Debs resigns

[Exophase]

You are saying and doing what you say other people should not  = using profanity towards me and name calling which I am the cause of. You could have disagreed in a different context. Hence me saying I am your Craig.

I am the CEO of your anger and responsible because I continue with this ridiculous argument...as is  Craig with his company since he too continues this behavior.

Don't insult me by insinuating I do not know the definition of the words I use here.

Last comment from me.

WizardStan didn't say that people shouldn't use profanity and name calling. He said that Craig isn't responsible for people who use profanity towards Debs and that Debs didn't deserve to be treated this way. So yes I agree with him, calling him a hypocrite is showing a lack of understanding on your part. Don't take that as a grave insult please, everyone has understanding problems sometimes, especially if language barriers are involved..

The whole responsibility argument feels to me to be at least partially down to semantics. There's direct cause and effect and there's indirect contribution to an event. I don't really like semantics argument, but I guess there is a more tangible element to this: who we feel comfortable blaming for a problem. Responsibility becomes a term more akin to accountability or liability. And if blame isn't very interesting to you, what have we learned about how the various people involved should have behaved differently in order to try to avoid these problems in different situations.

A good parallel to the discussion at hand is child behavior.. if a child does something wrong is it ever okay to lay some of the blame on the parents if they exercised poor judgement in raising the child? First world societies do tend to pass some of a minor's accountability to the parents..

 

[WizardStan]

The whole responsibility argument feels to me to be at least partially down to semantics.

I didn't mean to start an argument on semantics, I just wanted to voice my distaste that some comments were simply excusing the bad emails as "human nature" and "expected behavior". Just because it is expected doesn't mean it should be accepted, is all I wanted to say.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

You are saying and doing what you say other people should not  = using profanity towards me and name calling which I am the cause of. You could have disagreed in a different context. Hence me saying I am your Craig.


I am the CEO of your anger and responsible because I continue with this ridiculous argument...as is  Craig with his company since he too continues this behavior.


Don't insult me by insinuating I do not know the definition of the words I use here.


Last comment from me.

WizardStan didn't say that people shouldn't use profanity and name calling. He said that Craig isn't responsible for people who use profanity towards Debs and that Debs didn't deserve to be treated this way. So yes I agree with him, calling him a hypocrite is showing a lack of understanding on your part. Don't take that as a grave insult please, everyone has understanding problems sometimes, especially if language barriers are involved..


The whole responsibility argument feels to me to be at least partially down to semantics. There's direct cause and effect and there's indirect contribution to an event. I don't really like semantics argument, but I guess there is a more tangible element to this: who we feel comfortable blaming for a problem. Responsibility becomes a term more akin to accountability or liability. And if blame isn't very interesting to you, what have we learned about how the various people involved should have behaved differently in order to try to avoid these problems in different situations.


A good parallel to the discussion at hand is child behavior.. if a child does something wrong is it ever okay to lay some of the blame on the parents if they exercised poor judgement in raising the child? First world societies do tend to pass some of a minor's accountability to the parents..

I have said throughout that Craig is responsible and now I have been called names and insulted like those people that sent those emails. If the company is the wrath of one's anger then the company is responsible and who better to take that responsibility but the owner.

So it is the same as this person calling me names because I am the wrath of his anger.. I am his company called' idiot'.....it is one and the same and hypocritical to do so since he is so against that behavior. . One becomes a target as I became his and he responded by choosing to insult me and call me names. If I am an idiot it is only because I continue this discussion.

By insulting me and cursing at me you are condoning the sort of behavior you are supposedly so appalled by. Not once during this discussion did I insult you or curse at you though it would have been well deserved. You have displayed hypocrisy.

You may twist and turn your dialogue to your favor anyway you choose. You have not convinced me one iota. I am a college graduate with a good job and not an idiot as you suggest because I disagree with you.

I swear by the gods that be I am done responding!!!!!!!!!>>>>>>>>>>><<<<<<<<<<.

 

[moxie]

/> Hehe I usually express this through my Two Rules about Everything:


1) People are idiots.


2) There is some people for everything


(Last bit is a bit difficult to translate into somethin as catchy in non-swedish. Properly translated it'd be something like "For every X, there are people who will do X")


But, again, that is an explanation, not an excuse.

How about 'there's always someone who'll do anything' ? Stress the 'anything' if you want to emphasis how crazy some people are.

Yes, that's good

 

[moxie]

The whole responsibility argument feels to me to be at least partially down to semantics.

I didn't mean to start an argument on semantics, I just wanted to voice my distaste that some comments were simply excusing the bad emails as "human nature" and "expected behavior". Just because it is expected doesn't mean it should be accepted, is all I wanted to say.

Exactly that. There is a big tendency to excuse extremely bad behaviour, and particularly on the 'net, by saying things like "Oh, that's expected on the internet" or "Well, she wants attention, and that's what she got, so why is she complaining", or "Well, that's what happens when people are upset", when we're talking about smear campaigns, death threats, name calling to the extreme, and so on. That is a very disturbing trend.

Acting like anybody else does not absolve anybody of responsibility for their actions. Nothing, bar insanity and gun-to-the-head, absolves anyone from responsibility from their own actions. Whether those actions are expected, deserved, wellintentioned, idiotic, counterproductive, criminal or asshattery doesn't change the simple fact that the one doing them is the one responsible for them. That is all.

 

[ramboky]

The whole responsibility argument feels to me to be at least partially down to semantics.

I didn't mean to start an argument on semantics, I just wanted to voice my distaste that some comments were simply excusing the bad emails as "human nature" and "expected behavior". Just because it is expected doesn't mean it should be accepted, is all I wanted to say.

Your claim that all actions are (or can be) a result of conscious choice is a massive oversimplification. We are complex, emotive animals who have to operate in a complex, emotive world. I doubt anyone, including you, can honestly say they've never said anything in anger that they wouldn't have said when calm. It doesn't make it right, but it's part of being human, i.e. human nature.

But I don't think anyone here was actually excusing the abusive emails, merely stating that in the situation they are to be expected. To think anything else is to be naive. 

Ultimately, as the cause of the anger, Craig had the power and the responsibility to stop the abusive emails Debs was receiving. Instead he did nothing. Ergo, Craig is an asshole.

 

[WizardStan]

Your claim that all actions are (or can be) a result of conscious choice is a massive oversimplification.

When did I ever claim that? Reread the entire thread and you'll find a post where I actually said exactly not that.

 

[leathco]

Gotta say debs emails wouldn't have been so crappy if Craig did what he said he would. Instead he hid and apparently let someone else deal with the firestorm til she broke down.


All Craig had to so was give regular updates and maybe monthly videos detailing production progress. Even a video of him ordering parts is better than nothing. A breakdown of costs per part, how each part is made, the design process behind it all would be even better.

 

[ramboky]

Your claim that all actions are (or can be) a result of conscious choice is a massive oversimplification.

When did I ever claim that? Reread the entire thread and you'll find a post where I actually said exactly not that.

That's the gist I got from what I read. But I'll take your word for it, it's getting too late in the day to reread it all. And the last thing I want to do is restart that particular argument.

Gotta say debs emails wouldn't have been so crappy if Craig did what he said he would. Instead he hid and apparently let someone else deal with the firestorm til she broke down.


All Craig had to so was give regular updates and maybe monthly videos detailing production progress. Even a video of him ordering parts is better than nothing. A breakdown of costs per part, how each part is made, the design process behind it all would be even better.

It would have taken so little from Craig to avoid all this. The fact he's done it all before and hasn't changed his behavior during this entire fiasco tells me he's learned nothing and he's not going to .

I'd love to meet him one day to see if he's as much of a jackass in person.

 

[Binky]

Can't everyone agree that Deb's resignation is the combined result (in no particular order) of:

• Craig's uncommunicativeness about the project
• Some backers having no self control, no empathy, and no manners
• Other, unknown factors

This thread is getting boring

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

Your claim that all actions are (or can be) a result of conscious choice is a massive oversimplification.

When did I ever claim that? Reread the entire thread and you'll find a post where I actually said exactly not that.

^again. yes ...everybody wants to scroll back 7 pages to re read your gibberish. Which as far a I know you might have gone back and altered.

Can't everyone agree that Deb's resignation is the combined result (in no particular order) of:

• Craig's uncommunicativeness about the project
• Some backers having no self control, no empathy, and no manners
• Other, unknown factors

This thread is getting boring

agreed ^ please close it.

 

[WizardStan]

Can't everyone agree that Deb's resignation is the combined result (in no particular order) of:

• Craig's uncommunicativeness about the project
• Some backers having no self control, no empathy, and no manners
• Other, unknown factors

This thread is getting boring

No one disagreed with any of these, reasons for Deb's resignation was never in question.

 

[moxie]

The only thing that WizardStan (and me, and some others) is claiming is that everybody is responsible for their own actions. That someone who is acting like a prick is responsible for being a prick, no matter if they're upset or not. Anything else is a failure in reading comprehension.

 

[Binky]

So:

• Each individual is responsible for his/her own behaviour
• Seen as a group, people's behaviour is predictable

 

[b_o_b]

I think nobody is responsible for his/her actions. Spinoza once said:

“Stel u nu verder voor, als ge wilt, dat de steen, terwijl hij voortgaat zich te bewegen, denkt en weet dat hij zich zoveel mogelijk inspant zijn beweging voort te zetten. Dan zal deze steen, aangezien hij zich alleen van dit pogen bewust is en daarin volstrekt niet onverschillig, toch zeker denken dat hij volkomen vrij is en om geen andere reden in zijn beweging volhardt dan omdat hij dat wil! Welnu, dit is dan die befaamde menselijke vrijheid, waarop allen zich beroemen, en die alleen hierin bestaat dat de mensen zich van hun begeerte bewust zijn, terwijl ze de oorzaken waardoor ze gedetermineerd worden niet kennen.”

I agree. 

 

[WizardStan]

Well yes, in the sense that the universe is just one big chaos machine and we are but tiny yet complex cogs in its ever turning design we have no free will: every decision you make is a direct result of everything that has every happened to you which are in turn effects from previous events forever backwards to the beginning of the universe, and if time could be rewound precisely then exact moments would replay over and over exactly as they always had.

That's a philosophical argument against cosmic responsibility however, not a societal one. In modern society, when someone says "I am going to go have a nap", while the underlying philosophy is that every factor within the universe leading up to that point ensured that the person would, without any doubt, go and have that nap, it is understood that they mean within the local bounds of their reality they have made the personal decision to go have a nap.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm going to take a nap.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

Life is a dream that is already over.

 

[b_o_b]

That's a philosophical argument   

Sure, but not only philosophical. I think it is a fair question to ask how responsible a criminal is for his actions or how much is pre-determined because of his genetic make up and his environment. 

It will be very unlikely you will become a jihad warrior if you are raised in the USA. 

Some situations can turn ordinary people into killing monsters. Were those people monsters in the first place or was the situation doing that to them? If a woman is beaten by her man on daily basis and only sees one way out by killing him, the abuse will surely be taken into account by a court. 

 

[WizardStan]

the abuse will surely be taken into account by a court.

Now you're talking about punishment for actions, and a slightly different definition of "responsible". I'm certainly not wanting to get into that debate, it's necessarily a quagmire of opinion and drawing of arbitrary lines.The only thing I'm saying is, when the jury makes a verdict, regardless of whether they agrees that the decision was warranted or excessive, that they don't try to downplay the acts of the person. If a woman is abused and she kills her husband then it was she who did so, her husband did not force her to. The jury can look at the past abuse and see that the decision was warranted but it was still her that did the deed. Look at it this way, the woman finally stands up for herself and takes what she feels is the best course of action. She is FREE of his tyranny, for the first time in a long time she has made the decision to be happy. And then someone says "you had no choice, he made you kill him." Even in death her (ex)husband gets one more parting shot. She doesn't even get to decide to live her own life? That would be sad.

The woman made the choice and regardless of the punishment it was her desire to be free and sufficiently strong will that allowed her to do what she did and no one should take that away with a casual "you didn't have a choice", even if they think they're being helpful.

When you make a choice, even if it's an emotionally charged decision that you aren't consciously making, it is still you making that choice, and you should be proud of the good actions you take and ashamed of the bad. What defines good vs bad is an entirely different debate also laced with opinion and arbitrary line drawing that I don't want to get into.

Consider another scenario: a high ranking judo student is in line at the bank when suddenly a robber busts in. The robber is standing next to the judo student when he pulls out his gun and starts yelling. Without a single conscious thought the students training goes into action, he disarms and flips the would be robber. What are people going to say? Are they going to say "he made you do that by pulling out his gun"? Are they going to say "it's a good thing your master taught you so well, your master is a hero"? Or will they say "it's a good thing you were here and had the training to stop that guy"? Definitely the third, possibly also "you shouldn't have done that, it could have gone worse!" In this scenario, even though the student didn't consciously decide to disarm the bandit it was still his body, his training, and his desires that allowed him to do so, and people recognize him as the person that did it. Whether he was right or wrong to do so, the student is still recognized as the entity making the choice to stop the bandit. Why shouldn't the abused woman in the original scenario be the same? Her desire, her will, her actions, her choice. If the judge agrees that the actions were warranted and reduces or even waives the sentencing then more power to the abused, but it shouldn't detract from the fact that she made the choice.

 

[CocoCreekFisherman]

the abuse will surely be taken into account by a court.

Now you're talking about punishment for actions, and a slightly different definition of "responsible". I'm certainly not wanting to get into that debate, it's necessarily a quagmire of opinion and drawing of arbitrary lines.
The only thing I'm saying is, when the jury makes a verdict, regardless of whether they agrees that the decision was warranted or excessive, that they don't try to downplay the acts of the person. If a woman is abused and she kills her husband then it was she who did so, her husband did not force her to. The jury can look at the past abuse and see that the decision was warranted but it was still her that did the deed. Look at it this way, the woman finally stands up for herself and takes what she feels is the best course of action. She is FREE of his tyranny, for the first time in a long time she has made the decision to be happy. And then someone says "you had no choice, he made you kill him." Even in death her (ex)husband gets one more parting shot. She doesn't even get to decide to live her own life? That would be sad.


The woman made the choice and regardless of the punishment it was her desire to be free and sufficiently strong will that allowed her to do what she did and no one should take that away with a casual "you didn't have a choice", even if they think they're being helpful.


When you make a choice, even if it's an emotionally charged decision that you aren't consciously making, it is still you making that choice, and you should be proud of the good actions you take and ashamed of the bad. What defines good vs bad is an entirely different debate also laced with opinion and arbitrary line drawing that I don't want to get into.


Consider another scenario: a high ranking judo student is in line at the bank when suddenly a robber busts in. The robber is standing next to the judo student when he pulls out his gun and starts yelling. Without a single conscious thought the students training goes into action, he disarms and flips the would be robber. What are people going to say? Are they going to say "he made you do that by pulling out his gun"? Are they going to say "it's a good thing your master taught you so well, your master is a hero"? Or will they say "it's a good thing you were here and had the training to stop that guy"? Definitely the third, possibly also "you shouldn't have done that, it could have gone worse!" In this scenario, even though the student didn't consciously decide to disarm the bandit it was still his body, his training, and his desires that allowed him to do so, and people recognize him as the person that did it. Whether he was right or wrong to do so, the student is still recognized as the entity making the choice to stop the bandit. Why shouldn't the abused woman in the original scenario be the same? Her desire, her will, her actions, her choice. If the judge agrees that the actions were warranted and reduces or even waives the sentencing then more power to the abused, but it shouldn't detract from the fact that she made the choice.

Poppycock,,,People provoke people to do things they normally would not do if they thought it out. People do have the power to totally sway ones emotions and actions even to the point of mind control. Just look historically at the various cults. Many crimes of passion or anger are impulsive and not thought out.. to the point of a conditioned response in some situations. The limbic portion of our brains can supersede the cerebral portion sometimes and there are many examples of this historically which I do not care to point out but perhaps you should research instead of pretending to be an authority .