Is Cold approaching illegal?

[billiesimon]

17 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

I heard most american jurors assume that the defendants are guilty by default because the accusers are almost always right.

 

What you are seeing (which is true) is the dark side of stage green spiral dynamics. Full emotional retardation. The bright side of it is emotional intelligence, empathy etc which are wonderful. Now this stage has to develop its dark side too, like orange already did.

Once this bullshit becomes completely corrupted, stage yellow will arise and all this emotional nonsense will be crucified and fixed.

And we will finally have an actual caring and loving justice system, which protects victims and innocent people at the same time.
We have to wait.

[CreamCat]

10 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

Full emotional retardation. The bright side of it is emotional intelligence

How can a person be emotionally retarded and intelligent at the same time? Your IQ cannot be both 80 and 160 at the same time.

Edited August 21, 2018 by CreamCat

[Emerald]

29 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

What about the supposed victims of fraud, libel, violence, murder, and other crimes? Do people need to assume that the accused are always 'guilty until proven innocent' for whatever crime?

I heard most american jurors assume that the defendants are guilty by default because the accusers are almost always right.

It sounds that you want to bypass the legal process entirely.

I'm so afraid because, when psychopaths hear about the news that the accusers are assumed always right, they will concentrate their entire force on that weak point of people's lives. Psychopaths become full-time accusers. One full-time accuser can be sueing 10~20 people at any given time.

When that happens, women are not safe, either because the professional accusers will not stop.

Again, I said that it's my rule for 'me' as an individual. The legal process needs to have impartiality... I do not. 

[CreamCat]

The entire weight of psychopathy is ready to crush anyone. Beware. You're not safe.

They will manifest in any form to catch you when you don't expect it.

Psychopaths don't care who you are. If they sense delicious smell from you, you are a food to them.

When you are in the ocean, don't bleed because psychopaths are sharks in the ocean.

Edited August 21, 2018 by CreamCat

[billiesimon]

5 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

How can a person be emotionally retarded and intelligent at the same time? Your IQ cannot be both 80 and 160 at the same time.

I'm talking about the spiral dynamics stages. Check it out on Leo's channel. Or read the articles on the internet.

Each stage has positive and negative traits. 
Green stage brings emotional awareness and finally removes all racial and sexual biases.
But at the same time it has a dark side of mob mentality, cult-like behaviours, somehow similar to the purple and blue stages. Collectivist stages tend to be very inquisitory and anti-individualism. 

[CreamCat]

7 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

Green stage brings emotional awareness and finally removes all racial and sexual biases.

I don't think so. Why do PC fanatics focus so much on race and sex? Why do they perceive offence on a race when none was intended? Removing racial and sexual biases means one doesn't think of race and sex except when it's necessary.

I think the individualistic stages of tier 1 of spiral dynamics focus much less on racial and sexual biases.

Edited August 21, 2018 by CreamCat

[Emerald]

35 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

I sympathize with abused people. I care for them.
I also sympathize with innocent people, at the same level.
That's why you have to ALWAYS suggest to start the investigations and to collect the data.  Data are NOT pro victim neither pro criminal. They are pro justice. If you put your higher value on the friends you are fucking up justice. The same if you side with the accused. You are fucking up justice.

Again, you unfortunately don't have the luxury of being neutral or objective in this situation. Unfortunately, on the practical level, there will either be total non-involvement or picking a side. So, if you're giving the abuser the benefit of the doubt on the off-chance that they're in that 2%, then you are in effect withdrawing support from the victim whether it is your intention or not. And when most people in society do that, the majority of victims WON'T come forward. 

Again, if your opinion means absolutely nothing of legal substance, doesn't it make the most sense to default to believing the abused. Doesn't it make sense to default to believing the abused if 90% of rapes go unreported? This is a much bigger issue that the 2% of falsely reported rapes (which is 10% of rapes... so 2% of 10% which equals .02% of all rapists/alleged rapists combined).

So, you're saying that .02% of all accused rapists deserve the same level of concern as the 1/4 or more of women and 1/10 or more of men who have been the victims of sexual assault. That's just going to make it easier for rapists to rape. So, unfortunately, those .02% (while I feel bad for them) I prioritize making society a place where it's more difficult to get away with rape, as this will save many more people grief. 

I understand why this issue is uncomfortable. I've thought it through extensively. And if you really understand the gravity and scope of the issue of sexual assault, then you will see why this is really the best solution. And the best part about it is that your opinion isn't the law's opinion. You can think whatever you decide without it effecting legal proceedings. 

Edited August 21, 2018 by Emerald

[CreamCat]

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

if 90% of rapes go unreported?

How can you quantify unreported stuff? Are you the infinite God that knows everything?

As far as I know, the human civilization is not advanced enough to quantify this.

Can I assume that 90% of murders and frauds go unreported?

19 minutes ago, Emerald said:

So, if you're giving the abuser the benefit of the doubt on the off-chance that they're in that 2%

How did you come up with this number? Have you actually put your assumptions up to test?

Edited August 21, 2018 by CreamCat

[billiesimon]

15 minutes ago, Emerald said:

Again, you unfortunately don't have the luxury of being neutral or objective in this situation. Unfortunately, on the practical level, there will either be total non-involvement or picking a side. So, if you're giving the abuser the benefit of the doubt on the off-chance that they're in that 2%, then you are in effect withdrawing support from the victim whether it is your intention or not. And when most people in society do that, the majority of victims WON'T come forward. 

Again, if your opinion means absolutely nothing of legal substance, doesn't it make the most sense to default to believing the abused. Doesn't it make sense to default to believing the abused if 90% of rapes go unreported? This is a much bigger issue that the 2% of falsely reported rapes (which is 10% of rapes... so 2% of 10% which equals .02% of all rapists/alleged rapists combined).

So, you're saying that .02% of all accused rapists deserve the same level of concern as the 1/4 or more of women and 1/10 or more of men who have been the victims of sexual assault. That's just going to make it easier for rapists to rape. So, unfortunately, those .02% (while I feel bad for them) I prioritize making society a place where it's more difficult to get away with rape, as this will save many more people grief. 

I understand why this issue is uncomfortable. I've thought it through extensively. And if you really understand the gravity and scope of the issue of sexual assault, then you will see why this is really the best solution. And the best part about it is that your opinion isn't the law's opinion. You can think whatever you decide without it effecting legal proceedings. 

I think this discussion is becoming ideological. I've already stated my clearly empathetic (and at the same time neutral) position.

Being neutral AND suggesting the victim to GO to the police and file the accusation is NOT siding with the criminal. Or am I becoming an idiot who can't write? (by the way I'm italian, not american). This is my position. 
If a friend or a dear one comes to me, and says "I've been attacked bla bla bla, I'll respond: "I'm sorry! We have to file a police report right now, start investigations, find truth and punish the criminal (if the allegation is true)".

A part from this, which is an empathetic approach to the person, I still keep being neutral inside myself. Because god know what really happened. We don't know!! 
What you have to understand is that knowing that you don't know is NOT siding with the criminal. Siding with the criminal is the classic "slut shaming". That's siding with the aggressor! Not being neutral and analytical. Being neutral means that you want the investigation to happen and yet at the same time you just know that it's all wrapped in black, deep darkness....

Reason is the only light of hope in a world of darkness.

[Emerald]

2 minutes ago, billiesimon said:

I think this discussion is becoming ideological. I've already stated my clearly empathetic (and at the same time neutral) position.

Being neutral AND suggesting the victim to GO to the police and file the accusation is NOT siding with the criminal. Or am I becoming an idiot who can't write? (by the way I'm italian, not american). This is my position. 
If a friend or a dear one comes to me, and says "I've been attacked bla bla bla, I'll respond: "I'm sorry! We have to file a police report right now, start investigations, find truth and punish the criminal (if the allegation is true)".

A part from this, which is an empathetic approach to the person, I still keep being neutral inside myself. Because god know what really happened. We don't know!! 
What you have to understand is that knowing that you don't know is NOT siding with the criminal. Siding with the criminal is the classic "slut shaming". That's siding with the aggressor! Not being neutral and analytical. Being neutral means that you want the investigation to happen and yet at the same time you just know that it's all wrapped in black, deep darkness....

Reason is the only light of hope in a world of darkness.

As long as you keep your neutrality to yourself in this matter, it won't affect society. But if you come out as neutral and choose neutrality and "innocent until proven guilty" as your hill to die on in response to rape allegations, then it causes a lot of problems on the macro level. But I'm not being idealogical. My advice on this is purely practical when considering the ramifications of such neutral stances when widely held. It's all about the impact on the broad scale, even if the intent is to be impartial.

If a person really cares about victims of sexual violence, then they will likely consider the impact of their stances relative to these matters on society as a whole. And if we look at the big picture, the best way to do that is to not spread any more skepticism to the victim than there already is. Every victim of rape will be lambasted with accusations of false reporting... probably by tons of friends, family, and strangers. So, when a random person, says "innocent until proven guilty", it sends a clear signal that they're not on their side and don't empathize with them one bit. 

[billiesimon]

35 minutes ago, Emerald said:

As long as you keep your neutrality to yourself in this matter, it won't affect society. But if you come out as neutral and choose neutrality and "innocent until proven guilty" as your hill to die on in response to rape allegations, then it causes a lot of problems on the macro level. But I'm not being idealogical. My advice on this is purely practical when considering the ramifications of such neutral stances when widely held. It's all about the impact on the broad scale, even if the intent is to be impartial.

If a person really cares about victims of sexual violence, then they will likely consider the impact of their stances relative to these matters on society as a whole. And if we look at the big picture, the best way to do that is to not spread any more skepticism to the victim than there already is. Every victim of rape will be lambasted with accusations of false reporting... probably by tons of friends, family, and strangers. So, when a random person, says "innocent until proven guilty", it sends a clear signal that they're not on their side and don't empathize with them one bit. 

Yeah, but I've already said that I promote neutrality of the law, not of empathy. Don't make me repeat a third time. I'm just concerned with delivering the truth on a formal level. Because at the end of the day we need police, judges and formal help. Feelings won't arrest anybody. But again I repeat that I would naturally suggest the person to report and to seek help.

I think this is also a cultural problem, because north america is very cold and impersonal. It scares me a lot. I don't want Italy to become like america, it's such a disgusting place for personal relationships.

Coming from my culture I can attest that siding with the relative/friend is NORMAL and the baseline here. But I get it that in america people are fucked in the head. You north americans have such a cold attitude towards family and friends. Here we have a very morbid attachment to family and friendship, to the point of being ideological LOL. This again proves that evolving our human interaction is the solution. Not asking for more government.

 

By the way, I also believe that all this "death penalty culture" and "prison violence" that you have in america is one of the most fucked up things in the western world. 
To be honest I also believe that prisons are outdated and humankind needs to find a both empathetic and rational cure to criminals, and reintegrate them in society and making them feel accepted.

Criminals tend to develop an ego around the punishment that they get, and this intensifies their suffering, which brings even more suffering to the innocent. And also to themselves. For example I feel a lot of pity and sadness towards school shooters. Makes me cry to just think what they must have endured to become crazy and insane... 

But the world is not ready to discover these "empathetic superpowers" that can heal damaged criminals to turn them into actualized beings.

I strongly believe that a happy society holds no punishments for its citizens.
I'd like to hear your thoughts because you have more experience than me in the field of systemic understanding.

Edited August 21, 2018 by billiesimon

[Emerald]

50 minutes ago, CreamCat said:

How can you quantify unreported stuff? Are you the infinite God that knows everything?

As far as I know, the human civilization is not advanced enough to quantify this.

Can I assume that 90% of murders and frauds go unreported?

How did you come up with this number? Have you actually put your assumptions up to test?

They do surveys of wide samplings of society. I know that there's some degree of potential for inaccuracy. That said, even if it's a little bit inaccurate, the general pattern still shows that we have an issue that needs to be remedied in society relative to the societal response to someone coming out about rape and deciding to press charges. Plus, my experiences with sexual assault in general indicate to me that it's a common occurrence. And I never reported any of the four of them, mostly because they happened when I was a child/teenager and I didn't want to deal with it because I'd rather just move on. The thought of coming out with it and dealing with it legally was so repulsive to me, that I'd much rather let it go. That's one of the reasons why I believe that defaulting to believing the accuser over the accused will result in a better and more transparent society where people feel more comfortable coming forward. 

[CreamCat]

4 hours ago, Emerald said:

They do surveys of wide samplings of society. I know that there's some degree of potential for inaccuracy. That said, even if it's a little bit inaccurate, the general pattern still shows that we have an issue that needs to be remedied in society relative to the societal response to someone coming out about rape and deciding to press charges. Plus, my experiences with sexual assault in general indicate to me that it's a common occurrence. And I never reported any of the four of them, mostly because they happened when I was a child/teenager and I didn't want to deal with it because I'd rather just move on. The thought of coming out with it and dealing with it legally was so repulsive to me, that I'd much rather let it go. That's one of the reasons why I believe that defaulting to believing the accuser over the accused will result in a better and more transparent society where people feel more comfortable coming forward. 

@Emerald Don't believe surveys. Don't believe black holes. Don't believe science. Don't believe physical atoms. People thought physical atoms existed until they found out that they didn't exist. There a lot of (metaphysical) assumptions in surveys and science that make things simpler than they are.

You remind me of myself because I had very negative experiences with compulsory education and started advocating abolition of prussian education model. You and I both react by believing the opposite of something that hurt us in the past. The opposite of something that hurts is not guaranteed to be the solution to your problems. Is abolition of prussian education model really guaranteed to be a step forward? Have I put my assumptions up to test?

Why do you think compulsory education is good although I had very negative experiences with it? Why am I not convinced that the accusers are right by default even though you don't want to go through legal hassles to punish sexual misconducts? Who knows who is more right?

I have to admit that I don't really know whether abolishing compulsory education leads to better results although there are always better models of anything that I don't know. You would recognize that I am bullshitting myself about education, solely based on my petty personal experiences. Compulsory education is good, but there must be exceptions like me, right?

If you watched enough of leo's videos, you would know that most people are bullshitting themselves by believing things that align only with their own personal experiences. One's ego is a little tyrant. My egoic tyrant wants to become a giant and crush public schools and be on its own way because I hate schools!! I don't care whether people die in the process of destroying public schools because it is acceptable collateral damage for the rightful cause, right? What does your tyrant say? Does your tyrant secretly want to become a queen and order your soldiers to behead people who inappropriately rubbed with you in the past? What kind of collateral damages is your tyrant willing to accept?

Beware egoic tendencies to overcompensate for things by reacting to them. Don't take conceptual models too seriously.

Quote

defaulting to believing the accuser over the accused will result in a better and more transparent society where people feel more comfortable coming forward.

Beware what you mean by people. Psychopaths and con artists are among the people. Consider the possibility that psychopaths might come after you, your business, or people you need or care about. Let me substitute psychopaths for people

Quote

defaulting to believing the accuser over the accused will result in a better and more transparent society where psychopaths feel more comfortable coming forward.

What you propose doesn't differentiate psychopaths from people you want to protect. I think this is already how the court of public opinion works to a large degree. It's a double-edged sword.

This accusation mechanism was used by nazis. Nazis accused jews of many things. The nazi solution to the jew problem was to gas the jews. It can be used as a tool of demagoguery. The sword doesn't care who its wielder is.

Edited August 21, 2018 by CreamCat

[Hansu]

You are probably from USA but OP, this opener is like the most finnish thing i have ever read written by an outsider

[eleveneleven]

Minor point perhaps, but people keep saying, "This or that is illegal/legal," but in what context? Laws differ by country, and sometimes even in different territories within the same country (as is the case often in the US, for instance).

In some places (perhaps in certain theocracies), I would imagine that doing cold approach or something along those lines probably would be illegal. In a more developed country, it's unlikely that it would be illegal to just walk up and randomly talk to a stranger.