4 ms·

Presumably if Steve really does think that Dan is bluffing, then Dan can show Steve the data he has. Should Steve, knowing that Dan really is in possession of

by jlgreco 13y ago

Presumably if Steve really does think that Dan is bluffing, then Dan can show Steve the data he has. Should Steve, knowing that Dan really is in possession of the data he claims, take the chance that Dan has no interest in actually giving the data to the government of Singapore? That is a very high-stakes game. Lets say that Steve is unwilling to call that bluff, or he is confident that there is no bluff. Is having Dan killed off the table for Steve?

tedunangst 13y ago
Maybe just shoot him in the kneecap and warn him that next time it'll be in the head? Steve should have some obligation to dissuade dan from his course of action prior to killing him, no?
- MichaelGG 13y ago
  I'm not sure you thought that one through. Shoot him in the kneecap. He says "ok fine you're right", then goes home and delivers the people to their deaths. Then flies somewhere and hides. Being shot in the kneecap is likely to make you run and hide as well as doing the act you've been threatening. Edit: Kneecapping is only used where you believe the target will actually reform, or as intimidation on someone that doesn't have any leverage (like some poor kid that took out a loan and isn't paying it back). In high-stakes like the one outlined here, it's not relevant. Also this whole subthread was supposed to be "given these priors" but everyone seems to get hung up on murder, ignoring that other peoples' deaths are regularly accepted in society by pretty much everything we do.
- jlgreco 13y ago
  This conversation aside, I hope you understand that you never shoot somebody without the intention of killing them. Never. There is no such thing as shooting somebody with nonlethal intentions, or as any sort of "warning". Back on point, the recognition that killing Dan is on the table at all puts us on the same page. I certainly would not suggest jumping straight to that unless the circumstances made it absolutely necessarily.
  - tedunangst 13y ago
    Maybe I should have just said horse head in the bed... :)

by jlgreco 13y ago

tedunangst 13y ago

Maybe just shoot him in the kneecap and warn him that next time it'll be in the head? Steve should have some obligation to dissuade dan from his course of action prior to killing him, no?

MichaelGG 13y ago
I'm not sure you thought that one through. Shoot him in the kneecap. He says "ok fine you're right", then goes home and delivers the people to their deaths. Then flies somewhere and hides. Being shot in the kneecap is likely to make you run and hide as well as doing the act you've been threatening. Edit: Kneecapping is only used where you believe the target will actually reform, or as intimidation on someone that doesn't have any leverage (like some poor kid that took out a loan and isn't paying it back). In high-stakes like the one outlined here, it's not relevant. Also this whole subthread was supposed to be "given these priors" but everyone seems to get hung up on murder, ignoring that other peoples' deaths are regularly accepted in society by pretty much everything we do.
jlgreco 13y ago
This conversation aside, I hope you understand that you never shoot somebody without the intention of killing them. Never. There is no such thing as shooting somebody with nonlethal intentions, or as any sort of "warning". Back on point, the recognition that killing Dan is on the table at all puts us on the same page. I certainly would not suggest jumping straight to that unless the circumstances made it absolutely necessarily.
- tedunangst 13y ago
  Maybe I should have just said horse head in the bed... :)