I gave the example of felony murder to show that this isn’t just some exaggerated, non-standard way to judge crimes. It’s not just a US thing, it comes from common law. There’s similar law in Australia and Canada as well, and though it’s no longer practiced officially in the UK there’s the concept of “joint enterprise” whereby being involved in a murder still imputes criminal liability with similar legal outcomes.
It’s not a world-wide way to conceive of crime, but it’s pretty normal. Hardly an exaggeration.
Besides, is it so unreasonable to apply legal standards from the US to Parties within the US?
If I give a gun to someone and they kill someone knowing their intent beforehand, I’m guilty by association. Why is that not enough?
Because if you didn’t give them a gun, they wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people.
If the number of people they can kill on their own is X, and the number of people they can kill with your help is X+1, then you killed that +1 even if you didn’t pull the trigger. They only died because you helped, which means you killed them
If you knowingly help plan and facilitate a murder by your actions, you are a murderer. This is how most people view murder.
Fascinating. You realize no one thinks this way, right?
You’re the odd one out. I just think you should know that.
That’s leaning into ridicule, sarcasm, and accusations, imo. We don’t need that, and I don’t appreciate it because that’s not the way I’m addressing you. Some of you get too comfortable too quickly.
this isn’t just some exaggerated
But it is the way it’s presented and often used here on Lemmy. I’m not even talking about the grand scheme of things with that line. I’m focusing on the way I’ve seen some commenters express themselves, which is a real trend. It often devolves into absurd calls for withholding votes because “why would you vote for the party of genocide?” as if only Dems were responsible, childish name-calling, and accusing others of Nazism when there’s disagreement. It’s absurd.
is it so unreasonable to apply legal standards from the US to Parties within the US?
For me, a foreigner who knows the basics about your laws and whose goal is to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, it is. By your logic, if we were to speak about perceived criminals in Israel, but their laws don’t state they’re criminals, should we abandon the idea because we have to abide by their rules when speaking about their people? Why should USian/German/Canadian laws take precedence over anybody’s laws? I don’t think that’s the right way to approach it from my POV as an outsider.
Because if you didn’t give them a gun, they wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people.
I’m not here to argue the actual thing because I’ve done it many times, and it always ends on a sour note. This is how many people like to instigate arguments so they can grind their axe, and I don’t want to entertain that.
My points are limited. People here are disingenuous and ridiculous when it comes to certain hot topics, and it’s getting so old.
This conversation started with you calling people like me “uncompromising shrieks” and it has continued with you calling people like me “absurd” and “childish.” But, when I push back, it’s all “we don’t need that” and “I don’t appreciate it”.
If you can beat up on me but I have to be nice back, I don’t really see the point of this conversation. Very .world behavior.
Wait, what? Do you shriek at people and call them Nazis when you don’t like what they’re saying despite you full knowing that they’re not? It’s weird to admit to unreasonable behavior. I’m honestly a little baffled that someone would own and admit that, or take issue at someone speaking broadly and then use that as a reason to speak down at anyone.
Calm down? I have no idea what you mean.
I gave the example of felony murder to show that this isn’t just some exaggerated, non-standard way to judge crimes. It’s not just a US thing, it comes from common law. There’s similar law in Australia and Canada as well, and though it’s no longer practiced officially in the UK there’s the concept of “joint enterprise” whereby being involved in a murder still imputes criminal liability with similar legal outcomes.
It’s not a world-wide way to conceive of crime, but it’s pretty normal. Hardly an exaggeration.
Besides, is it so unreasonable to apply legal standards from the US to Parties within the US?
Because if you didn’t give them a gun, they wouldn’t have been able to kill as many people.
If the number of people they can kill on their own is X, and the number of people they can kill with your help is X+1, then you killed that +1 even if you didn’t pull the trigger. They only died because you helped, which means you killed them
If you knowingly help plan and facilitate a murder by your actions, you are a murderer. This is how most people view murder.
You’re the odd one out.
That’s leaning into ridicule, sarcasm, and accusations, imo. We don’t need that, and I don’t appreciate it because that’s not the way I’m addressing you. Some of you get too comfortable too quickly.
But it is the way it’s presented and often used here on Lemmy. I’m not even talking about the grand scheme of things with that line. I’m focusing on the way I’ve seen some commenters express themselves, which is a real trend. It often devolves into absurd calls for withholding votes because “why would you vote for the party of genocide?” as if only Dems were responsible, childish name-calling, and accusing others of Nazism when there’s disagreement. It’s absurd.
For me, a foreigner who knows the basics about your laws and whose goal is to be descriptive rather than prescriptive, it is. By your logic, if we were to speak about perceived criminals in Israel, but their laws don’t state they’re criminals, should we abandon the idea because we have to abide by their rules when speaking about their people? Why should USian/German/Canadian laws take precedence over anybody’s laws? I don’t think that’s the right way to approach it from my POV as an outsider.
I’m not here to argue the actual thing because I’ve done it many times, and it always ends on a sour note. This is how many people like to instigate arguments so they can grind their axe, and I don’t want to entertain that.
My points are limited. People here are disingenuous and ridiculous when it comes to certain hot topics, and it’s getting so old.
This conversation started with you calling people like me “uncompromising shrieks” and it has continued with you calling people like me “absurd” and “childish.” But, when I push back, it’s all “we don’t need that” and “I don’t appreciate it”.
If you can beat up on me but I have to be nice back, I don’t really see the point of this conversation. Very .world behavior.
Wait, what? Do you shriek at people and call them Nazis when you don’t like what they’re saying despite you full knowing that they’re not? It’s weird to admit to unreasonable behavior. I’m honestly a little baffled that someone would own and admit that, or take issue at someone speaking broadly and then use that as a reason to speak down at anyone.
I call people fascists when they support genocide, and I am not willing to compromise on it.
Oh look at that, you’re talking down to me again. It’s fine when you do it, though. It’s only a problem when I respond.
So you do, and the shoe fit.
Not really, I chose my words carefully, but I realize you’re trying to start a fight. We’re done here.
This thread picked a fight with me, the OP is literally calling me evil.
Then you continued the fight, with "uncompromising shrieks” and “absurd” and “childish.”
Then I fight back and you cry about me picking fights.
Talking to you is self harm. Blocked.
Sounds like you’re taking things too personally, probably for feeling called out.