tcuk

4 ms·

1.
by tcuk 14y ago
EDIT: found the second article, comment redundant.
2.
by tcuk 14y ago
Chuck could you provide an analysis of how this article ends up on the front page of here, specifically what value it adds to the situation and how relevant it is. To me I'm struggling to figure out how it relates to Aaron's case , is it pu
3.
by tcuk 14y ago
Honestly read the comments in the submission.. It was insane the amount of misinformation being thrown around. I'm sorry if my comment was exaggerated, I was just trying to highlight the issue.
4.
by tcuk 14y ago
I'd expect more intelligent people, which this community claims to consist of, to not react the way it has to the events, with nothing but hyperbole and sensationalism. The only clear concise analysis I have seen in the myriad of submission
5.
by tcuk 14y ago
If I proposed that perhaps in an age where cyber crime is not only misunderstood but increasingly high (see anon et al), that perhaps the prosecution wanted to deter Aaron who by all accounts was an activist, from committing further more se
6.
by tcuk 14y ago
politician, with respect I think you need to be more concise with your questions, I would hope Aaron would also say 'no' to the vague: 'Should you always plead guilty to crimes the Government accuses you of?' Did you perhaps mean to ask: 'S
7.
by tcuk 14y ago
I'm not sure how or why you fail to see or accept any grey area in this. I'm not sure how else to explain my view.
8.
by tcuk 14y ago
I think the consensus here right now is that because people believe the laws he broke shouldn't exist in the capacity they do, he shouldn't have been punished, and that his case is a cause for reform in things that perhaps don't deserve to
9.
by tcuk 14y ago
I think the answer is obviously 'no'. But I also believe that your question is exactly what is bad about the situation. It is a total red herring to the issue at hand. Let me expand: He should have pleaded guilty to the crimes, because it i
10.
by tcuk 14y ago
Agreed 100%, your reasoning is sound. I think this is a fair assessment of the situation, and that if more people could hold this opinion, more reform against the laws that so many disagree with would actually happen.
11.
by tcuk 14y ago
It's a sad day when the mob campaigns to end the career of someone who's simply doing there job, rather than causing change to the actual law that defines how they do the job. But this particular prosecutor was just a bully, right? Who had
12.
by tcuk 14y ago
Without getting into a philosophical debate, you can read 'objective opinion' as 'it is my un-biased opinion in a neutrally emotional state, to believe the facts to be..' if it helps. I agree the law is perhaps wrong, but who could have kn
13.
by tcuk 14y ago
You do realize it's perfectly plausible that they did want to bully him into a plea bargain and that they also didn't want him to commit suicide, and do feel empathetic towards the situation?
14.
by tcuk 14y ago
It read to me as if you were accusing the prosecutors of not having any empathy to Aaron in this case. I believe the default human reaction is to feel said emotion, and such I think it's reasonable to assume they did feel empathy unless we
15.
by tcuk 14y ago
Can you explain how his personal wealth, is related to his emotional distress over this case?
16.
by tcuk 14y ago
Ok a felony on his record... I'm sorry I don't think that, 6 month jail time, and a felony on his record === no option but suicide. In contrast given the facts of the case, I honestly believe this is a fair deal. From what I've read of Aaro
17.
by tcuk 14y ago
Did you actually just post this? I'm assuming your a grown adult, so it's weird that I'm having to explain this: Everyone else refers to the average person, or more so if you want to be technical, the average emotional response..
18.
by tcuk 14y ago
Hi Shock, Basically we operate in a society (thankfully in my opinion), where actually the onus is on the accuser to prove the accusations, with evidence, beyond reasonable doubt. The above humans outlined unless have some emotional deficie
19.
by tcuk 14y ago
I believe it's because for most people who read the case, there's so much mud in the water, the first impression one receives of the case, is that Aaron was facing 35 years in prison, and 1 million dollar fine. Especially non USA-natives wh
20.
by tcuk 14y ago
I'm sorry, but if you are arguing that Aaron Swartz did absolutely not break any current laws (whether you agree with them or not), then you are delusional, I urge you to read Orin Kerr's analysis of the situation, and refute anything he ha
21.
by tcuk 14y ago
This whole Aaron Swartz episode, has really shown how un-objective this community is. The last few days I've never seen such hyperbole and sensationalism plague a community. It's the exact same you'd expect from the comments section from an