5 ms·

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

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.
        siftrics 3y ago
        >Again, that's the standard for criminal punishment. Not moral judgement. I never said anything about moral judgement. I was never talking about moral judgement. > And have you heard of civil law? Despite the high stakes that's usually decided based on the preponderance of evidence. Unrelated. Please, do share a link where Ted Kaczynski was convicted of a crime in connection with the unplanted bombs in question, because that's what I have been talking about in this entire string of comments. I am exonerated by fact. Ted was not convicted of a crime for the unplanted bomb because there was insufficient evidence to do so. End of story ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
- noarchy 3y ago
  >"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to the fucking Unabomber. Bombing people is kind of his thing. He proved it, what, 16 times? That won't stop people determined enough to defend him here, and as you can see people will die on that hill. How many lives were saved due to his arrest? That we will never know, but I suspect the number is not zero.
  - siftrics 3y ago
    I'm not defending him. I'm simply stating the fact that him having a bomb in his possession is insufficient evidence to convict him of the crime in question. I am exonerated by fact. The prosecutors did not have enough evidence to convict him of a crime related to the live bomb they found. What are you going to do to argue against that? Deny history? It already happened. He wasn't convicted.
    - noarchy 3y ago
      I didn't even call you out, yet here you are acting like you've been personally attacked. You weren't. Whatever your fascination with Kaczynski, his manifesto is only of significance because of his terrorism. We're better off that he was found, arrested, and convicted.

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.
      - siftrics 3y ago
        >Again, that's the standard for criminal punishment. Not moral judgement. I never said anything about moral judgement. I was never talking about moral judgement. > And have you heard of civil law? Despite the high stakes that's usually decided based on the preponderance of evidence. Unrelated. Please, do share a link where Ted Kaczynski was convicted of a crime in connection with the unplanted bombs in question, because that's what I have been talking about in this entire string of comments. I am exonerated by fact. Ted was not convicted of a crime for the unplanted bomb because there was insufficient evidence to do so. End of story ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
noarchy 3y ago
>"Innocent until proven guilty" doesn't apply to the fucking Unabomber. Bombing people is kind of his thing. He proved it, what, 16 times? That won't stop people determined enough to defend him here, and as you can see people will die on that hill. How many lives were saved due to his arrest? That we will never know, but I suspect the number is not zero.
- siftrics 3y ago
  I'm not defending him. I'm simply stating the fact that him having a bomb in his possession is insufficient evidence to convict him of the crime in question. I am exonerated by fact. The prosecutors did not have enough evidence to convict him of a crime related to the live bomb they found. What are you going to do to argue against that? Deny history? It already happened. He wasn't convicted.
  - noarchy 3y ago
    I didn't even call you out, yet here you are acting like you've been personally attacked. You weren't. Whatever your fascination with Kaczynski, his manifesto is only of significance because of his terrorism. We're better off that he was found, arrested, and convicted.