[Poll] [Discuss] Did Jasnah do the right thing?

[Pathfinder]

4 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

You are responsible for your own actions and inactions, but not those of others.

Let's put it this way, someone is planning on commiting murder, Bob, finds out but does nothing, Bob is not responsible for the murder, but he is at fault for doing nothing.

Ok, thank you for the follow up answer. Then, and I am not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I misrepresent, I apologize in advance and it was not my intention. But when you say he is at fault for doing nothing, that sounds to me that it would be unethical to do nothing, but not punishable. Hence the difference between fault versus responsible. Did I understand correctly?

(I started to write this addition but figure I will add it here instead. Just to be clear, not trying to trick or entrap you. Genuinely wanting to understand. You could have just answered yes, and I would consider the question asked and answered)

(added "not" in front of punishable. taking the time to write this because it is a subtle change, but bears much much meaning and could lead to large misunderstandings lol)

Edited December 8, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Frustration]

Just now, Pathfinder said:

Ok, thank you for the follow up answer. Then, and I am not trying to put words in your mouth, so if I misrepresent, I apologize in advance and it was not my intention. But when you say he is at fault for doing nothing, that sounds to me that it would be unethical to do nothing, but punishable. Hence the difference between fault versus responsible. Did I understand correctly? (I started to write this addition but figure I will add it here instead. Just to be clear, not trying to trick or entrap you. Genuinely wanting to understand. You could have just answered yes, and I would consider the question asked and answered)

Do you mean "that sounds to me it would be unethical to do nothing, but not punishable." ?

[Pathfinder]

7 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

Do you mean "that sounds to me it would be unethical to do nothing, but not punishable." ?

LOL so yeah i made the edit but took too long to post it. Correct it should be:

"That sounds to me it would be unethical to do nothing, but not punishable "

Also a little joke to lighten the mood, i would imagine you would disagree strongly with Seinfeld's finale lol.

[Frustration]

Just now, Pathfinder said:

LOL so yeah i made the edit but took too long to post it.

I know that feeling

Just now, Pathfinder said:

"That sounds to me it would be unethical to do nothing, but not punishable "

That is correct

1 minute ago, Pathfinder said:

Also a little joke to lighten the mood, i would imagine you would disagree strongly with Seinfeld's finale lol.

I have not seen that so I can't say.

[Pathfinder]

6 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

I have not seen that so I can't say.

Basically seinfield and crew were traveling someplace and had to stop off in a town. While walking around the town, an overweight individual gets robbed right in front of them (they watched from across the street). They watched it happen, made jokes about the weight and robbery and munched on popcorn, then continued on their way. It is revealed in the episode that the town had just passed something to the effect of "negligent bystander ". They are then arrested and it becomes a trial of character where all their past interactions are shown to establish the type of people they are. They are ruled to be horribly inconsiderate and selfish and are jailed. The episode ends with them sitting in jail talking.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

Basically seinfield and crew were traveling someplace and had to stop off in a town. While walking around the town, an overweight individual gets robbed right in front of them (they watched from across the street). They watched it happen, made jokes about the weight and robbery and munched on popcorn, then continued on their way. It is revealed in the episode that the town had just passed something to the effect of "negligent bystander ". They are then arrested and it becomes a trial of character where all their past interactions are shown to establish the type of people they are. They are ruled to be horribly inconsiderate and selfish and are jailed. The episode ends with them sitting in jail talking.

That does bother me, you're right.

Edited December 8, 2021 by Ookla the Frustrated

[NameIess]

2 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

There wasn't any proof of who the benefactor is. Even if there was proof, Jasnah would have to prove the men specifically targeted her. She went out at night without any personal protection nor informed the local authorities she would be leaving, so it is not an issue on the party of Kharbranth failing to protect her. She could certainly have demanded their heads for having been accosted, but then we get back to the issue presented of her going right to the killing. That they should have been captured so they could be jailed. Basically given a continual statement across this thread is that killing should be the absolute last option, then by extension this means there cannot be a resolution preventing further deaths sourced at killing the men nor their benefactor. That only after every other avenue was tried first, says to me that if at any point in the scenario Jasnah called for these individuals deaths, unless they actively targeted her directly (and even then given her powers she should still incapacitate them), then her killing of them should not be considered. Hmm, I had trouble writing that sentence in a coherent way. Let me try this:

 

It doesn't matter who the benefactor is. No sane Karbranthian noble would take a grudge against Taravangian so far as to risk the displeasure of Alethkar. Even Sadeas at his most antagonistic would agree that those who tried to kill the princess of Alethkar should be executed, even if he had hired them to attempt it. Jasnah's political power is great enough that threatening her life is a death sentence. Legally, Jasnah was 100% in the right to kill those men.

2 hours ago, Pathfinder said:

1. Killing is always the last possible action

2. There is always a way to incapacitate and detain those men

3. If those men are not killed, they will get out and do the crime again

point 3 is where I disagree. Those men were dead the moment they tried to kill Jasnah. The robbers had not killed or even threatened anyone high ranking. The moment they threatened Jasnah, that changed. Their importance went from "Yeah, just some common robbers and murderers, they only kill darkeyes. Let's bribe the guard so that they don't get caught. That'll make Taravangian look bad and remind him of our power" to "STORMFATHER! THOSE IDIOTS TRIED TO KILL A MEMBER OF THE MOST POWERFUL FAMILY ON ROSHAR. IF WE DON'T KILL THEM ASAP, THEY WILL TAKE OFFENSE AND DEMAND REIMBURSEMENT AT BEST, DECLARE WAR AND KILL US ALL AT WORST" Those men would've been killed within days, even if Jasnah had not captured them. Therefore, no one else would die, and the men would be tried and executed.

Another factor to consider is that those men might not have been guilty. Do we know beyond all reasonable doubt that they were going to kill Shallan and Jasnah? (Note that I am not trying to say that Jasnah was wrong to kill those men when she did it. She definitely had reason to believe that they were going to use deadly force on her, and was thus justified in using deadly force on them in return) For all we know, those men were simply going to rob her. Jasnah and Shallan could've interpreted their intent wrongly. Those men might have been a completely different group to the one that had killed before.

[Pathfinder]

57 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

It doesn't matter who the benefactor is. No sane Karbranthian noble would take a grudge against Taravangian so far as to risk the displeasure of Alethkar. Even Sadeas at his most antagonistic would agree that those who tried to kill the princess of Alethkar should be executed, even if he had hired them to attempt it. Jasnah's political power is great enough that threatening her life is a death sentence. Legally, Jasnah was 100% in the right to kill those men.

I think there has been some confusion. Personally I believe Jasnah was right to kill those men. Further in a prior post I explained why I believed legally both in book world as well as real world, she would have gotten off. 

My subsequent posts later was taking a concept presented, which was that killing should be the last option, and she should have instead apprehended them, and for general discourse posited a change of perspective. Maybe if I explain what caused me to think like this. I was reading a book regarding how perception works in regards to psychology and cultures. So for instance most cultures view the future as the progression forward, in front, that we move towards. The book I read mentioned a culture that sees the future as behind, and the past as ahead. The reasoning being that we can remember or "see" the past, but the future has not been yet, so since we cannot remember or "see" it our back is to it, and it flows from behind us to in front of us. So going on that idea of a change of perspective I opted to inquire if the same view was then applied from a different perspective and if people believed it was a valid way of understanding the world.

That is why I took the idea that killing is the last possible action and all other options must be exhausted and then applied it to the criminals. There they did not exhaust all other possibilities before killing. So how would that concept apply to them?

Then taking the idea that Jasnah should have apprehended the men and not killed them, I extrapolated on the circumstances that would flow from that. If Jasnah was not to take an action to result in those men's deaths, then would their subsequent crimes have any connection to her. And thereby would her not killing them be considered unethical as she had the power to prevent the crimes, but took an action she knew ultimately would not prevent them. 

Now my response in so far as thinking the situation as presented out in regards to your objections, I replied before that unless an honor guard was required to be around her at all times, a group of thugs attacking and or killing Jasnah would not result in war. If a benefactor was proven, it would still have to be shown that she was the target. Otherwise it could be argued that she herself did not take proper precautions in a foreign land. Now the Alethi could still go and claim that as a reason to declare war, because frankly with the way the Alethi were, they could say the fluffy clouds formed a middle finger while in kharbranth, so they are offended and will take over. But at the time of the book, they were focused on the shattered plains, and were fragmented. It would be difficult to join them all together to attack. Sadeas would probably quip about Jasnah being a foolish girl unable to take care of herself. In all likelihood, I would imagine that the benefactor would be suitably horrified about the misunderstanding, and swear off all such activity. That they were taken advantage and are simply aghast. Then simply continue the enterprise in such a way to avoid detection for awhile. 

57 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Another factor to consider is that those men might not have been guilty. Do we know beyond all reasonable doubt that they were going to kill Shallan and Jasnah? (Note that I am not trying to say that Jasnah was wrong to kill those men when she did it. She definitely had reason to believe that they were going to use deadly force on her, and was thus justified in using deadly force on them in return) For all we know, those men were simply going to rob her. Jasnah and Shallan could've interpreted their intent wrongly. Those men might have been a completely different group to the one that had killed before.

So although there is the fact that this has happened multiple times before, and in every instance it resulted in the murder of the individuals dead and although there is the fact that they trapped the women, and held weapons one could still say as you did that either they may have changed their mind, or been the wrong people. It could be if not for one crucial thing. One of the men approached Jasnah and went to stab her. It is as he moved to stab her, she then reached out, touched him, and changed him to fire. The novel was very clear on that order. The man attacked with lethal intent with a lethal weapon. Up until that point Jasnah had done nothing. So forgetting all other information. Forget the prior crimes. Forget the fact the men surrounded them. Forget that they are armed. We are showed clearly in the book the man struck first with a weapon. He did not threaten. Did not state "give me your money or else" and then Jasnah resisted. There was no dialogue. There was no quid pro quo. He approached, he stabbed. Which is why I stated in my initial post that the first guy was pure self defense. If it was in a normal court of law, it would be difficult to prove the other three were not, as the lack of two bodies (smoke) and the crystal one could be explained away. However if the court could examine the same factual retelling word for word as we have, the subsequent three men would not be self defense, as they attempted to flee the scene. 

 

Hopefully all that clarified my earlier posts. As a follow up, do you see a possibility where one could consider in this situation that not killing the men be unethical?

[NameIess]

2 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Now my response in so far as thinking the situation as presented out in regards to your objections, I replied before that unless an honor guard was required to be around her at all times, a group of thugs attacking and or killing Jasnah would not result in war. If a benefactor was proven, it would still have to be shown that she was the target. Otherwise it could be argued that she herself did not take proper precautions in a foreign land. Now the Alethi could still go and claim that as a reason to declare war, because frankly with the way the Alethi were, they could say the fluffy clouds formed a middle finger while in kharbranth, so they are offended and will take over. But at the time of the book, they were focused on the shattered plains, and were fragmented. It would be difficult to join them all together to attack. Sadeas would probably quip about Jasnah being a foolish girl unable to take care of herself. In all likelihood, I would imagine that the benefactor would be suitably horrified about the misunderstanding, and swear off all such activity. That they were taken advantage and are simply aghast. Then simply continue the enterprise in such a way to avoid detection for awhile. 

Yeah, but no sane noble would ever give the Alethi any reason to be angry with them. Thereby, they would immediately find and kill the men responsible. Whoever the benefactor is, they would remove any protection they had given the men. They might not stop their activities for good, but Jasnah killing the men will not do so either.

8 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So although there is the fact that this has happened multiple times before, and in every instance it resulted in the murder of the individuals dead and although there is the fact that they trapped the women, and held weapons one could still say as you did that either they may have changed their mind, or been the wrong people. It could be if not for one crucial thing. One of the men approached Jasnah and went to stab her. It is as he moved to stab her, she then reached out, touched him, and changed him to fire. The novel was very clear on that order. The man attacked with lethal intent with a lethal weapon. Up until that point Jasnah had done nothing. So forgetting all other information. Forget the prior crimes. Forget the fact the men surrounded them. Forget that they are armed. We are showed clearly in the book the man struck first with a weapon. He did not threaten. Did not state "give me your money or else" and then Jasnah resisted. There was no dialogue. There was no quid pro quo. He approached, he stabbed. Which is why I stated in my initial post that the first guy was pure self defense. If it was in a normal court of law, it would be difficult to prove the other three were not, as the lack of two bodies (smoke) and the crystal one could be explained away. However if the court could examine the same factual retelling word for word as we have, the subsequent three men would not be self defense, as they attempted to flee the scene. 

You are correct. I didn't check the book before making my earlier post. The first man was self-defense. The subsequent three would be considered murder. Thereby, Jasnah should have captured them, or even simply mentioned that they had assaulted her, which would have resulted in the death of all three remaining convicts. Thereby, Jasnah was wrong (legally for certain, morally more ambiguously, but in my opinion she was wrong) to kill all the men except the first. Whether those men deserved death is not relevant to the legality of the scene, as Jasnah could no longer reasonably assume that they were attempting to kill her, and had no legal authority to judge those men guilty, and certainly not the authority to carry out their punishment. Morally, I would argue that she could have captured them, which would have the same result as killing them, with the exception that their guilt could have been concretely determined.

[Pathfinder]

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Yeah, but no sane noble would ever give the Alethi any reason to be angry with them. Thereby, they would immediately find and kill the men responsible. Whoever the benefactor is, they would remove any protection they had given the men. They might not stop their activities for good, but Jasnah killing the men will not do so either.

The benefactor could as you said kill them as appeasement, but as I said earlier it would come with the same problem that the issue was resolved with the death of the men. Though to add the benefactor could state he was killing the men, and hang or kill men that looked a lot like them, while they went into hiding. Then continue as they had after. 

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

You are correct. I didn't check the book before making my earlier post. The first man was self-defense. The subsequent three would be considered murder.

No problemo

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Thereby, Jasnah should have captured them, or even simply mentioned that they had assaulted her, which would have resulted in the death of all three remaining convicts.

Assuming she did apprehend them, and present them stating they attacked her and she calls for their execution, it still returns to her rushing to killing which in the premise offered, should be the last option. 

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Thereby, Jasnah was wrong

I will respond to each below in turn

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

(legally for certain

If in regards to the in world law, I disagree. If an individual could hear someone sneeze, take offense, and kill the individual with it all being legal so long as it is a light eyes to a light eyes or a light eyes to a dark eyes, then in that regard she did nothing wrong. The accosted her. As per that legal system they lost all right to live. Storms I think it was pretty clearly stated (though this is on recollection and could be wrong), that Jasnah could have Shallan executed for stealing her soulcast if she could prove it. But again, it runs into the issue of solving the problem with killing which the premise I presented was to try and solve the issue without death.

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

, morally more ambiguously,

Totally subjective to the individual so for myself she was fine, but I totally acknowledge and respect that as per your moral compass you see it as morally ambiguous. 

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

but in my opinion she was wrong

I respect and encourage your opinion, though I personally disagree. 

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Whether those men deserved death is not relevant to the legality of the scene, as Jasnah could no longer reasonably assume that they were attempting to kill her, and had no legal authority to judge those men guilty, and certainly not the authority to carry out their punishment.

In world, she was fine killing them all. In our world it would be difficult to prove the other three men were not self defense. If however they had a factual and verifiable blow by blow of the situation, I agree, the remaining three would be deemed as not self defense.

2 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Morally, I would argue that she could have captured them, which would have the same result as killing them, with the exception that their guilt could have been concretely determined.

So, breaking your statement down (and this is not intended to be reductionist) but essentially her main transgression regarding morality in your case is not so much the execution of the individuals, as the fact that she did it instead of a government body? Regardless they were to die, but it should not have been her?

Assuming that statement is correct, if it could be proven they would not be executed and would be released back on the street to continue, would she then have an ethical obligation to kill them?

[NameIess]

1 minute ago, Pathfinder said:

Assuming she did apprehend them, and present them stating they attacked her and she calls for their execution, it still returns to her rushing to killing which in the premise offered, should be the last option. 

I should have said this earlier, but I do not agree that killing should always be the last option. I think that the best option should always be the first option. If killing the men is what is required to keep the city safe, then that is the option that should be chosen.

2 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

The benefactor could as you said kill them as appeasement, but as I said earlier it would come with the same problem that the issue was resolved with the death of the men. Though to add the benefactor could state he was killing the men, and hang or kill men that looked a lot like them, while they went into hiding. Then continue as they had after. 

The benefactor would want to present the bodies as proof of the action taken to correct the problem. Thieves are replaceable, the political approval of Alethkar is not. Furthermore, We don't even know that the benefactor was behind the thieves in the beginning. In fact, the implication was that the thieves were bribing the watch. With the thieves dead, there would be no one bribing the guards. It is not like the guards were hiring thieves for their own profit. If Shallan stealing the soulcaster from Jasnah would have resulted in either war or Shallan and her brothers being turned over to Alethkar by the Vedens, a much more powerful and antagonistic country than Karbranth, hiding attempted murderers or murderers from the Alethi would not be considered for a second by any sane Karbranthian noble. No chance of angering the Alethi would have been worth it.

13 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

If in regards to the in world law, I disagree. If an individual could hear someone sneeze, take offense, and kill the individual with it all being legal so long as it is a light eyes to a light eyes or a light eyes to a dark eyes, then in that regard she did nothing wrong. The accosted her. As per that legal system they lost all right to live. Storms I think it was pretty clearly stated (though this is on recollection and could be wrong), that Jasnah could have Shallan executed for stealing her soulcast if she could prove it. But again, it runs into the issue of solving the problem with killing which the premise I presented was to try and solve the issue without death.

The standard of self defense probably doesn't exist on Roshar either. Jasnah admitted that she had no legal authority to kill those men, so she simply relied on her political power to override the law

16 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Totally subjective to the individual so for myself she was fine, but I totally acknowledge and respect that as per your moral compass you see it as morally ambiguous. 

Hence why I said it was ambiguous. I can see other people with slightly different values or thought processes than me coming to very different conclusions about the morality of Jasnah killing the men.

17 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

In world, she was fine killing them all. In our world it would be difficult to prove the other three men were not self defense. If however they had a factual and verifiable blow by blow of the situation, I agree, the remaining three would be deemed as not self defense.

Agreed. Jasnah basically has political immunity without officially having political immunity. Whether it is moral to use that political immunity is another question. Under American law, she would be guilty of murder.

25 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So, breaking your statement down (and this is not intended to be reductionist) but essentially her main transgression regarding morality in your case is not so much the execution of the individuals, as the fact that she did it instead of a government body? Regardless they were to die, but it should not have been her?

Yes. It should not have been her. Their guilt should have been determined by someone who has legal authority in Karbranth. What Jasnah did undermined the authority of the legal authorities in Karbranth. There is a reason we have the law, and if you can work inside of it to accomplish the optimal outcome, then you should.

30 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Assuming that statement is correct, if it could be proven they would not be executed and would be released back on the street to continue, would she then have an ethical obligation to kill them?

No, she would not. It is the responsibility of Taravangian and the Karbranthian government to do so, not Jasnah. She would almost certainly feel that she had an ethical obligation to do so, considering she did it even knowing that she could have them killed easily, but I do not believe that it is her responsibility.

The thing is, other options would have had a better result. If she had captured the robbers, she could have complained to the guard that they were not doing their job. Also, the captured robber might have confessed that they bribed the guards before being executed. Both of these could have resulted in the corruption of the guards being dealt with, preventing further thieves from being able to do the same thing, treating the sickness instead of the symptoms.

[Pathfinder]

55 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

I should have said this earlier, but I do not agree that killing should always be the last option. I think that the best option should always be the first option. If killing the men is what is required to keep the city safe, then that is the option that should be chosen.

No problemo. I just posited the scenario because multiple individuals on this thread stated as much, so I was curious the response to the potential perspective shift. 

55 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

The benefactor would want to present the bodies as proof of the action taken to correct the problem. Thieves are replaceable, the political approval of Alethkar is not. Furthermore, We don't even know that the benefactor was behind the thieves in the beginning. In fact, the implication was that the thieves were bribing the watch. With the thieves dead, there would be no one bribing the guards. It is not like the guards were hiring thieves for their own profit. If Shallan stealing the soulcaster from Jasnah would have resulted in either war or Shallan and her brothers being turned over to Alethkar by the Vedens, a much more powerful and antagonistic country than Karbranth, hiding attempted murderers or murderers from the Alethi would not be considered for a second by any sane Karbranthian noble. No chance of angering the Alethi would have been worth it.

So we can certainly go back and forth over what ifs, and I am totally on board with doing so, but the intention of bringing up the scenario was inquiring if killing is only the last possible recourse, then based on the perspective shift, would it be possible to consider killing them an ethical imperative. You replied that it would not be, because the execution had to be at the hands of the governmental body, and foregoing that then execution in some other manner. But only if the governmental body option was impossible. Which I appreciate your answer. That was the point of positing the circumstance. 

55 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Hence why I said it was ambiguous. I can see other people with slightly different values or thought processes than me coming to very different conclusions about the morality of Jasnah killing the men.

So only replying to this to say my intention was in agreement insofar as we both acknowledge morality could be seen in either way, which is why I didn't comment on that except to say I respect that you see it the way you do. So I didn't mean it to be taken as any way other than essentially "cool, i got you"

55 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Agreed. Jasnah basically has political immunity without officially having political immunity. Whether it is moral to use that political immunity is another question. Under American law, she would be guilty of murder.

Still just gotta throw that personal caveat of assuming they could prove she was guilty. If the situation was investigated normally, I don't think they could get it to stick because there isn't enough concrete evidence to prove they were fleeing and she killed them after the fact. Three bodies no longer exist, so forensics cannot examine the positioning of the bodies, and the one that still does, could be plausibly explained as her shoving him away during the attack. The only hitch would be Shallan's testimony, which could be discredited. 

But taken purely on what we read and assuming full knowledge of everything that occurred, then the remaining three I agree was not self defense. 

55 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

Yes. It should not have been her. Their guilt should have been determined by someone who has legal authority in Karbranth. What Jasnah did undermined the authority of the legal authorities in Karbranth. There is a reason we have the law, and if you can work inside of it to accomplish the optimal outcome, then you should.

Personally I believe if the legal authority is corrupt, and it takes the threat of war involving two world powers, and the potential of numerous individuals dying in said battle that would not need to die (assuming as you presented), then it would be better for her to kill them herself. But as I said the purpose was to find out how you would approach the situation given the perspective shift. Thank you for answering!

55 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

No, she would not. It is the responsibility of Taravangian and the Karbranthian government to do so, not Jasnah. She would almost certainly feel that she had an ethical obligation to do so, considering she did it even knowing that she could have them killed easily, but I do not believe that it is her responsibility.

Thank you!

55 minutes ago, Ookla the unintelligible said:

The thing is, other options would have had a better result. If she had captured the robbers, she could have complained to the guard that they were not doing their job. Also, the captured robber might have confessed that they bribed the guards before being executed. Both of these could have resulted in the corruption of the guards being dealt with, preventing further thieves from being able to do the same thing, treating the sickness instead of the symptoms.

So I personally do not believe that is viable given the information we have from the book, but I respect your views!

[NameIess]

18 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

So only replying to this to say my intention was in agreement insofar as we both acknowledge morality could be seen in either way, which is why I didn't comment on that except to say I respect that you see it the way you do. So I didn't mean it to be taken as any way other than essentially "cool, i got you"

Sorry. I read it as you saying "its only ambiguous in your opinion" and was clarifying that while I believe it to be ambiguous (or subjective) I meant that to mean that different people could have valid but opposite opinions on Jasnah's morality. my personal opinion is that she was wrong to kill them.

[Chinkoln he/him]

I think she should have killed the men, as was her human and legal right in that situation to protect herself. She should not have put herself in that situation though, that is an abuse of the law and is a way of intentionally doing wrong without getting in trouble for it. There are always exceptions for laws. Freedom of speech doesn’t let you yell fire in a crowded room. The right to protect yourself doesn’t let you walk around intentionally trying to get attacked so you can harm other humans.

[Frustration]

1 hour ago, Chinkoln said:

Freedom of speech doesn’t let you yell fire in a crowded room.

And why not?

[Pathfinder]

2 hours ago, Chinkoln said:

I think she should have killed the men, as was her human and legal right in that situation to protect herself. She should not have put herself in that situation though, that is an abuse of the law and is a way of intentionally doing wrong without getting in trouble for it. There are always exceptions for laws. Freedom of speech doesn’t let you yell fire in a crowded room. The right to protect yourself doesn’t let you walk around intentionally trying to get attacked so you can harm other humans.

I disagree with the analogy. True, yelling fire in a crowded room is not allowed for the reason I will explain below, but it is not germaine to the situation being discussed. The person yelling fire did not yell fire because they were under threat. Which Jasnah was. She was attacked first. To get the example to equate, person A would have to have wanted person B in the theater to be trampled to death because person B tended to set fires to theaters. Person A went to the theater, saw that Person B set fire to the theater. Person A then yelled fire, and person B was trampled. 

1 hour ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

And why not?

Because it is a false reporting if there is no fire, and people could be injured as result. Same reason for falsely reporting a crime to the police. The idea is you have taken the police away from potentially helping someone in genuine need. 

 

2 hours ago, Chinkoln said:

The right to protect yourself doesn’t let you walk around intentionally trying to get attacked so you can harm other humans.

Follow up question. Can I ask what specifically did Jasnah do that makes it considered her "trying to get attacked"?

 

Edited December 9, 2021 by Pathfinder

[Frustration]

49 minutes ago, Pathfinder said:

Because it is a false reporting if there is no fire, and people could be injured as result. Same reason for falsely reporting a crime to the police. The idea is you have taken the police away from potentially helping someone in genuine need. 

So, if there is something you can't say, are you really free?

[Chinkoln he/him]

1 hour ago, Pathfinder said:

Follow up question. Can I ask what specifically did Jasnah do that makes it considered her "trying to get attacked"?

She put herself in danger, showing wealth with the knowledge it would put her in harm’s way. This may be legal, but in my mind it is wrong.

30 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

So, if there is something you can't say, are you really free?

The concept of our freedom is not true freedom. We give up certain rights, such as yelling fire in a crowded room, and in return we get certain rights and privileges that people elsewhere in the world don’t have.

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Chinkoln said:

The concept of our freedom is not true freedom. We give up certain rights, such as yelling fire in a crowded room, and in return we get certain rights and privileges that people elsewhere in the world don’t have.

And what privleges could be worth your humanity?

[Chinkoln he/him]

1 minute ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

And what privleges could be worth your humanity?

Could you explain what you mean by that? I’m not sure I understand what you are saying in reference to giving up your humanity…

Edited December 9, 2021 by Chinkoln

[Frustration]

1 minute ago, Chinkoln said:

Could you explain what you mean by that? I’m not sure I understand what you are saying in reference to giving up your humanity…

The ability to speak is what makes us human, they are called "Human rights" for a reason, without them we aren't people. That is why it's such an aggegious crime to take them away, in it's simplist form, it's taking away someon'es humanity.

[Chinkoln he/him]

Yes, speech is a human right. So is safety. If abuse of one of our rights infringes on the rights of others, there is something wrong.

[Frustration]

25 minutes ago, Chinkoln said:

So is safety.

You can never really be safe, ever, so at what point do you have a right to it?

[Chinkoln he/him]

5 minutes ago, Ookla the Frustrated said:

You can never really be safe, ever, so at what point do you have a right to it?

Ah yes, this is the core of every argument related to rules, in my opinion. What point is too far. What is that magic spot. Honestly, I don’t know. Humans can’t know, because everyone is different so one rule might be perfect for some but not for others.

It is like protecting yourself from danger. If I said jump in a pit of toxic waste, you would say no because that is dangerous. If I said skydive, you might listen or you might not. There is a chance of injury or death but there is also a chance you would be fine. If I said drive in a car you would almost definitely do it… but there is a chance of death while doing it. At what point did the odds change so that you were okay with doing that?

That analogy makes sense in my mind, but I don’t know if it will to other people

[Frustration]

3 minutes ago, Chinkoln said:

Ah yes, this is the core of every argument related to rules, in my opinion. What point is too far. What is that magic spot. Honestly, I don’t know. Humans can’t know, because everyone is different so one rule might be perfect for some but not for others.

It is like protecting yourself from danger. If I said jump in a pit of toxic waste, you would say no because that is dangerous. If I said skydive, you might listen or you might not. There is a chance of injury or death but there is also a chance you would be fine. If I said drive in a car you would almost definitely do it… but there is a chance of death while doing it. At what point did the odds change so that you were okay with doing that?

That analogy makes sense in my mind, but I don’t know if it will to other people

No I understand, however, if we can't all agree on a point, why is it allowed to overcome the right of speech?