| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kehmor
Caldari
The Movement
   |
Posted - 2007.04.17 10:02:00 -
[31]
a + b. I'm not sure why you felt it neccesary to give us this vague analogy of the current high sec, low sec and null sec system as it is leaving a lot of factors out.
|
wettestwillie
|
Posted - 2007.04.17 16:26:00 -
[32]
a+b. if you don't want someone to steal your can, dont use jetcans.
|
Adaris
Dark and Light inc.
D-L
|
Posted - 2007.04.19 17:33:00 -
[33]
A)
You are to blame for your wallet being stolen as you were careless in placing your wallet in that situation. Considering the fact that you yourself agreed to the rules in the first place, you are to blame fo outside persons having stolen your wallet because you created the situation for them. Since stealing was against the rules, you having created the environment for robbery to take place puts you in the position of responsibility for the repercussions that follow.
I sincerily hope you enjoyed your time in the house/garden as your about to be thrown out by the authority for going against the mutually agreed upon rules.
* * *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=euZ0j7vtKEQ
|
Molovian Twilight
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.04.21 05:52:00 -
[34]
Depends, were you sitting at the table at the time of the theft? If so what were the circumstances of the theft? Who might have reported it to the athorities? Could others see and didn't help or chose not to? What group on the island did the theft and why? etc...
Personally I would have to ask about the value of an island where no rules apply except for those in a house with some sort of elusive athorities. so the fault sounds like the design of the island.
|
Ituralde
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2007.04.21 06:31:00 -
[35]
Who cares who is in violation of your rules?
The other people, if I understand it correctly, weren't even bound by them.
At any rate, the only sort of rules that should be trusted are physical ones. Beyond that, expect the possibility that they will be broken and take steps accordingly. For example, making it easy for someone to take advantage of you probably is not a good idea. From there, it is everyone's own personal responsibility to their own well being to see that they are as resistant to being taken advantage of as possible.
_____________________________
Fear is the mind-killer.
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
|
Posted - 2007.04.23 16:19:00 -
[36]
Assuming that you deliberately put the wallet on the table, knowing that there was a non-negligible probability that it would be stolen (you don't mention how often people break the rules in the garden), I would say A.
C also, without qualification.
D also, but only if either
The authority had the opportunity and the means to prevent the the theft and chose not to.The authority should have been observing the garden at the time of the theft but through its own fault did not
I'd say more, but you'd need to write out the rules for me 
------
Spreadsheets: Top speed calculation - Halo Implant tanking |
Nyabinghi
Minmatar
Khumatari Holdings
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2007.04.24 03:41:00 -
[37]
I'd lean towards C.
Just because something is unguarded and easy to steal doesn't mean one should steal it. Of course that would require that society evolves and matures to that degree of civility.
***
|
Rudy Metallo
G.H.O.S.T
|
Posted - 2007.04.24 03:47:00 -
[38]
 Originally by: Davlos
A & B.
If you put your wallet intentionally in a place where no rules apply, you're simply asking for it. To go out into places where rules do not apply means that you've accepted the risk of having harm being inflicted onto your person, and be prepared to take losses of any sort.
This guy has the right idea.
Say what? |
April Knox
COLD-Wing
Mordus Angels
|
Posted - 2007.04.24 06:40:00 -
[39]
E: The wallet is to blame. Such a little inanimate object and causing all this hassle.
|
Kaylee Kaitlen
Absolutely No Return
|
Posted - 2007.04.25 15:54:00 -
[40]
I agree with Jenneth and Kuroda as well.
In short, you've laid out 3 different sets of rules, and then asked a question of "blame", which implies a reference to a single set of rules. Unless you assume a higher authority (which you have not stipulated), then the answer is different depending on your perspective.
Even without this problem, you haven't elaborated on what these "house rules" are. Is stealing wallets against the rules of a house? What about taking wallets for their materials but leaving any money that is inside behind? What about destroying wallets, but not actually seizing them nor their contents?
I suspect that this is a thinly veiled analogy to our current galactic system of law, but if you're going to propose a thought experiment, it needs to exist outside any frame of reference in order to remain as uncorrupted by prejudice as possible.
Nevertheless, thank you for posing and interesting problem and I will be interested to see what conclusions you draw from this.
Damage is king, Speed kills, Style is everything
Burn with passion, Kill with rage, Live with hope, Die with honor |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |