3 ms·
Let's keep the threads of argument separate here. On the one hand, we have the question of whether or not that joke was acceptable in that situation, and in the
by mistercow 14y ago
Let's keep the threads of argument separate here. On the one hand, we have the question of whether or not that joke was acceptable in that situation, and in the ancestor comment, danilocampos was arguing that it was not. I tend to agree.
Then there is the separate question of whether publicly shaming the person as Richards did was an acceptable response. I certainly do not think it was. But it's a separate issue.
- marshray 14y agoYou don't believe in "proportionate response"? The degree of the reaction is completely separate from the degree of the offense? Consider Oritz vs. Swartz.
- mistercow 14y agoI don't understand why you think I don't believe in proportionate response, based on my previous comment. The reaction by Richards was not an official reaction by the organizers of PyCon. If a teenager shoplifts a stereo from a store, and a vigilante witnesses it and shoots him in the head, I think we can all still agree that the teenager was in the wrong. The fact that the vigilante was even more in the wrong doesn't change that.
- marshray 14y agoApologies to all teenagers, I know you're tired of being used to epitomize offenders all the time. I told you you'd regret that whole lawn incident. Because the two offenses aren't separate in the other direction. Teenager [commits offense], vigilante witness shoots offender in the head. Where [offense] is A. shoplifts stereo, vs B. shooting store employees and preparing to shoot innocent bystanders. If (A) the vigilante is a murderer, if (B) he's a hero. So the ethics of the teenager's action (A or B) can be evaluated on its own, but the REaction of the vigilante can only be judged in the context of the teenager's action. The two actions are not mutually independent. One action is independent, but the other is dependent.