Man, rights and reason

[The Question]

Funny; that definition of rights does not include "safe and well documented products".

Failure to inform a buyer of the inherent and known risks of a product at POS is an initiation of fraud, which I did address in the opening post, jerkoff.

In other words, you admit that your original post, which recognized NOTHING but individual rights (I quote: "The only morally legitimate justification for the political organization of man, is the common recognition and defense of the rights of each of its individual participants.") was clearly flawed by not recognizing societal responsibility.

Nice attempt to rewrite the program, but I see right through you.

I explained negative obligations and I explained that restitution/punishment is due those who violate rights, and if you are an involved party to a violation, you have a duty to inform the victim or the government agency appropriate.

Until someone is actually injured by this flaw, there is no individual victim.

Wrong, asshole. If I knowingly put you in imminent danger through the initiation of fraud, I have already violated your rights.

There is only a nebulous collective full of individuals who may suffer harm, ie- SOCIETY. In other words, you just conceded that an individual does have an obligation to society, despite your earlier denial of this position.

Concession accepted. Thank you for playing.

You need to work harder on reading comprehension and less on empty victory declarations. You'll get farther in life.

[The Question]

And you're backpedaling, rewriting your original definition of rights (the freedom to act in accordance with your own desires until you run into someone else's equivalent freedom) in order to fix an obviously glaring flaw.

No, I'm clarifying for the insanely slow witted.

You may choose, in accordance with your values, to act even when you are not party to a rights violation.

That has no bearing on the issue of a positive moral obligation.

And of course, you try to cover up your defeat by flinging insults. Wow, so impressive.

Pot, kettle.

[Darth Wong]

Funny; that definition of rights does not include "safe and well documented products".

Failure to inform a buyer of the inherent and known risks of a product at POS is an initiation of fraud, which I did address in the opening post, jerkoff.

Are you still here? Non-disclosure of a defect is not fraud, dumb-ass. It's only fraud if you state positively that the defect does not exist. Insistence that every conceivable safety hazard of a product must be explicitly documented for the consumer by default is a product liability lawyer's wet dream.

Nice try to save your lame-ass argument, though.

I explained negative obligations and I explained that restitution/punishment is due those who violate rights, and if you are an involved party to a violation, you have a duty to inform the victim or the government agency appropriate.

Of course you did ... while backpedaling. Unfortunately, there is nothing in your original post about any obligations whatsoever. I was the one who introduced the point about obligations, and now you are trying to pretend that you had included it all along.

Wrong, asshole. If I knowingly put you in imminent danger through the initiation of fraud, I have already violated your rights.

Except that failure to document every conceivable safety hazard in a product is not fraud. It is negligence; your ignorance of simple English terms does not strengthen your argument. Moreover, since the person in my scenario DID NOT WRITE THE PRODUCT DOCUMENTATION, he did not commit the "fraud" (read: negligence) which you are holding him responsible for.

Your lame-ass attempt to solve this problem is to find the employee personally responsible for the actions of the company (after mislabelling negligence as fraud). I find it rather ironic that in your desperate attempt to save your sinking ship, you are now attempting to claim that every individual in a collective is personally responsible for the actions of that collective. Once again, your attempt to submerge societal responsibility beneath individual rights shoots itself in the foot.

There is only a nebulous collective full of individuals who may suffer harm, ie- SOCIETY. In other words, you just conceded that an individual does have an obligation to society, despite your earlier denial of this position.

Concession accepted. Thank you for playing.

You need to work harder on reading comprehension and less on empty victory declarations. You'll get farther in life.

Speak for yourself; you conspicuously failed to address the point. You cannot identify a specific individual whose rights have been violated; the potential harm is to unknown members of society at large. But feel free to pretend that attacking the man rather than addressing his point will get you somewhere. I'm sure you know the Latin term for what you just tried to pull.

[The Question]

Are you still here?

Til you ban me for embarassing you.

Non-disclosure of a defect is not fraud, dumb-ass.

It is when proper operation of a product can result in direct harm. If a hairdryer type is given to exploding, and you sell it to the public anyway, you are initiating fraud - same as if I sold you a hamburger with rat poison in it.

The menu need not say "Our burgers will not kill you."

Of course you did ... while backpedaling.

I love how you label any attempt at clarification and edification "back-pedaling" as if that rescues your sorry argument.

I find it rather ironic that in your desperate attempt to save your sinking ship, you are now attempting to claim that every individual in a collective is personally responsible for the actions of that collective.

You don't know shit about corporate law, do you?

Any individual in a corporation who has overt knowledge of an inherently dangerous product can be charged criminally for failure to act.

In other words, you just conceded that an individual does have an obligation to society, despite your earlier denial of this position.

Pay attention Wong - it's the negative responsibility not to violate rights.

But feel free to pretend that attacking the man rather than addressing his point will get you somewhere. I'm sure you know the Latin term for what you just tried to pull.

Argumentum ala Wong. :rolleyes:

[Darth Wong]

Are you still here?

Til you ban me for embarassing you.

Your fantasy world must be very enjoyable for you.

Non-disclosure of a defect is not fraud, dumb-ass.

It is when proper operation of a product can result in direct harm. If a hairdryer type is given to exploding, and you sell it to the public anyway, you are initiating fraud - same as if I sold you a hamburger with rat poison in it.

Nonsense. That is negligence, not fraud. Your ignorance of terminology does not change the definitions of those terms.

I love how you label any attempt at clarification and edification "back-pedaling" as if that rescues your sorry argument.

When "clarification" reverses your earlier position, it is just a lame-assed excuse for backpedaling. Deal with it.

You don't know shit about corporate law, do you?

I know a great deal about product liability, dumb-shit. I have been trained in it for a reason. And when you release a product with safety flaws that present an unacceptable risk to the public, you are negligent. Not necessarily fraudulent.

Any individual in a corporation who has overt knowledge of an inherently dangerous product can be charged criminally for failure to act.

For CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, not fraud. Concession accepted. By the way, those laws exist because our society is based on MORE than your pure rights-based ethics system. You cannot defend your opening post on this thread by calling upon laws which are NOT NECESSARY according to its tenets.

By the way, most cases of product liability do not fall under the aegis of criminal negligence, WHICH IS WHY THEY ARE PURSUED IN CIVIL COURTS. But please, feel free to go on trying to bluff your way through this, while trying to quietly ignore the basic point that you've just tied individual responsibility to actions of the collective: the exact sort of collectivism which your initial post denied.

Pay attention Wong - it's the negative responsibility not to violate rights.

Pay attention dumb-ass; no one's rights have been violated according to your definition of rights. The fact that you are now attempting to revise your initial position and exclusive definition does not mitigate your error.

But feel free to pretend that attacking the man rather than addressing his point will get you somewhere. I'm sure you know the Latin term for what you just tried to pull.

Argumentum ala Wong. :rolleyes:

Thank you for proving my point; you consistently evade main points, attack character, etc. I'm sure you think your techniques are quite impressive.

[CaptainChewbacca]

banning got reversed. disregard me.

like its a big change for you.

[Vympel]

The Question got banned? I'm sorry, he most certainly did not. He did get ass-raped in a debate though.

He also doesn't understand the definition of fraud and negligence- quite embarassing.

[The Question]

The Question got banned?

Just for a little while.

I'm better now.



Wong still can't read, though. Neither can you.

[Vympel]

Wong still can't read, though. Neither can you.

For someone who can't even tell the difference between fraud and negligence, you have a high opinion of your own reading comprehension skills

[The Question]

Nonsense. That is negligence, not fraud.

So if I serve you a burger and knowingly sprinkle the patty with rat poison and not garlic salt, it's just negligence?

Rrrrriigght.

When "clarification" reverses your earlier position, it is just a lame-assed excuse for backpedaling. Deal with it.

It didn't reverse my position. It made it clearer for those with learning disabilities. Present company included.

I know a great deal about product liability, dumb-shit. I have been trained in it for a reason.

I'll bet. Are you that poor an engineer?

For CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, not fraud.

You are switching over to legal terminology when we are speaking of morality.

Typical Wong.

Pay attention dumb-ass; no one's rights have been violated according to your definition of rights.

Yes, they have, you are just too narrow and limited in your reading to see that, or else you are being willfully igorant to shore up your weak position.

Thank you for proving my point; you consistently evade main points, attack character, etc.

To the extent I do, I'm simply mirroring your style.

[AdmiralKanos]

Nonsense. That is negligence, not fraud.

So if I serve you a burger and knowingly sprinkle the patty with rat poison and not garlic salt, it's just negligence?

Rrrrriigght.

Feeble strawman distortion as usual. Your decision to resort to a transparent false analogy of my scenario merely reveals that you have no better rebuttal to use. In my scenario, you are aware of a preventable safety defect; this is hardly analogous to poisoning someone's food. Most people who buy the product won't even have any issues with it; that is the nature of most realistic safety defects. A product defect might even require some careless stupidity on the part of the user before it becomes manifest.

It didn't reverse my position. It made it clearer for those with learning disabilities. Present company included.

The shittiest communicator can always simply blame his audience, can't he? Or a liar, in this case.

I know a great deal about product liability, dumb-shit. I have been trained in it for a reason.

I'll bet. Are you that poor an engineer?

Once again, attacking the man, rather than his point. Do you normally debate in circles where people don't notice this sort of chicanery? You demonstrated gross ignorance of the definitions of a pair of common English words: fraud and negligence. Attempting to attack your opponent for having superior knowledge is childish and pointless.

For CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE, not fraud.

You are switching over to legal terminology when we are speaking of morality.

Typical Wong.

Yet again, attacking the man. The fact is that negligence and fraud ARE two different concepts, and your ignorance of that fact will not change it. They are hardly exclusive to a court of law, and are in fact common-use English words. Perhaps English is not your first language?

Yes, they have, you are just too narrow and limited in your reading to see that, or else you are being willfully igorant to shore up your weak position.

I already quoted your definition of rights once already, and challenged you to show how it includes intrusive coerced obligations upon others. You did not even TRY to meet this challenge, and instead act as though it was never made in the first place.

To the extent I do, I'm simply mirroring your style.

It's sad how quickly and easily you are forced into this kind of childish "I know you are, but what am I" debating style, where you stop even TRYING to shore up any of your points with references to specific facts or quotes in this exchange and simply hurl unfounded accusations at your opponent.

[The Question]

Attempting to attack your opponent for having superior knowledge is childish and pointless.

Then why do you persist?

Yet again, attacking the man. The fact is that negligence and fraud ARE two different concepts, and your ignorance of that fact will not change it. They are hardly exclusive to a court of law

They have a specific meaning in law that they don't in discussions of morality and philosophy.

Perhaps English is not your first language?

Of course it is. I am an American from the America.

I already quoted your definition of rights once already, and challenged you to show how it includes intrusive coerced obligations upon others.

Bullshit, Wong. I showed you it only requires negative obligations.

The truth just isn't in you.

It's sad how quickly and easily you are forced into this kind of childish "I know you are, but what am I" debating style, where you stop even TRYING to shore up any of your points with references to specific facts or quotes in this exchange and simply hurl unfounded accusations at your opponent.

^^^


This is a prime example of what you just described.

Quick, Wong, declare victory now for the parrots. They do so need their cracker.

[AdmiralKanos]

They have a specific meaning in law that they don't in discussions of morality and philosophy.

Don't be an idiot; anyone can crack open a dictionary and see that fraud is specifically defined as a deliberate deception. Failing to publicize safety concerns when you are not even a PR representative of the company is NOT fraud. Moreover, you continue to ignore the fact that you are assigning personal responsibility to collective actions, despite denying the validity of such assignment in your initial post. Need I remind you of how you denied the validity of such societal responsibilities in your first post yet AGAIN?

I already quoted your definition of rights once already, and challenged you to show how it includes intrusive coerced obligations upon others.

Bullshit, Wong. I showed you it only requires negative obligations.

A fancy way of saying you can't violate someone else's rights. But the engineer in my scenario has not violated anyone's rights. He has not participated in any fraud, he did not cause the design flaw in question, and he is merely AWARE of a situation which he has an opportunity to rectify. Your inability to deal with the situation is only made more apparent by your refusal to address it directly.

BTW, vicarious liability doesn't work both ways. But of course, you're the one claiming to be an expert on "corporate law" ...

Quick, Wong, declare victory now for the parrots. They do so need their cracker.

Psychological projection can be quite amusing.

[CaptainChewbacca]

why don't you two make a clean break and start fresh, without all this quoting?

Its getting hard to follow.

Storm, resubmit your clarified argument, and Wong can challenge it point by point as he wishes.

I've often found clarity is the key to true debate.

[David]

Its getting hard to follow.

I suggest you try harder.

[GeeYouEye]

I'd say it's fraud, based on the way I read the original scenario; I suspect at least one, if not both of you read it another way. The original situation involved an engineer finding a flaw in a product, and upon bringing it up with the supervisor, was told that the problem was known, and was not to be corrected. That is fraud. If I'm wrong, and the supervisor was hitherto uninformed, and the flaw was not known, then it's negligence. Simple, really. If you all would bother to make sure you were on the same page, then these debates would go a lot smoother I think.

[Vympel]

I'd say it's fraud, based on the way I read the original scenario; I suspect at least one, if not both of you read it another way. The original situation involved an engineer finding a flaw in a product, and upon bringing it up with the supervisor, was told that the problem was known, and was not to be corrected. That is fraud.

Legally that's incorrect and I'd say in 'common sense' useage it's not a viable definition either- though IMO this is one area where the law and common sense hold pretty much the same position.

Fraud is a false statement willfully made with an intent to decieve- negligence on the other hand (which is what this is), specifically gross negligence, is the failure to use the slightest amount of care, showing a reckless disregard for the safety of others.

Now, if the supervisor were asked by someone about flaws in the product, and he said there were none, that would include fraud- IF he knew there were.

[AdmiralKanos]

I'd say it's fraud, based on the way I read the original scenario; I suspect at least one, if not both of you read it another way. The original situation involved an engineer finding a flaw in a product, and upon bringing it up with the supervisor, was told that the problem was known, and was not to be corrected. That is fraud. If I'm wrong, and the supervisor was hitherto uninformed, and the flaw was not known, then it's negligence. Simple, really. If you all would bother to make sure you were on the same page, then these debates would go a lot smoother I think.

So you, like Rucker, simply assume that the engineer's manager is lying when he thinks that the problem is not serious enough to warrant an expensive remedy? You assume that there is an implicit public statement of product quality which is made fraudulent by this flaw? Does it occur to you that the management of the company might sincerely believe the product is safe enough for public use? And yes, the term is "safe enough"; nothing is 100% safe, and trade-offs between safety and cost are made every goddamned day in the REAL WORLD.

I love the way he (and you) simply assume it must be deliberate fraud on the part of the company even though there is no hint in the original scenario. As always, the tactic when confronted with a tough scenario is to simply alter it or add unnecessary conditions until the square peg fits into the round hole.

The fact is that the company is not guilty of fraud because the management does not believe there is a problem. The engineer is not guilty of fraud because he has not misrepresented anything. No one's rights have been violated, since there is no such thing as a right to a perfectly safe product, or complete documentation of every conceivable safety concern that might be expressed by every employee of a company. But from the engineer's perspective, he believes there is a serious public safety hazard which is going unchecked, and he has to go maverick if he's going to do something about it.

Gut-check time: what do you do? What if you have a big mortgage on your house and you will lose your home when the company fires you for trying to embarrass them in public, which they almost certainly will? How do you come to a conclusion based on a scheme of ethics based solely on the freedom to do whatever you want unless it interferes with someone else's freedom to do the same?

[CaptainChewbacca]

See, now we're getting into opinion. I think WILLFULL negligence, not making sure something is safe when you should, can be a part of fraud when you represent that thing as safe.

So, what would you call willfull negligence?

[David]

Gut-check time: what do you do? What if you have a big mortgage on your house and you will lose your home when the company fires you for trying to embarrass them in public, which they almost certainly will? How do you come to a conclusion based on a scheme of ethics based solely on the freedom to do whatever you want unless it interferes with someone else's freedom to do the same?

If I was operating under those principles I'd shut the hell up and comfort myself with the fact that my bosses, whom are supposed to be more capable of making such decisions, have made the correct choice, and even if they haven't, it isn't my fault.




Hey post 3000, cool .

[Darth Wong]

See, now we're getting into opinion. I think WILLFULL negligence, not making sure something is safe when you should, can be a part of fraud when you represent that thing as safe.

Except that "safe" is not an on/off binary proposition. I have made this point several times now, seemingly without effect.

The product is considered "safe enough" by the company managers that an expensive last-minute remedy for one particular problem is not deemed worthwhile. There is no fraud whatsoever here.

So, what would you call willfull negligence?

In this case, I would call it an attempt to change the subject.

[Vympel]

See, now we're getting into opinion. I think WILLFULL negligence, not making sure something is safe when you should, can be a part of fraud when you represent that thing as safe.

There must be an intent to decieve to constitute fraud. Legally, you couldn't carry an action on fraud with the facts of this case, and you wouldn't need to anyway- you'd have plenty of recourse in tort for negligence.

So, what would you call willfull negligence?

Yes you could argue that, the point is fraud is not a part of it.

[Darth Wong]

If I was operating under those principles I'd shut the hell up and comfort myself with the fact that my bosses, whom are supposed to be more capable of making such decisions, have made the correct choice, and even if they haven't, it isn't my fault.

Small problem: in your professional opinion, the managers are incompetent. You disagree strongly with them, and you are absolutely sure that this problem presents a serious public safety hazard. Based on your knowledge and training, inaction on your part will result in civilian injuries and perhaps even deaths.

This is a Kobayashi Maru scenario, buddy. It's a no-win scenario, and you have to decide what to do. Ethicists can't work with easy scenarios; what's the point?

It's a good scenario because it illustrates the difference between approaches. The solely rights-based approach has little choice but to tell you to sit back and let it happen, because no one's rights are being violated (either that, or they keep trying to rewrite the scenario to ram a square peg into a round hole). Duty ethics and other forms (see John Stuart Mill) lead to substantially different conclusions. A well-rounded ethical approach might balance several approaches out.

But somehow, most people will agree that sitting there and doing nothing is just not right.

[Kuroneko]

So, what would you call willfull negligence?

Why does it need a name other than 'willful negligence'?

I think it is quite reasonable to conform with the opinion on an engineer on the legal aspects of his own field unless actual law proves him wrong. That has not happened.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Mike referenced STAR TREK!!!!!!!!!!

HELL HAS FROZEN OVER!!!