The most prestigious law school admissions discussion board in the world.
|
 |
 
|
How fucked is this Craigslist prankster?
Poast new message in this thread
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:09 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Read: http://www.waxy.org/archive/2006/09/08/sex_bait.shtml
Short version: Dude pretends to be chick into BDSM on Craigslist. Dude gets replies, e-mails, photos, etc. Dude posts them on the web. Shit hits fan.
|
 |
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:17 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry ive actually wondered why people dont do this many times before... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6584958) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:27 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Fear of retaliation? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585016) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:41 PM Author: Dark wrinkle Subject: I wouldn't be upset if he were viciously beaten. I just got caught up (being a dumb dothead you have no ability to write a proper summary.)
The guy looks like a faggot. Based on his responses to the people begging him not to post their informatioon, he clearly enjoys ruining people's lives - which seems to mean he has the personality of a predatory psycho.
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:13 PM Author: shimmering nursing home prole the new site is down too, this is all some serious pwnage http://rfjason.com/temp/thecraigslistexperiment/
"Due to the overwhelming popularity of getting pwned on Craigslist, we have moved the official response list. Click Here To Go To The New Location Responses are now indexed, and annotated with voice narration. LULZ!" |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:16 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker I think Jason Fortuny is the one who's going to end up seriously fucked in the end. How many lawsuits do you think he can afford to defend against? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6584953) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:22 PM Author: avocado scourge upon the earth cumskin a million billion (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6584980) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:28 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Maybe half that if he's lucky. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585024) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:31 PM Author: Ruby overrated kitty cat He'll get some 1st amendment lawyer to knock it out pro bono, just for the publicity. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585048) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:38 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker I doesn't seem like a very attractive pro bono case. The client isn't sympathetic. There's no strong, unique constituency that would want to see the defendant win. The advertising would only reach other goofy ass pranksters (just look as his picture) who don't have any money. And the legal issues aren't particularly sexy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585101) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:20 PM Author: galvanic toilet seat pistol Well none of this really matters because none of those guys will sue. The last thing they want is to give more attention to this. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585679) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:43 PM Author: Dark wrinkle This seems like the rare meritorious IIED case - not that he has any money, but you can make sure he won't ever get any. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585136) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:51 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker He just royally fucked himself. I hope his "experiment" garnered him lots of valuable knowledge. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585190) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 3:49 PM Author: marvelous chapel wow. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585173) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:27 PM Author: shimmering nursing home prole Subject: google cached the site (NWS) http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:SBEAGNQZVCgJ:encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/RFJason_CL_Experiment+http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/index.php/RFJason_CL_Experiment&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1 (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585443) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:30 PM Author: Dark wrinkle That guy really needs to be punished. He just devastated so many people's lives. Check out the guy who wrote from Microsoft. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585459) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:31 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry lol, maybe these married guys shouldnt' have been trolling for sex on craigslist? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585464) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:33 PM Author: Dark wrinkle The MS guy isn't married. Just a deluded nerd. He'll probably lose his job and career over this. Who knows, he might even kill himself. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585467) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:38 PM Author: shimmering nursing home prole v-jecumm@microsoft.com
NSA meeting, and if we hit things off well, may turn into a safe and ongoing NSA friendship. This of course is if you like what we give each other…lol I’m married and looking to fill the needs not being done at home. So if you’re still reading, look at my picture, and think about it… Me: 5'11" 160 lbs Hazel green eyes Blond hair Medium build Chat me: j_at_ms Yahoo Thanks Jerry Cell # (206) 793-9107
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:39 PM Author: Dark wrinkle Why would he tell her he's married? maybe he was trying to break up his marriage. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585481) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2006 2:42 AM Author: Puce juggernaut chad He's a contractor, not a full-time employee, so his career will be fine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6628089) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2006 10:06 AM Author: Violet Concupiscible Lodge lol (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6628691) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:34 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Who says they're married, and why should that matter? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585470) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:41 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry in the original article it states that some of them were married.
for the guys that aren't married, why is it such a big deal? so what they got caught trying to get laid on the internet? maybe some people might lose respect for them? whooo-heeeee. how sad. cry me a river. its the fucking internet. personally i dont put shit out on the internet that may come back to haunt me someday... i would *never* give my real name, number, etc to somebody i didn't know unless i was sure they were harmless. so its hard for me to feel sympathy for them.
and honestly, other than losing a marriage, what that is *serious* are these guys really going to lose by having been exposed? a job? ok, well, if you have the sort of job where you're going to be fired for soliticiting sex on the internet, then maybe you should either #1- not be doing it or #2- be prepared to do something else when it backfires. what if that girl in the ad was real and it (since it didn't show her face) was somebody they knew IRL and then she decided to expose them? the outcome would be the same. that's the sort of risk you run when you post retarded shit on the internet. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:45 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "in the original article it states that some of them were married."
Implying that some aren't.
"for the guys that aren't married, why is it such a big deal?"
Ask them.
***Why don't you tell us your name, e-mail address, and phone number and then post your picture RIGHT FUCKING NOW?***
"personally i dont put shit out on the internet that may come back to haunt me someday"
You've never e-mailed another person? You've never bought anything online? You've never communicated with another under the legitimate presumption that the communication would be kept private?
AND HERE'S THE IMPORTANT PART THAT YOU DON'T HAVE A GOOD ANSWER TO: The very fact that you're afraid of your information getting out is evidence that releasing that information is harmful.
You just pwn3d yourself, you stupid cunt. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:03 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry They're the dumbasses who put their names, phone #s, etc on a website responding to a fucking porn ad!
Do I to respond to an anonymous ad with my name, address, and phone # along with something that I am evidently ashamed of? No. I'm not that stupid. With any action like that, you run the risk of being pwnd in one way or another (see my example... what if they ended up knowing the chick IRL and she wanted to make shit tough for them?) on the internet. I wouldn't trust somebody I don't know to keep that secret. That's why I wouldn't do something online with my name, address, and phone # attached to that I'm not completely ok with the whole world knowing about! Even in work emails, etc, I am fairly careful about what I say.
Jesus christ. People need to wake the fuck up. People think that the internet is "private" when clearly its not. Ive had this one figured out for years. And people on this board especially shoudl have recognized this... with j posting cunt's mom's obits and barzini getting pwned, etc... you all (of ALL people) should realize the danger in posting shit in the open. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:08 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "Do I to respond to an anonymous ad with my name, address, and phone # along with something that I am evidently ashamed of?"
No. Why? BECAUSE YOU FUCKING CONCEDED THAT THE INFORMATION'S RELEASE IS HARMFUL! God, you're one stupid cunt.
I like how you skipped this: You've never communicated with another under the legitimate presumption that the communication would be kept private?
"why is it such a big deal?"
YOU ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION, YOU OBLIVIOUS TWAT.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:12 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry you are a frigging idiot. seriously, man. the point is that the people shouldn't have been giving out that info in the first fucking place (especially the married guys)... for the rest of them, whatever. i really don't think it's going to be a big deal, honestly.
what a fucking lawyer, too. think with some common sense, asshole. "legitimate presumption that the communication would be kept private?" LOL! you're dealing with a PORN AD ON CRAIGSLIST, YOU FUCKING RETARD! it's not like you're buying a book from barnes & noble! you don't even know WHO you're talking to! there's a HUGE difference from posting that shit to/from a reputable, KNOWN source and one where you have no idea who the fuck you're talking to!
lol! |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:16 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "why is it such a big deal?"
YOU ANSWERED YOUR OWN QUESTION, YOU OBLIVIOUS TWAT. Why won't you admit that?
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:13 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state there is no REASONABLE expectation of privacy on craigslist. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585645) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:14 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker It wasn't on Craigslist. You lose. It was one-to-one communication.
There's no expectation of privacy FOR THE AD. But that's irrelevant. They didn't post ads in response. They engaged in one-to-one communication via a private means. Very simple. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:20 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state your mind is the only one that's very simple here. given the daily cautionary tales that people post on craigslist iteself about men being women and women being blackmailers, no reasonable person should give their personal details to a self-proclaimed pervert and expect privacy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585676) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:30 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker The fact that one didn't heed a warning doesn't legitimize the intentional dissemination of one-to-one communication to a broader audience. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585719) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:32 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry are you fucking serious!?!?!?
lol!
seriously.... you are going to be an amazing lawyer. i'm not fucking joking. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:33 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state the fact that one uses vaguely legal-sounding expressions doesn't mean shit to me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585736) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:35 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker That's nice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585745) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:39 PM Author: mind-boggling forum these people deserve it. it's called shame and is useful for enforcing social norms. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585484) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:42 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Social norms like imposing liability for intentionally inflicting emotional distress on others? Oh, wait, I'm thinking of something else. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585498) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:06 PM Author: mind-boggling forum you're sense of morality is inverted. they were exposed for being the scum that they are. they deserve to be emotionally devestated and they deserve any cocomitant shame and derision. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585608) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:09 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Your argument cherry picks. You select only the social norms you like. Prohibitions against IIED are clearly social norms.
The end. You lose. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:13 PM Author: mind-boggling forum Legally, as a tort, I admit they may have a good case. However, torts =/ social norm (strict liability requires no fault). Contracts /= social norms (moral consideration is not valid consideration). Con law /= social norms (hate speech is protected). To conflate the law with social norms is a naturalistic fallacy, one that those camel jockey's in afghanistan call sharia.
thanks for playing, but's it's clear you know next to nothing about moral philosophy, political philosophy, anthropology, or psychology. you are an ignorant faggot.
"The end. You lose." what a pathetic sign off. HTH. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:19 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker You like to pretend that there's some monolithic Social Norm that can be enforced. You're wrong. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585672) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:23 PM Author: mind-boggling forum right back at you.
still, your post makes no sense. of course there's no "monolithic Social Norm" that can be enforced, but we as a society have a general standard that gratuitous internet-solicited sex is bad, and cheating on your wife/husband with internet-solicited sex is even worse. the norm is enforced pro rata, by the proportion of society that feels it to be reprehensible. obviously, they wouldn't be so upset if they didn't know what they were doing is wrong.
this is the problem with post 60's america: no one feels any shame any more nor is anyone willing to tell anyone else that what they are doing is inappropriate. well, guess what...these guys have unclean hands and everyone in america now knows it. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:26 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "we as a society have a general standard that gratuitous internet-solicited sex is bad"
So what? It wasn't posted to society generally. It was posted to a sub-set of society that has quite different norms of acceptability.
"they wouldn't be so upset if they didn't know what they were doing is wrong."
What is JCM doing that's wrong? She won't post her contact information here. What are you doing wrong? Why won't you post your contact information here?
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:31 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "What is JCM doing that's wrong? She won't post her contact information here. What are you doing wrong? Why won't you post your contact information here?"
there is a fundamental difference b/w posting you information for fear of being spammed/stalked/tracked back to your house a la ruskie (which is why JCM doesn't want to post her info), and on the other hand not wanting to post your info for fear of having your IRL self associated with the stupidity/racism/perversion of your online persona.
basically, neither of us want or names posted not because we are scared of any public shaming, but rather because we are scared of getting tracked down by weirdos. in this craiglist deal, these pervs' reasons for not wanting their names published is because they are ashamed at what they did. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:34 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker First, you can't say anything about the respondants to the CL ad. They haven't said anything about it. Second, JCM has said all sorts of shit she doesn't want attached to her. She admits as much above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585740) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:36 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry yeah, the drug shit. which is why i wont post my personal info! *smacks head* because i'm smart enough not to post it when there is bad shit that i've written about. but sex isn't a big deal because its not ILLEGAL and shouldn't be a huge deal unless you are MARRIED (hence my original post). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585750) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:36 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Thanks for conceding that posting personal information is a "big deal." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585756) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:38 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry you totally missed the point.
in any case, it was fun sparring with you. have a nice night. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:39 PM Author: mind-boggling forum i think you're missing her point, as well as mine above. it's only a big deal because of the pragmatic consequences. for these guys, it's the cocomitant shame, which is a product of their own behavior. as jcm points out, if society (or their family et al) feels this is no big deal, then they shouldn't be worried. It's only because as a society we find this behavior reprehensible that they are upset. AGAIN, without shame (speaking as an anthropologist/psychologist/socialogist), society could not enforce morality and other social norms. that jcm doesn't want to post her info shows what an effective mechanism it is. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585769) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:40 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry not to mention the fact that i dont want some vindictive fuck sending my posts to the local dea. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585777) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:42 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Yeah, people don't like suffering negative consequences as a result of the release of private information.
Society doesn't like drug users. It's probably in your interest to keep your information secret. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:02 PM Author: mind-boggling forum again, see how gypsy completely misses our above posts where we point out there is a difference b/w what these guys are upset about--they are ashamed at their own behavior--and being generally afraid of being stalked on the internet by weirdos--which is why neither gypsy or other "normal" people dont want to post their info. however, i doubt these guys are this upset because they are worried about being stalked over the internet.
let's see how he responds to this post, especially since he's previously ignored this line of analysis. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:11 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "they are ashamed at their own behavior"
***** PROVE IT *****
How do you know they don't merely want to avoid negative consequences as JCM wishes to avoid negative consequences?
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:16 PM Author: mind-boggling forum ok, this is the core of our dispute. my guess is they want their info removed b/c it is now associated with internet sex perversion while you think they are just generally upset over having it posted. we can't prove it either way, but my *gut* tells me that they are more embarrassed than anything. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586002) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:17 PM Author: 180 love of her life church they don't have to feel shame for there to be undesirable consequences. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586005) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:20 PM Author: mind-boggling forum this is the way every libel or slander suit is started. but again, this guy is publishing truthful information. we can't conflate the fact that these guys face potentially adverse consequences with a tort claim.
also, correct me if i'm wrong, but you have to suffer emotional distress (and not just undesirable consequences) to make a claim of IIED, which is the point of this branch. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:15 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker You can suffer emotional distress that arises from things other than shame. That's a pretty simple concept. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586297) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:26 PM Author: mind-boggling forum while i would generally agre with you, look to the post to which i'm responding. "adverse consequences" implies more than just emotional damage/shame/etc. reading comprehension is a pretty basic ability. lsatpwn3d. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586340) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:27 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker It doesn't matter if it's truthful information for these purposes. You're simply wrong. You think it's about shame, and he pointed out that the actionable damages don't have to arise from shame. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586345) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:29 PM Author: mind-boggling forum listen, we don't disagree here.
if they are scared of being spammed, which is an adverse consequence, then they may have a tort. It just wouldn't be IIED.
what did you get on the lsats/lawschool? i'm genuinely curious. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:37 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "what did you get on the lsats/lawschool? i'm genuinely curious."
Now you're fishing for an ad hominem! LOL. What a loser. If I answer high, you'll say something predictable like "it doesn't sound like it." If I answer low, you'll say something like "that figures."
Here, let me answer twice so you can show your full range of wit:
I got a 154, and I go to Depaul.
I got a 175, and I go to Columbia. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:40 PM Author: mind-boggling forum it's just that you don't look to above posts to see the context of the branch.
by the way, i saw your pics. you look like an untouchable. then i realized, that your retarded world view is a product of your filthy, 3rd-world upbringing, and that like the rest of your civilization, you're probably not capable of any indpendent philosophical thinking. the last indian dude i'd want to have a convo with would probably be asoka.
i'm genuinely curious, do you smell like curry or not? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:26 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state this guy is as wrong on the law as he is on his moral intuition. just because he's heard of IIED doesn't mean he knows the elements of it. see below. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585704) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:32 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly;
Intentionally? Check.
(2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and
Outrageous? Quite possibly. Shocks the conscience? Quite possibly. Go ask a jury or a judge sitting for the bench trial.
(3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress.
Cause? Easy to establish. Severe emotional distress? I don't know. Ask one of the people whose information was released. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:34 PM Author: mind-boggling forum (3) that's the problem. it was the notice of the pervs' own conduct that caused the distress. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585742) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:36 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker There can be more than one but-for cause. 0L, are you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585752) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:42 PM Author: mind-boggling forum i'm guessing you've never been to a court room? goodluck trying to explain this to billy bob. all billy bob's gonna know is that these guys are perverts and that he's going to want to underscore that these guys have no cause of action as a matter of public policy (my words, not his).
also, um...i think you should go back and review causation and reasonablness. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:01 PM Author: Chrome stimulating keepsake machete Maybe. But you could at least get to a jury verdict - which is much better than 99% of these cases. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585905) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:03 PM Author: mind-boggling forum technically, i bet you could get a jury verdict. but in how many jurisdictions? my guess is not many, especially in state courts. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585917) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:15 PM Author: 180 love of her life church you don't have to explain but-for to billy bob. billy bob can easily grasp the notion that the problem wouldn't exist if jason fortuny hadn't posted the information publicly. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585984) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:19 PM Author: mind-boggling forum on the other hand, billy bob also knows that they wouldn't be suffering any emotional distress if they weren't sodomites/pervs/liberals to begin with. which way do you think the nascar dad and soccer mom going to vote as a matter of public policy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586009) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:28 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker That won't be the question before the jury on either the IIED or the privacy and publicity claims.
Jurors aren't mavericks. They listen to the instructions. You're trying to pretend that the rare cases of nullification are typical. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:35 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state emotional distress [must] be medically diagnosable and medically significant.
now go fuck yourself. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:37 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker That's a pretty low standard, and it's easy to meet. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585759) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:40 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i disagree. maybe you bribed your shrink for a ritalin script, but not everyone can/does. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585774) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:33 PM Author: mind-boggling forum touche. a lot of our fellow law students forget what IRL people who make up juries are really like. i don't see this flying at all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585735) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:16 PM Author: 180 love of her life church why are they scum, newguy69? and why does your screen name refer to a sexually deviant act? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585994) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:22 PM Author: mind-boggling forum people cheating on their wives=scum. soliciting sex from a "sexually submissive" women=scum.
by the way, 69 is a number NOT an act. what are you, a soddomite? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:29 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker He caught you. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586065) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:32 PM Author: mind-boggling forum oh shit. i better block my ip address now.
i don't know if you are trying to be funny or not. either way, lame post. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:50 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Block your IP address? WTF are you talking about? Either way, he got you with the reference to you moniker. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586202) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:44 PM Author: Dark wrinkle but what if they lose their job, their lives and eventually kill themselves? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585509) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:04 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry lol.
killing yourself over this?
pathetic. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:10 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "why is it such a big deal?"
It's not. Go ahead and post your personal contact info. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:16 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry you're losing this argument here.
i would post my personal contact info if i KNEW you guys wouldn't fuck with me... which some of you may and some of you may not, but not otherwise. however, since i have posted shit here that i dont want spread out to people i know IRL, i dont post my personal info. what part of that don't you get??? are you really that thick?
this whole discussion reminds me of a poster from the old pr board who posted by his real name. I think it was john malin or something like that and had his real email in the email address. but because he only answered law threads, never wrote anything controversial, etc, he was able to be open. He didn't have anything to hide, so he could reveal himself. Those of us who *do* have something to hide (or have posted controversial shit) dont' reveal our info! |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:20 PM Author: mind-boggling forum i love how the whole point of shame goes over gypsy's head. shame is a natural reaction being exposed for doing stupid/immoral shit. the only reason these people got so upset was because they did stuff that would be reprehensible their neighbors knew about it. and guess what... (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585674) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker No, bitch, you're missing the point. You asserted that there's essentially no harm in the release of the information. You have performatively contradicted that claim by yourself refusing to release your contact information.
You can claim they acted imprudently, but that's not the same thing as saying there's no negative impact to having the information released.
You also don't seem to understand the distinction between one-to-one communication and one-to-many communication. If you can't grasp that, I can't help you.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:32 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry i wouldn't release my info on here because of what i've posted about DRUG USE, idiot. because its ILLEGAL. if i posted "oh shit, i got railed really hard last night by my next door neighbor" and it got put on the internet, honestly i would be upset but i would probably learn a lesson! and that lesson is to be careful what you post and when you post it! also, i dont want to be stalked/harassed! so i dont post my info!
and yes, i do understand there is a *distinction* between 1 to 1 communication and one to many... the thing is that why would you automatically trust the other party if you didn't know who they were?!?!? that's what i want to know! |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:40 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "i wouldn't release my info on here because of what i've posted about DRUG USE, idiot. because its ILLEGAL"
In other words, you don't want your information posted because there might be negative consequences. They probably don't want their information posted because there might be negative consequences. Sounds about right to me.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:34 PM Author: Dark wrinkle Are small firm lawyers calling these guys trying to get business? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585471) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:36 PM Author: shimmering nursing home prole why would they? they aren't going to collect much of anything from some guy with an internet blog (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585475) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:37 PM Author: Poppy gas station i guess i'm naive, but i'm amazed so many losers jumped at this ad. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585476) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:39 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker He might have a house. You can also garnish his welfare and SS payments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585482) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:41 PM Author: Zombie-like Theater Stage Partner you can garnish welfare and SS? are there any limitations on awarding damages that put people into poverty/homelessness? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585491) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:46 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker There are various protections. But it's cool with me if he's stuck in poverty for the rest of his life. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585523) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:07 PM Author: mind-boggling forum you are a worthless human being. these people are fucking pathetic and deserve to be outted. they wanted to cheat on their SO's and yet you defend them. thanks for ruining america, hippie. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585617) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:11 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker How many of them were cheating? How do you know?
What arrangements did they have with their SO's? How do you know?
How many were merely single and not cheating? How do you know? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:16 PM Author: mind-boggling forum if there is nothing wrong (either by the standards of their SO's or society in general) with soliciting sex over the internet, then they shouldn't have anything to worry about. On the other hand, if they are bothered by this, then it's their own fault. Market place of ideas and the truth shall set you free and all that jazz. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585663) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:21 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state nicely put. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585684) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:22 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Answer my questions.
And then tell me what role privacy plays generally? Why should society ever recognize any rights to privacy? Your shitting in your bathroom isn't wrong. What do you have to worry about if someone published videos of it? Your wacking off should be published to. You don't have anything to worry about. And when you finally have sex, why shouldn't that be published?
I know you're going to try your damndest to avoid this. So let's make it perfectly fucking clear that I asked the questionm: Why should society ever recognize any rights to privacy? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:25 PM Author: mind-boggling forum re: right to privacy, it depends if you're speaking legally or morally. there's a difference. try not to conflate the two. (see sharia law). tell me which you are talking about. thanks! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585702) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:38 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Answer for both senses. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585763) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: mind-boggling forum i was gonna answer one way for the sake of discussion, but since you're being a douche and telling me to "answer for both senses" how about you parse my analysis above that this is all a part of the market place, to which i will respond once i hear your arguments. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585802) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:46 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "Market place of ideas and the truth shall set you free and all that jazz."
That's not even an argument. And if it is, you need to show how it's relevant. So, no, I'm not answering your irrelevant non-argument. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: mind-boggling forum let's backtrack:
"But it's cool with me if he's stuck in poverty for the rest of his life."
why do you think this? -->you answered because of their right to privacy was invaded.
my allusion to mill not-so-subtly implied that the "right to privacy" exists within the context of other social norms. (this is what i meant by "all that jazz.") i apologize, sometime i forget that other people aren't as versed in political theory and philosophy, especially when they spout of terms like "privacy" and try to sound like lawyers in general.
anyway, going back to your original post (as well as my posts above that you have ignored), you are conflating moral with legal standard. this guy *may* have violated a legal norm (IIED), but this does not translate into a moral standard. (again, if you believe that law and morality are one in the same, you end up with bs like sharia law). on the other hand, these pervs violated a social standard, and this is why they are feeling so worried about having their names out there.
cf: society will not tolerate people making videos of other people taking a dump, because while people would certainly feel embarressed by other people seeing them taking a dump, their source of embarrassment does not stem from socially undesirable behavior. likewise, i can get fined for failing to put in quarters in a parking meter, but being found "guilty" by the court doesn't necessarily mean i acted immorally or deserve public shaming.
thus, these people deserve to be exposed because they are engaging in socially undesirable/immoral behavior. w/o social enforcement mechanims such as shame, society would have no other way to maintain and transmit valuable social norms. furthermore, social enforcement mechanims such as custom and shame are much more effectacious than the tort system.
i summary, you are a douchebag who was clearly a poli sci major and lacks any sort of understanding in anthropology, political and moral philosophy, or practical understanding of how the court system and juries operate.
hth,
newguy |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "you are conflating moral with legal standard."
Wrong. I'm saying the legal standard arose from moral and ethical standards.
"these pervs violated a social standard, and this is why they are feeling so worried about having their names out there."
And the guy who posted the CL ad violated a standard against intentionally harming others. Check the links the original post will lead you to. There are clearly people who are more outraged by the baiter's actions than the respondants' actions.
"their source of embarrassment does not stem from socially undesirable behavior."
Answering in the negative isn't answering in the positive. Nice try. The reason people don't like it is WHAT? Is it because there is shame associated with bodily functions? And why didn't you answer my other questions? Why not allow people to distribute without your permission videos of you whacking off or having sex with your (hypothetical) wife?
"you are a douchebag who was clearly a poli sci major"
Wrong again. Not a poli sci major. You're not very good at being right.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:15 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "Answering in the negative isn't answering in the positive. Nice try. The reason people don't like it is WHAT? Is it because there is shame associated with bodily functions? And why didn't you answer my other questions? Why not allow people to distribute without your permission videos of you whacking off or having sex with your (hypothetical) wife?"
this is where i realize you are a dumbass. masturbation/having sex with your wife are the same thing as taking a dump, ie none of these actions are considered socially undesirable. hence, taking videos of people doing this is considered unacceptable behavior.
i think this craiglist guy is a lot closer to someone who would put up a camera on any MLK street and videotaping johns.
"And the guy who posted the CL ad violated a standard against intentionally harming others. Check the links the original post will lead you to. There are clearly people who are more outraged by the baiter's actions than the respondants' actions."
there are plenty of behaviors that are meant to "intentioanlly hurt others." i once called a chick fat and she cried. does that make it a tort? this is the exact same type of thinking where i again point out that you are conflating moral and legal standards.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:32 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "none of these actions are considered socially undesirable."
Still trying to avoid answering the question, I see.
Why do we protect the privacy of those things? Why do we protect the privacy of those things? Why do we protect the privacy of those things? Why do we protect the privacy of those things? Why do we protect the privacy of those things? Why do we protect the privacy of those things? Why do we protect the privacy of those things? Why do we protect the privacy of those things?
"taking videos of people doing this is considered unacceptable behavior."
Why?
"i once called a chick fat and she cried. does that make it a tort?"
No. That violated a social norm but not a legal one. But it's possible to violate both.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:39 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "Why do we protect the privacy of those things? "
I've taken this from my above post, which you have seemed to ignored.
"cf: society will not tolerate people making videos of other people taking a dump, because while people would certainly feel embarressed by other people seeing them taking a dump, their source of embarrassment does not stem from socially undesirable behavior. likewise, i can get fined for failing to put in quarters in a parking meter, but being found "guilty" by the court doesn't necessarily mean i acted immorally or deserve public shaming."
I would also like to point out that you have not articulated any sort of moral and/or legal standard besides shouting "right to privacy." while i welcome criticisms with my anthropological perspective, i also expect a contructed argument from you as well. up to this point you are just asking rhetorical questions as if you are so fucking superior to everyone else. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:43 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "people would certainly feel embarressed by other people seeing them taking a dump"
Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?
"their source of embarrassment does not stem from socially undesirable behavior"
So where DOES it come from? You told me where it doesn't come from. Not the same thing. So where DOES it come from?
"I would also like to point out that you have not articulated any sort of moral and/or legal standard besides shouting 'right to privacy.'"
IronMonkey already posted the applicable legal standard below. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:57 PM Author: mind-boggling forum as of yet, you have failed to articulate a counter argument. it's easy to critique what i'm saying, why don't you fucking produce something yourself.
""their source of embarrassment does not stem from socially undesirable behavior"
So where DOES it come from? You told me where it doesn't come from. Not the same thing. So where DOES it come from? "
you're a dolt. where the fuck do you think it comes from? all that matters is that taking a dump isn't socially undesirable behavior. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:03 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Answer the fucking questions. It's simple. Why can't you do that?
Until you do, I can only presume that your notion of "privacy" is so weak as to be meaningless. Consequently, were we to widely adopt your manifested understanding of the justifications of privacy, there would be none. The result would be that I could tape you fucking your wife, masturbating, shitting, etc.
Of course, it's easy to prevent that conclusion from being reached. All you have to do is answer my questions. For a man who likes to drop allusions to Mill, you'd think that wouldn't be so hard. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:06 PM Author: mind-boggling forum you really are stupid. i did answer the question. the source of embarrassment from taking a dump is not important. all that matters is that people feel embarrassed and don't want others to see them taking a dump. this is why we contruct privacy rights. i've said this 3 times now.
the difference is that these pervs are embarrassed b/c they know what they are doing is socially deviant behavior.
now, it's your turn to MAKE A FUCKING ARGUMENT YOU WORTHLESS, ILLITERATE PIECE OF SHIT. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:07 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "all that matters is that people feel embarrassed and don't want others to see them taking a dump."
Why do they feel embarrassed? The answer IS important. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:11 PM Author: 180 love of her life church he can't answer your question because then it will become apparent that his conception of privacy will turn out to be inconsistent with his advocacy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586287) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:15 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker I know. I know.
He's pulling the Strom Thurmond/Bull Connor technique whereby he refuses to answer questions that lead to results he doesn't like. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:32 PM Author: mind-boggling forum you have yet to make a constructive argument. where do you think privacy rights come from? where do you think morality comes from? what's your fucking standard? you truly are an idiot. you have no philosophical basis for any of your claims. like a typical republican, you "feel" something, so therefore it has to be true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586372) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:38 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "all that matters is that people feel embarrassed and don't want others to see them taking a dump."
Why do they feel embarrassed? The answer IS important.
"like a typical republican, you "feel" something, so therefore it has to be true."
WTF?! |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:44 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "Why do they feel embarrassed? The answer IS important."
well, perhaps people are squeamish when it comes to bowel movements. perhaps, humans have an inherent, negative reaction to seeing bowel movements.
i've told you that from my perspective, which i have laid out to you, it does not matter why people feel embarrassed given that the embarrassment does not stem from any sense of socially inappropriate behavior.
now, it's your turn to lay out your argument about privacy, morality, embarrassment, shame, et al. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:48 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "well, perhaps people are squeamish when it comes to bowel movements."
Answer ALL the questions (e.g. masturbation, sex with wife). And why would people be squeamish about shitting? After all, they don't worry too much about coughing or sneazing, both of which are necessary and natural bodily functions.
"it does not matter why people feel embarrassed given that the embarrassment does not stem from any sense of socially inappropriate behavior."
It matters. It matters because the key just might not be "socially inappropriate behavior." Combine that with the fact that you are ASSUMING that they feel shame (as opposed to some other breed of discomfort and distress), and you've got a problem. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:59 PM Author: mind-boggling forum it's all the same shit. sex with wife, masturbation, shitting, it's all you in compromising positions. the difference is that people don't think these are "bad" just that they are intimately related to the individual.
i don't see why this is related to these internet pervs.
seriously, give me a counter argument or i'm done with you.
ps, are you an untouchable? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:02 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "it's all you in compromising positions."
Why the fuck should they be "compromising"? You're not really answering the question. You're just restating it.
"people don't think these are "bad" just that they are intimately related to the individual."
Sort of like one-on-one sexual communication with another adult?
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:12 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "Sort of like one-on-one sexual communication with another adult?"
Great, you sort made an argument. not really.
as you know, sexual communications/encounters mean different things depending on the context. the context here is different that the sexual communication between and wife and husband in their own bedroom.
Society chooses to privelege monogomous sex behind close doors and chooses to frown upon soliciting sex over the internet, especially sex that is seen to dominate the women, and especially sex that is outside of marriage. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:20 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "the context here is different that the sexual communication between and wife and husband in their own bedroom."
So what? Shitting is alone. Masturbation is alone. Sex is not alone. E-mailing is not alone.
You still can't explain why we should afford privacy to certain acts and not others. It's all ad hoc for you.
"Society chooses to privelege monogomous sex behind close doors and chooses to frown upon soliciting sex over the internet"
So if a married couple has a threesome, your "rule" (hah! like you could call it that) would stip that interaction of the right to privacy and permit others to justifiably distribute a video of it without permission. Monogamous homosexual sex would fall under the same category. And adulterers and fornicators would be out of luck, too. But, oddly enough, your little rule doesn't match the real world very well. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:26 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "You still can't explain why we should afford privacy to certain acts and not others. It's all ad hoc for you."
We afford privacy to certain acts because society finds them acceptable. Thus, the law legalizes the social norm.
We do not afford privacy to other acts such as those maggots who got caught on dateline, because society finds that behavior unacceptable. Thus, the law distinguishes the two. It's a straight up legal realist position.
LAST FUCKING TIME YOU DIRTY IMMIGRANT: GIVE ME A POSITIVE ARGUMENT FOR YOUR SIDE. I'm happy to hear criticisms of my beliefs, but you are obliged to provide your side of the argument as well. or can't you? are indians just inferior in general and unable to develop a moral system on their own that doesn't force women to burn themselves alive? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:29 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker You've switched to legal realism because your previous moral claim is unprincipled.
Translation: I win. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:31 PM Author: mind-boggling forum my previous claim was premised on an emotive theory of morality, which is an integral part of pragmatism, which in turn is the philosophical cornerstone for legal realism, ie holmes and james were good friends.
you really are a fucking illiterate, worthless, uneducated piece of trash.
i'm getting drunk. have fun posting on xoxo because no white women would ever touch you. come to think of it, no respectable, educated indian would touch you either.
peace! |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:17 PM Author: Chest-beating swashbuckling gaping Look up "effectacious."
I mean fuck, I'm glad you didn't say something I agreed with.
[Edit (hanging post): to newguy69]. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:37 PM Author: pungent boyish dingle berry your examples are fucking terrible. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585761) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:41 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker They aren't examples. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585783) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 4:39 PM Author: Dark wrinkle they don't have to take it on contingency, some of these guys might be able to pay by the hour or part contingency - just to get revenge on the guy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585486) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:09 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state to all who are lawsuit-happy, what cause of action? and what jury will be sympathetic to the plaintiffs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585624) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:13 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker IIED is pretty obvious. The Wired.com article refers to a WA statute. But I haven't researched it and won't unless someone plans on paying me to. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585647) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:17 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state not that obvious. one element of IIED in most jurisdictions is proven mental illness resulting from teh act. the last time anyone won an IIED claim was that one case you read in torts. and damages are trivial (your shrink bills). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585669) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:24 PM Author: Dark wrinkle Why couldn't the court provide punitive damages?
Mental illness is not an element of the claim. I think the elements were (1) Intentional act (clearly satisfied here) and (2) Outrageous by reasonable man standard (which could easily be satisfied here depending on the factfinder.) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: mind-boggling forum the problem (in my view the saving grace) of the "reasonable" test here is that "reasonableness" is ultimately predicated on policy grounds. i doubt that any jury, as a matter of public policy or moral statement, would convict this guy for publishing the names and letters of would be adulturers and pervs. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585715) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:31 PM Author: Dark wrinkle but the person making that decision might not agree with you. see? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585728) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:05 PM Author: mind-boggling forum sarcasm aside, i want to ask a serious question. have you ever been to a court house and sat in on trials? i've been to both state and federal courts--and while jurors aren't necessarily done (some are while others are very sharp), they also tend to be more provincial. surely, this shit wouldn't fly in any red state in the union. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585926) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:29 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state The tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress has four elements: (1) the defendant must act intentionally or recklessly; (2) the defendant's conduct must be extreme and outrageous; and (3) the conduct must be the cause (4) of severe emotional distress. Hyatt, 943 S.W.2d at 297. emotional distress [must] be medically diagnosable and medically significant. Hyatt, 943 S.W.2d at 297; see also Young, 664 S.W.2d at 265.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:35 PM Author: Dark wrinkle You can easily get a pysch to testify to severe (but temporary) emotional distress.
Where is your cite for your no punitive damages claim? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:36 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i did not make a punitive damages claim. you did. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585755) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:37 PM Author: Dark wrinkle "and damages are trivial (your shrink bills)." what was that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585760) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:41 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state talking about actual damages. i did not consider punitive damages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585782) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:42 PM Author: Dark wrinkle so they might get pun. damages. i don't know IIED rules, anymore. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585791) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state so now you have to prove why they should get punitive damages. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585800) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:46 PM Author: Dark wrinkle no i don't.
that's a subjective standard any way. it depends on the person who decides it. if I were deciding it I would give each plaintiff punitive damages. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:47 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Preserving the integrity of e-mail as a private form of communication is a nice start if you're asking for arguments to make to the fact finder. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585815) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:48 PM Author: sinister jew heaven 1. outrageous conduct - check 2. intent to create emotional distress - check 3. not privaleged - check
whats teh 4th prong again? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:05 PM Author: garnet trip newt Damage (actual suffering of severe emotional distress). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585929) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:19 PM Author: sinister jew heaven ohh right (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586012) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:28 PM Author: Dark wrinkle Invasion of privacy might work too, from
Restatement 2nd torts 652A
(1) One who invades the right of privacy of another is subject to liability for the resulting harm to the interests of the other. (2) The right of privacy is invaded by (a) unreasonable intrusion upon the seclusion of another, as stated in § 652B; or (b) appropriation of the other's name or likeness, as stated in § 652C; or (c) unreasonable publicity given to the other's private life, as stated in § 652D; or (d) publicity that unreasonably places the other in a false light before the public, as stated in § 652E.
Rest 2nd Torts § 652D. Publicity Given To Private Life
One who gives publicity to a matter concerning the private life of another is subject to liability to the other for invasion of his privacy, if the matter publicized is of a kind that (a) would be highly offensive to a reasonable person, and (b) is not of legitimate concern to the public. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:30 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state no reasonable expectation of privacy. see above. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585725) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:37 PM Author: Dark wrinkle Where is your cite for your assertion that e-mails are not subject to reasaonable expectation of privacy? I don't know if they are or not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585757) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:39 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i did not make any such assertions about e-mails in general. just about e-mails to anonymous people with perverted inclinations on a message board where you can read daily warnings about how nothing is what it appears to be. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585768) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:41 PM Author: Dark wrinkle ok, well where is your cite for that? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585785) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:43 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i don't have a cite, just more common sense than you ever will. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585795) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: Dark wrinkle although the judge's and the jury's opinions mean something - your opinion means nothing. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585804) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:48 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i have as high a chance of getting on that jury as you do, so my opinion is worth at least as much as yours. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585819) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:50 PM Author: Dark wrinkle what about people who think like me vs. people who think like you? which of thoee groups has the best chance of being on the jury? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585837) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:53 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state jurors watch dateline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585855) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:54 PM Author: Dark wrinkle and? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585865) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:56 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker What does that even mean? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585875) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:58 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state ok fine. dateline is a show that has repeatedly exposed internet perverts who were trying to have sex with underage victims, who just happened to be adults posing as minors on internet chat sites. see any analogies here, smart guy? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585888) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker No. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585895) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: Dark wrinkle please explain (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585897) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:00 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i can't. there's a reason i didn't choose special ed as a career. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585901) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:01 PM Author: Dark wrinkle "i can't." exactly (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585904) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:02 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state well, it's more like "i won't" because i don't have the patience. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585910) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:03 PM Author: Dark wrinkle pathetic. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585919) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:44 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker It's not forthcoming. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585803) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:49 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state already told you not to hold your breath. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585824) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:46 PM Author: mind-boggling forum dude, it's all about your every day jurors. try to articulate the concept of "unclean hands" and you quickly realize how difficult it is. the same principle applies here: jurors won't award these douchebags for trying to solicite sex over the internet, EVEN IF there was an invasion of privacy and what not. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585809) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:49 PM Author: Dark wrinkle what if the jurors were like the people on this thread, who side with the plaintiffs? what would happen then? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585828) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:51 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state impossible. they would be cut out at voir dire when they start ranting about "niggers" and "spics." (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585839) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:52 PM Author: Dark wrinkle what if they don't start ranting about "niggers" and "spics." what then?
I wonder how long it will take this idiot to get it. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:53 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state what if you had a brain? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585862) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:55 PM Author: Dark wrinkle pathetic (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585869) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:50 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker I'll bet at least one of those dozens of respondants wasn't actually looking for sex or could at least persuasively claim that they weren't. They could have just been screwing around on the internet. And that's not all that unbelievable, just look at how the issue started in the first place. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585835) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:52 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state jurors watch Dateline. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585848) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:53 PM Author: Dark wrinkle jurors also *gasp* look for sex.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:55 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state but they would never admit to it. on the contrary, internet pervs will be extra hard on the plaintiffs just to prove their bona fides. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585872) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:57 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Because you say so. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585881) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:01 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state just consider for a moment that normal people who constitute the majority of our population do not share your sympathy towards internet sexual deviants. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585907) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:02 PM Author: Dark wrinkle what if the majority of our population is sympathetic towards the plaintiffs in this case? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585915) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:03 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state what if my aunt had a penis? then she'd be my uncle. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585920) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:05 PM Author: Dark wrinkle how does that answer my question? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585927) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:06 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state it's a pointless exercise. what if the plaintiff were right? then he would win. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585933) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:08 PM Author: Dark wrinkle so if jurors agree with plaintiff then he would win, right? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585942) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:09 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state when is this ever NOT the case? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585946) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: Dark wrinkle It took 50 messages to get you to realize this.
now do you see the stupidity of your "plaintiff can't win" argument?
I better get good karma for teaching you this. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:12 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state plaintiff can't win with a jury consisting of reasonable people, as we always assume they should be (see, e.g. the summary judgment standard). plaintiff can win with a jury consisting of severely disturbed, openly deviant, internet perverts. that is all. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585966) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:16 PM Author: Dark wrinkle I'm going to assume you got it, because I don't want to go through all that again. And don't project your personal problems onto others. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586000) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:19 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i edited out "perverts like yourself" as that was an irrelevant ad hominem. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586014) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:25 PM Author: Dark wrinkle You must have some devious stuff going on in your head. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586043) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:27 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state that's what my girlfriend says. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586053) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:29 PM Author: Dark wrinkle riiight. now you have a girlfriend. you're not a devious creep. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586068) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:34 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state devious is not the same as deviant. at least get your insults straight, you illiterate fraud. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586106) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:37 PM Author: Dark wrinkle you know I meant to use the word devious. is anything you say not wrapped in layers of devious lies? you're really fucked up. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586117) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:19 PM Author: 180 love of her life church i would vote for the plaintiff. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586011) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:20 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state your moniker fits you like a glove. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586019) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:21 PM Author: 180 love of her life church it also fits the average juror. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586027) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:23 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state that is true. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586033) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:20 PM Author: Emerald Hyperventilating Address odd, i'd want a reasonable jury. reasonable juries seem to apply the law, rather than making a finding based on morality or public policy as newguy suggested. and let's examine the pool. seattle is a liberal area and has the highest percentage of college graduates - people who would be more responsive to using the cold hard facts (i would think) (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586018) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:22 PM Author: 180 love of her life church in addition to being liberal, washington also has the highest proportion of non-religious people in the u.s. presumably, they don't have the "sex is bad" baggage to the same degree. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586032) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:21 PM Author: Emerald Hyperventilating Address dp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586026) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:24 PM Author: Emerald Hyperventilating Address wtf, tp (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586039) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:57 PM Author: Dark wrinkle what if they don't behave in the way you predict? is that possible?
I think I'm getting close to having this idiot have his Eureka moment. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state what if you stopped with the what ifs? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585896) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:00 PM Author: Dark wrinkle if you think about those what ifs, you might actually have your Eureka moment. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585903) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:03 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state you like saying eureka moment, don't you? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585916) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:06 PM Author: Dark wrinkle not really, now can you answer my question? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585932) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:08 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state i'm bored. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585941) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:09 PM Author: Dark wrinkle why are you being evasive? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585945) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: mind-boggling forum i've actually done significant research on counterfactuals and moral reasoning. as it turns out, people that occasional violate social norms--but who aren't bad enough to be considered deviants--tend to overreact in favor of enforcing social norms. it partly has to do with perception theory in psychology, where they want to make themselves feel better for acting badly in the past.
anyway, sexual deviants will be out in voir dire, while potential jurors who may have done this once or twice will more likely than not vote against these internet pervs. but again, i'm just basing this on anthropological and psychologic studies available to anyone who's taken psych 101. pretty basic stuff really. Eureka!! haha, you're a fag. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:12 PM Author: Dark wrinkle what about people who wouldn't be kicked out on voir dire and who side with plaintiffs?
please read my exchange with knowitall a few times, then post. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:22 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state what if you admitted you're wrong? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586030) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:27 PM Author: Dark wrinkle It just occured to me, based on you calling me an internet pervert and then editing it out when I said you might be projecting, that you are devious and in that way quite creepy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586056) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:30 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state this has got to be your argument of last resort. i tried to be civil despite the fact that you irritate the crap out of me. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586071) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:33 PM Author: Dark wrinkle it's not about the case anymore, it's about your devious mind. what caused you to develop this level of self-subterfuge? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586095) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:20 PM Author: 180 love of her life church you're wrong about the research. they overreact when their past "transgressions" are known and their subsequent remediating actions are also known. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586023) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:29 PM Author: mind-boggling forum i'm not "wrong" about the research. first, if there is one straightlace juror, that is enough to remind people of what the social norm is. for god's sake, people can be made to think that a 6-inch stick is really a 10-inch stick.
but more to your point, the very basis of festinger's theory is that the dissonance between a person's actions and views of himself often conflict. unless a person actively thinks of himself as a perv (as opposed to someone who may have once "accidentally cheated) he will be motivated to uphold the social norm in an attempt to reinforce his own self image.
Edit: This isn't even interesting "research." This is shit any psych 101 student should know. This isn't even contemporyr research anymore. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:40 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker You're misapplying it. And simply reminding people of a social norm isn't going to necessarily cause them to ignore their institutional role. In other words, you're ignoring all the role research that arose after Milgram and the Stanford Prison Experiment.
You're also ignoring all the more specifically legal research on juries that indicates that in the vast majority of cases, they genuinely attempt to apply the law even when they don't agree with it.
And your conclusions based on cognitive dissonance theory are just bizzare. Everyone knows there are multiple ways to reduce dissonance. Why you're pretending that there's just one is beyond me.
I swear you're just making things up after quick Google searches.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:53 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "you're also ignoring all the more specifically legal research on juries that indicates that in the vast majority of cases, they genuinely attempt to apply the law even when they don't agree with it."
the legal research also shows that juries often get the law wrong--the research shows that juries are *attempting* to apply the law, but often misinterrpret it. their interpretation, just like judges, often leads to the ends that they wanted to reach anyway.
further more, putting people in front of a fucking mirror makes them suddenly all the more concerned about moral behavior. tell me that a juror is going to say what these guys did should be excused? if you want to argue that jurors may find these internet pervs dispicable but nonetheless the jurors will adhere to their institutional roles you have to do two things: (1) you have to articulate a specific view of a juror. (2) you have to show that actual jurors adhere to your conception of the idealized juror. I would argue (and let's be completely honest, the research here is next to none) that jurors--just like judges--try to be reasonable people and come to an equitable conclusion.
"and your conclusions based on cognitive dissonance theory are just bizzare. everyone knows there are multiple ways to reduce dissonance. why you're pretending that there's just one is beyond me."
why don't you tell me the specific ways that an individual juror can relieve dissonance beyond voting against the pervs? he can vote only one of two ways. why you haven't given me other alternatives is beyond me. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:02 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "the research shows that juries are *attempting* to apply the law, but often misinterrpret it."
Either way shoots down your nonsense about nullification and how "one juror will remind them of social norms." Neither the law nor their understanding of the law will entail your fantasy land.
"if you want to argue that jurors may find these internet pervs dispicable but nonetheless the jurors will adhere to their institutional roles you have to do two things: (1) you have to articulate a specific view of a juror."
No, *I* don't have to do anything. Jurors know that their role is to evaluate evidence and apply the law. There are exceptions, and they are just that -- exceptions.
"(2) you have to show that actual jurors adhere to your conception of the idealized juror."
There's no need for an idealized juror. You're just making shit up again.
"why don't you tell me the specific ways that an individual juror can relieve dissonance beyond voting against the pervs?"
HOLY FUCK! Do you know what dissonance is? One change change either beliefs or their actions. The action is voting. THEY DON'T ***HAVE*** TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS. Moreover, the don't even have to associate their action with their beliefs. They can compartmentalize it into some sort of legal-ish box that doesn't represent their authentic choices made in an environment of free choice. That's a huge part of the reason the ROLE aspect is so important. What are the alternatives? Among others: Compartmentalize and change their beliefs.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:23 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "Either way shoots down your nonsense about nullification and how "one juror will remind them of social norms." Neither the law nor their understanding of the law will entail your fantasy land."
i never mentioned nullification, jack ass. the point is that the law is not an objective concept. ultimately, social norms will creep in and influence their voting. in fact, common law assumes this. judges do the same shit. 0L, are we? read a fucking case and you will see that judges and juries make policy decisions all the time. the whole "Reasonable person" standard is one big invitation to defines and apply social norms.
"No, *I* don't have to do anything. Jurors know that their role is to evaluate evidence and apply the law. There are exceptions, and they are just that -- exceptions."
What is their role? who explained their role to them? "applying the law" means applying the reasonable person standard. beyond that, people in general aren't the rational automotons you want to make them to be. besides, most of the law is made up of vague terms anyway that are meant to be interpretted. it's the *institutional* role of a fucking juror to interpret these words based on their experiences as members of society--the same society that has inculcated them with the norms that guide all aspects of their behavior.
"There's no need for an idealized juror. You're just making shit up again." WRONG. Show me that, given that jurors know what they're *supposed* to do, that they actually do it.
"HOLY FUCK! Do you know what dissonance is? One change change either beliefs or their actions. The action is voting. THEY DON'T ***HAVE*** TO DO ANYTHING ABOUT THEIR ACTIONS. Moreover, the don't even have to associate their action with their beliefs. They can compartmentalize it into some sort of legal-ish box that doesn't represent their authentic choices made in an environment of free choice. That's a huge part of the reason the ROLE aspect is so important. What are the alternatives? Among others: Compartmentalize and change their beliefs."
Let me point out that my original post was clearly in response to pirth who asserted that there are many people who have cheated on their spouses and that they would likely be sympathetic to these pervs.
This is clearly not the case. Given the choice between voting to for or against these pervs, most people will vote against in order to reinforce their own self image. What the hell does it mean to compartmentalize? That they are *objectively* applying facts? That means that they would have look to another cue for appropriate behavior? What would that cue be? As I said above, often it is another, morally puritan juror. People can't create their roles out of ether. Jesus Christ, you are just using buzzwords in lieu of any substantive analysis. MY WHOLE FUCKING POINT IS THAT THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING THEIR ROLE FROM SOMEWHERE AND THAT SOMEWHERE IS NEVER EVER AN INDEPENDENT, OBJECTIVE PERSPECTIVE. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:35 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "i never mentioned nullification, jack ass."
You implied it. I put a name to the concept you were refering to.
"ultimately, social norms will creep in and influence their voting."
And among those social norms are dutifully applying the law in their role as jurors.
"the whole "Reasonable person" standard is one big invitation to defines and apply social norms."
But that concept isn't applicable here. We've already posted the criteria for IIED.
"What is their role?"
Juror.
"who explained their role to them?"
HS civics, TV, the judge...
""applying the law" means applying the reasonable person standard."
No, it doesn't. Where the fuck are you getting that from? You seem to think every legal proceeding is predicated on that.
"most of the law is made up of vague terms anyway that are meant to be interpretted."
Which term is relevant in this case? And how will they interpret it to reach the outcome you think they will?
"What the hell does it mean to compartmentalize?"
It means they feel their choices are constrained by their role and therefore don't reflect on their authentic self in the way choices made freely would.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:53 PM Author: mind-boggling forum From Prith's above post on the elements of IIED: "Outrageous by reasonable man standard (which could easily be satisfied here depending on the factfinder.)"
"It means they feel their choices are constrained by their role and therefore don't reflect on their authentic self in the way choices made freely would."
The fact that you use the term "authentic self" cues me into the fact that you have no idea what the fuck you are talking about. There is no authentic self separate from social cues and roles. My only question is where are they getting the cues as to how to behave as a juror.
"And among those social norms are dutifully applying the law in their role as jurors."
Ok, I'm going to borrow from Palsgraf, only because it will help clarify my point. What is the law in Palsgraf? Did Cardozo dutifully apply it? Who the fuck knows! He rationalized the decision to reach the end he wanted to...he didn't bend the law, he just chose an interpretation favorable to his instrumental end.
My original point still stands: that even if jurors *believe* they are applying the law, that doesn't mean that they actually are applying the actualy law, assuming that there is an objective application of the rule in the first place. In our present case, this is a pretty novel event, so my guess is that jurors will have a lot of leeway and rationales for deciding either way. Given that there are arguments on both sides, my assertion was that jurors will, either consciously or unconsciously, find against these faggots. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:00 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "Outrageous by reasonable man standard"
Different "reasonable man." You're refering to a standard of duty.
"There is no authentic self separate from social cues and roles."
Doesn't matter. Call them roles X and Y, where X is their "normal" role and Y is their juror role.
"My only question is where are they getting the cues as to how to behave as a juror."
Answered.
"even if jurors *believe* they are applying the law, that doesn't mean that they actually are applying the actualy law"
Doesn't matter. It's more likely that any imagined role will exclude your fantasy land of nullification.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:09 PM Author: mind-boggling forum "Different "reasonable man." You're refering to a standard of duty."
The term "reasonable" gives them leeway to interpret as they see fit. There is no "objective" understanding of "reasonable." why are you being such a nitpicky bastard. if anyone should be sympathetic to a relativistic world view, it should be you, who as a hindu was raised to believe that the world was merely one manifestation of a herpes soar on vishnu's schlong.
"Doesn't matter. It's more likely that any imagined role will exclude your fantasy land of nullification."
What if tv or civics class teaches potential jurors that the insitutional role of "juror" is to interpret the law through society's moral standards? For example, northern juries before the civil war refused to return slaves back to their masters because they interpreted the constitution to demand an end to slavery. Another example, I watched that movie where Cusask was trying to persuade a jury to hold the gun manufacturer responsable; he told gene hackman that he just gave the "jury a reason to vote for how they felt." ...okay, these are examples of juries that are not nullifying the law, they are interpretting the law in a different way.
You're problem, most likely induced from all the curry you eat, is that you are unable to understand that other people may have a different view of the law than you do. Just because they are going against your position, does not mean that they are nullifying the law. On the contracy, as I've pointed out, they probably genuinely believe that their vote is the only lawful vote possible.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:14 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "What if tv or civics class teaches potential jurors that the insitutional role of "juror" is to interpret the law through society's moral standards?"
http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&mc=254&forum_id=2#6585920
"you are unable to understand that other people may have a different view of the law than you do."
You are unable to understand what the legal argument is in the first place. You've separated "reasonable" for the context of IIED. Plug it back in. It doesn't make sense. What does that have to do with extreme or outrageous conduct? Nothing. The P isn't the D. What does it have to do with causation? Nothing. What does it have to do with damages? Nothing. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:21 PM Author: mind-boggling forum A reasonable juror could easily find that the Ps in this case caused their own damage. They don't have a hornbook that defines cause in fact for them. The same logic goes for dumbasses who are caught on tv trying to commit crimes. People feel no sympathy for these criminals and use the jury box to reinforce society's norms.
Second, it's questionable if a judge will find this conduct "outrageous." Using your logic dateline would be sued by all of these pervs. Clearly, this hasn' happened and would likely fail.
Argue the law all you want, they're not going to prevail on a suit. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:33 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "A reasonable juror could easily find that the Ps in this case caused their own damage."
Wrong. They would know that D intentionally and maliciously released the information. The damage didn't arise from transmission, and no reasonable juror would be able to conclude that it arose from mere transmission.
"They don't have a hornbook that defines cause in fact for them."
That's why they get jury instructions.
"Using your logic dateline would be sued by all of these pervs."
Wrong. Soliciting sex from a person one believes to be a minor is illegal in the places Dateline operates. Soliciting sex from a person one believes to be a consenting adult is not illegal. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:55 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker That's nice. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585874) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:56 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state OK. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585877) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:57 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Jurors watch the Discovery Channel, too. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585886) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:40 PM Author: garnet trip newt Right of privacy/publicity, in addition to IIED (depending on the state, of course). (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585771) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:46 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state for pete's sake people. were you asleep when your prof told you these are loser claims? the only reason they're even in the book is to make shmucks like yourself pay attention and hope to impress their friends with humanities degrees. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585811) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:52 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker First, that doesn't respond to the privacy/publicity claims. Second, IIED is usually a loser because it's hard to establish intent and damages. Establishing intent is a fucking given in this case. All we need now is for some dude to have a breakdown. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585850) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:59 PM Author: Dark wrinkle please, please tell us where you go to school. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585890) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:04 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state you first. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585923) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:07 PM Author: Dark wrinkle Lots of xoxoers post from there and I don't want to reveal my identity. Can you please tell me your school? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585937) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:10 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state no. same reasons. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6585950) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:04 PM Author: garnet trip newt These are "loser" claims because people usually bring them on losing facts.
These facts are, in all likelihood, sufficient to state a claim. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:26 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state leave it to "ironmonkey" to sniff out the only meritorious IIED claim in the last 50 years. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586049) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:30 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Non-responsive. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586072) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:31 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state nice one. you'll be great at doc review. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586079) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:34 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Ad hominem.
Keep up the good work. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:34 PM Author: Dark wrinkle you're great at being a devious creep. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586109) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:39 PM Author: garnet trip newt "non-responsive" is an objection that would apply at trial, not during document review.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:44 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state "non-responsive" is also what chicago-kent contract attorneys would write on the thousands of pages of pre-production docs they deal with every day. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586166) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:51 PM Author: garnet trip newt I wouldn't know. You? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586206) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:36 PM Author: garnet trip newt I've read numerous opinions denying 12(b)(6) motions for IIED or equivalent claims.
If you can show me why this claim wouldn't be meritorious (assuming the required damages), please elaborate.
Otherwise, you're not really making much of a case. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:38 PM Author: Dark wrinkle knowitall is just a devious creep who argued against "internet perverts" in this thread, to compensate for his/her dark side. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586126) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:45 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state ah, so now I'm right on my overcompensation argument above? PWNED. wait. what is that sound? prith's tiny brain exploding? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586168) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:47 PM Author: Dark wrinkle You called me an "internet pervert" then when I said you might be projecting you got so stressed that you actually edited it out. Then you wrote this long post explaining why you edited it out.
You're fucked up. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:53 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state oh man, foiled again! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586216) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:49 PM Author: garnet trip newt Bull? mel gibschtein? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586192) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 6:56 PM Author: soul-stirring deer antler state father? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586230) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 5:23 PM Author: Chrome stimulating keepsake machete The poetry reading is pretty funny:
http://pr0n.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/a/a5/Personal_ad.mp3 |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:39 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker Subject: Question for newguy69... "all that matters is that people feel embarrassed and don't want others to see them taking a dump."
Why do they feel embarrassed? The answer IS important.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 7:55 PM Author: mind-boggling forum answered above. tell me why you think it's important so we can have a two-way discussion. you still haven't made any constructive arguments. like a typical raghead all you can do is attack other people.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:05 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "tell me why you think it's important so we can have a two-way discussion."
It's important because so far your notion of the right to privacy (whether a legal right or not) is entirely ad hoc. It contains no element of principle. I'm asking questions to see what your principles are.
You are the one who started making the social philosophy claims, not me. I'm not going to defend some broader notion of privacy. That wasn't my purpose in starting this thread. You're the one who wanted to talk about shit like ethics and morals. Now you can either defend your bullshit or leave.
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:15 PM Author: mind-boggling forum look, there's a difference b/w the right to privacy vis what the govt. can do legally, and what private individuals can do privately.
You are the one that made the original claim that the dude violated these guys privacy. My claim was that these pervs violated a moral standard by soliciting sex over the net. Your claim was that the CL guy also violated a social norm by violating their right to privacy. However, you have only demanded from me a definition of privacy but have not provided anything yourself.
Much like your mother country, you are worthless. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:23 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "Your claim was that the CL guy also violated a social norm by violating their right to privacy."
Nuance is too difficult for you. I'll make it easier. All laws are social norms. Not all social norms are laws. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:06 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker newguy69, why don't you post your pictures? What are you afraid of? I posted mine. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586565) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:16 PM Author: mind-boggling forum you look like a dirty, fucking untouchable. good job. i had a modicum of respect until i realized you weren't an aryan. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586617) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:20 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker newguy69, why don't you post your pictures? What are you afraid of? (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586635) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:22 PM Author: mind-boggling forum I'm not afraid of anything. IS there a reason for me to post my pictures? I tend not to do things unless there is an actual reason to do them.
You never answered my question...Are you an untouchable? |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:24 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "IS there a reason for me to post my pictures?"
Sure. Prove that you're not a dirty Indian like me. It will help your credibility.
And http://www.xoxohth.com/thread.php?thread_id=474679&mc=39&forum_id=2
|
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:29 PM Author: mind-boggling forum HAHA. you really are stupid. jesus christ. it's not even that you'r indian, it's that your a dirty fucking untouchable at best. seriously, your own people consider you a beast. i'm torn, because the vedic system is repulsive to me, yet your own countrymen despise you. which way should i lean?
ps, i'm leaving to get drunk now. have fun with your shitty life. |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:35 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker "it's that your a dirty fucking untouchable at best."
Are you ignorant or illiterate? You don't seem to even know what "untouchable" means. (Nevermind the fact that I'm a couple generations removed from India, and I'm an atheist.) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:11 PM Author: Coiffed vibrant stock car headpube I did something similar to this when I was bored one night. I didn't post the information that was sent to me but it was unbelievable to see how many dumbasses would email from personal / work emails and blindly send their phone numbers. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586591) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:17 PM Author: mind-boggling forum it's natural selection in a way. the dumbest are outed and suffer a loss of chances to reproduce as a result!! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586621) |
|
Date: September 9th, 2006 8:17 PM Author: chartreuse thriller business firm Brilliant! (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6586620) |
|
Date: September 16th, 2006 9:53 PM Author: Slippery histrionic area weed whacker I wonder what happened to this douche. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6626729) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2006 2:27 AM Author: aromatic mint public bath rigpig The un-married ones are right to feel lied to and cheated, especially if there was job lost. I mean, it's one thing if he was a dick to a woman he met on CL, then she decided to post his info to retaliate. This is literally unprovoked ruining of people's lives for no reason. Saying they had it coming is like saying I have it coming when some douche steals my credit card number off the internet and rips me out of $2000. Well we all know this happens sometimes, but it doesn't mean its right when it does or that I should not partake in some activity just because there is a slight risk that someone will take advantage of me.
As for the guys that are married, they deserve death. If you aren't getting it at home, divorce. Don't go get AIDS from some CL prostitute and then come home and give it to your wife. |
|
Date: September 17th, 2006 2:43 AM Author: hairraiser bronze school Why would some one lose a job over this?
I haven't gone through the entire thread here or there, so maybe I'm missing something. |
|
Date: September 17th, 2006 2:46 AM Author: aromatic mint public bath rigpig I'm not sure, I've never had a job that would care, but I imagine it's possible that if someone's boss saw this, they would can the guy. (http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=486577&forum_id=2#6628095) |
|
Date: September 17th, 2006 2:48 AM Author: hairraiser bronze school Unless he was using the computer at work to do so, I don't see how they can.
Anyway, my immediate impression is that I don't feel sorry at all for the people who had their wives or girlfriends or whoever leave them. But if some unmarried person got shit for this or if some one lost a job over it, then that sucks, though I don't see why anyone would. |