize and separate the two things in your mind? They are not separate. Past behavior predicts future one. And ignoring probabilities is just demanding that people act as if they were stupid.
      - siftrics 3y ago
        Yeah but I only have to come up with a reasonable doubt. It's analogous to coming up with one counterexample to disprove something in mathematics. I can reasonably theorize that he fully intended to stop bombing people based on this "deal". There. Done. I can doubt he planned to bomb people in a reasonable way. The onus is on you to remove all reasonable doubt. You have not done so by simply showing that there are bombs in his cabin. He could have built them before he made the deal to stop bombing people. That's a completely reasonable scenario.
        Dylan16807 3y ago
        > The onus is on you to remove all reasonable doubt. No it's not. Again, that's the standard for criminal punishment. Not moral judgement. And have you heard of civil law? Despite the high stakes that's usually decided based on the preponderance of evidence.
sillysaurusx 3y ago
As asinine as it sounds, I agree with them. In this specific case, there’s no reason to believe that a completed bomb is the same as an intent to bomb anybody. I’d be surprised if any 20-year veteran bomb builder didn’t have a couple fully-working prototypes, the same reason I’d be surprised a 20-year veteran coder had no fully functional prototypes. Crafting is crafting, whether you’re doing woodworking or killing. Is it impossible to believe that someone like Ted might find bomb building every bit as gratifying as we find programming? He was unhinged. But it’s hard to argue he wasn’t a master craftsman. Few lone-wolf bomb makers survive 20 years without accidents, let alone evade authorities till their family turned them in. I know very little about Ted, and almost nothing about his philosophies or any of the subject matter. But it seems entirely consistent and reasonable that there would be deployable bombs that were sitting around for unknown amounts of time when he was captured. Dude’s a murderer. I’m glad he was stopped, and it’s sad he wasn’t caught on day one.
- op00to 3y ago
  Dude. There is a difference between a bomb that has significant ability to kill and destroy and sample code.
  - sillysaurusx 3y ago
    Is there? Whoops. I’ve been doing it wrong for about 20 years now. (My sense of humor has gotten me in hot water more than once, so I may as well go all-in. Probably a matter of time till it nips me though.) In seriousness, the goal here is to have curious conversation, and follow that curiosity wherever it leads. I agree it sounds asinine, but think of the sheer number of details he had to get right merely to survive. He was one inch away from blowing himself up, quite literally, for years. I’m not at all ashamed to point out the obvious skill required. If he pulled the pin on a few grenades and casually tossed them at people, we’d be having a different conversation. But he built things, just as we do. Certainly a different kind of thing, as you say, but he was still a builder.
    - bbor 3y ago

brezelgoring 3y ago

A guy with a history of bombing buildings has more bombs at his house and you say it's not demonstrative of future bombings? I don't see it, man, I think you just want to go against the grain, here. Explain yourself.

bsdetector 3y ago
I suppose it would be like how the U.S has a history of using nuclear bombs, has a bunch more assembled and ready to be used, but claims to have no plans to actually use them.
- edgyquant 3y ago
  Except they do plan have specific plans to use them and what criteria would entail doing so