Relationship between fictional CP and grooming?

[Terrapin Station]

So, for example, the person who decided and carried out the act of murder, rather than a person who hired them to carry out the murder.

This is the type of decontextualized moral reasoning they had in the Old West.

Things are different now:

United States
Conspiracy has been defined in the United States as an agreement of two or more people to commit a crime, or to accomplish a legal end through illegal actions.[22][23] A conspiracy does not need to have been planned in secret to meet the definition of the crime.

Conspiracy law usually does not require proof of specific intent by the defendants to injure any specific person to establish an illegal agreement. Instead, usually the law requires only that the conspirators have agreed to engage in a certain illegal act.

In most U.S. jurisdictions, for a person to be convicted of conspiracy, not only must he or she agree to commit a crime, but at least one of the conspirators must commit an overt act (the actus reus) in furtherance of the crime.[24] However, in United States v. Shabani the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this "overt act" element is not required under the federal drug conspiracy statute, 21 U.S.C. section 846.

The conspirators can be guilty even if they do not know the identity of the other members of the conspiracy.[25]

California criminal law is somewhat representative of other jurisdictions. A punishable conspiracy exists when at least two people form an agreement to commit a crime,[26] and at least one of them does some act in furtherance to committing the crime.[27] Each person is punishable in the same manner and to the same extent as is provided for the punishment of the crime itself.[26]

One example of this is the Han twins murder conspiracy case, where one twin sister attempted to hire two youths to have her twin sister killed.

One important feature of a conspiracy charge is that it relieves prosecutors of the need to prove the particular roles of conspirators. If two persons plot to kill another (and this can be proven), and the victim is indeed killed as a result of the actions of either conspirator, it is not necessary to prove with specificity which of the conspirators actually pulled the trigger. (Otherwise, both conspirators could conceivably handle the gun, leaving two sets of fingerprints and then demand acquittals for both, based on the fact that the prosecutor would be unable to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, which of the two conspirators pulled the trigger.) A conspiracy conviction requires proof that (a) the conspirators did indeed conspire to commit the crime, and (b) the crime was committed by an individual involved in the conspiracy. Proof of which individual it was is usually not necessary.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conspirac ... _to_murder

But you seem to be saying that only the person who pulled the trigger is guilty?

I'm obviously not relaying present legal conventions. I'm giving my view, which is different than present legal conventions (and not at all just on this issue).

My view isn't "decontextualized" by the way.

[Terrapin Station]

But you seem to be saying that only the person who pulled the trigger is guilty?

Oops, I missed this last line in my response above.

Yes, if I were king, only the person who pulled the trigger would be guilty. Why? Because they made a decision to kill someone AND acted on their decision, and the act of (nonconsensually, outside of the context of war, etc.) killing someone is what I have an ethical problem with.

[baker]

Yes, if I were king, only the person who pulled the trigger would be guilty. Why? Because they made a decision to kill someone AND acted on their decision, and the act of (nonconsensually, outside of the context of war, etc.) killing someone is what I have an ethical problem with.

Some people have a lesser tolerance, and for them, already wishing that someone would die is deemed as bad, immoral.

How come you draw the line only at the physical action?

Would you be friends with someone who expresses the desire to kill someone?

[Terrapin Station]

Yes, if I were king, only the person who pulled the trigger would be guilty. Why? Because they made a decision to kill someone AND acted on their decision, and the act of (nonconsensually, outside of the context of war, etc.) killing someone is what I have an ethical problem with.

Some people have a lesser tolerance, and for them, already wishing that someone would die is deemed as bad, immoral.

How come you draw the line only at the physical action?

Would you be friends with someone who expresses the desire to kill someone?

So all moral stances come down to dispositions we have simply because of how our brain works, where our brains work as they do due to a combination of genetics and environmental influences (where the latter includes everything from foods we eat to social influences).

With respect to how my brain works, there's relatively little I object to morally, and an even smaller subset of that that I'd prohibit legally. One of the things I morally object to, by the way, is legally penalizing or even just socially ostracizing, socially crippling etc. someone for reasons that I consider "moralizing" in the more limited, negative sense of that term (see the Google definition by Googling "moralizing" or see the first dictionary.com definition: https://www.dictionary.com).

I don't have a moral problem with any conceivable thought someone might have or with any speech. There are things someone could say to someone else that I'd think weren't cool to say, but I wouldn't say those things are immoral, which I see as much stronger--approaching things we feel should be legally prohibited.

Many people I know have expressed desires, with varying degrees of seriousness versus exaggeration to express exasperation (where often only they know for sure where they fall in that continuum), to kill someone or other. That has no impact on my relationships with those people.

Re what should be illegal in my view, that's mainly limited to nonconsensual "physical" violence, and even then only to certain degrees, with long-term physical effects, contractual fraud (again only to certain degrees), and property crimes (again to certain degrees).

"Physical" above is in quotation marks there because I'm a physicalist --I hold the ontological view that everything in physical, so the quotation marks indicate that I'm referring to the conventional colloquial distinction.

And "to a certain degree" in all of those is because it's judgment-oriented rather than principle-oriented in my view, where in my view people have a tendency to take the principle-oriented approach and to overreact, so that for example we're making it illegal to nonconsensually poke someone in the arm to get their attention or even to intentionally step on their foot in anger where there are no macro-visible effects from it a few days later. I'd not make such things illegal. In my opinion we often make a big deal out of things that shouldn't be a big deal.

What I consider immoral is only slightly broader than what I would make illegal.

[Terrapin Station]

https://www.dictionary.com/browse/moralizing

There's there direct link. It sure why it didn't copy/paste right.

[Terrapin Station]

Oops and that should have been "Not"--my kindle autocorrected it to "It."

[baker]

So all moral stances come down to dispositions we have simply because of how our brain works, where our brains work as they do due to a combination of genetics and environmental influences (where the latter includes everything from foods we eat to social influences).

With respect to how my brain works, there's relatively little I object to morally, and an even smaller subset of that that I'd prohibit legally. One of the things I morally object to, by the way, is legally penalizing or even just socially ostracizing, socially crippling etc. someone for reasons that I consider "moralizing" in the more limited, negative sense of that term (see the Google definition by Googling "moralizing" or see the first dictionary.com definition: https://www.dictionary.com).

But what else can those moralizers, stigmatizers, ostracizers, punishers do when their brains simply work that way??

It looks like you're at a constant impasse with them. You have one set of dispositions, and others have another set of dispositions, and never the twain shall meet.

This looks like a theory of morality that doesn't really explain anything.

[Terrapin Station]

But what else can those moralizers, stigmatizers, ostracizers, punishers do when their brains simply work that way??

They can refrain from moralizing, etc. The idea isn't that you can't act other than your dispositions have it. I could act other than my dispositions have it, too, obviously.

It looks like you're at a constant impasse with them. You have one set of dispositions, and others have another set of dispositions, and never the twain shall meet.

Sure, that's what the world is like. Hence, in my view, a reason that we need to let people be different a la tolerance of difference.

This looks like a theory of morality that doesn't really explain anything.

First off, you're not thinking that people don't have irreconcilable differences with respect to their moral stances, do you? So for one, my account explains why this is the case. And it explains what morality really is, how it really works, contra desires for it to be other than it happens to be.

[LuckyR]

Some people have a lesser tolerance, and for them, already wishing that someone would die is deemed as bad, immoral.

How come you draw the line only at the physical action?

Would you be friends with someone who expresses the desire to kill someone?

So all moral stances come down to dispositions we have simply because of how our brain works, where our brains work as they do due to a combination of genetics and environmental influences (where the latter includes everything from foods we eat to social influences).

With respect to how my brain works, there's relatively little I object to morally, and an even smaller subset of that that I'd prohibit legally. One of the things I morally object to, by the way, is legally penalizing or even just socially ostracizing, socially crippling etc. someone for reasons that I consider "moralizing" in the more limited, negative sense of that term (see the Google definition by Googling "moralizing" or see the first dictionary.com definition: https://www.dictionary.com).

I don't have a moral problem with any conceivable thought someone might have or with any speech. There are things someone could say to someone else that I'd think weren't cool to say, but I wouldn't say those things are immoral, which I see as much stronger--approaching things we feel should be legally prohibited.

Many people I know have expressed desires, with varying degrees of seriousness versus exaggeration to express exasperation (where often only they know for sure where they fall in that continuum), to kill someone or other. That has no impact on my relationships with those people.

Re what should be illegal in my view, that's mainly limited to nonconsensual "physical" violence, and even then only to certain degrees, with long-term physical effects, contractual fraud (again only to certain degrees), and property crimes (again to certain degrees).

"Physical" above is in quotation marks there because I'm a physicalist --I hold the ontological view that everything in physical, so the quotation marks indicate that I'm referring to the conventional colloquial distinction.

And "to a certain degree" in all of those is because it's judgment-oriented rather than principle-oriented in my view, where in my view people have a tendency to take the principle-oriented approach and to overreact, so that for example we're making it illegal to nonconsensually poke someone in the arm to get their attention or even to intentionally step on their foot in anger where there are no macro-visible effects from it a few days later. I'd not make such things illegal. In my opinion we often make a big deal out of things that shouldn't be a big deal.

What I consider immoral is only slightly broader than what I would make illegal.

So is there such a thing as fraud? Verbal abuse? Emotional abuse?

[Terrapin Station]

So is there such a thing as fraud? Verbal abuse? Emotional abuse?

I don't know if you didn't keep reading. I noted that I'd prohibit certain sorts of contractual fraud. That's not a speech issue, it's an issue of either not delivering what one legally agreed to deliver and/or delivering things that weren't wanted, where those things weren't disclosed, even though they were known.

Re "verbal abuse" and "emotional abuse," I'd not legally prohibit either, and I'd only have a moral problem with them in some contexts.

[baker]

But what else can those moralizers, stigmatizers, ostracizers, punishers do when their brains simply work that way??

They can refrain from moralizing, etc. The idea isn't that you can't act other than your dispositions have it. I could act other than my dispositions have it, too, obviously.

Why should they refrain from moralizing etc.? Can you justify such a request/demand that they should refrain from moralizing etc.?

And secondly, how does such a request/demand to refrain fit in with your free speech absolutism?!

It looks like you're at a constant impasse with them. You have one set of dispositions, and others have another set of dispositions, and never the twain shall meet.

Sure, that's what the world is like. Hence, in my view, a reason that we need to let people be different a la tolerance of difference.

But then some (perhaps, many) people will feel violated, legally forced into tolerance.
Tolerance itself is oppressive: it means one may not express oneself as one wishes.

First off, you're not thinking that people don't have irreconcilable differences with respect to their moral stances, do you? So for one, my account explains why this is the case. And it explains what morality really is, how it really works, contra desires for it to be other than it happens to be.

So long as you have a theory of morality that points out the problem, but doesn't provide a solution to it, you don't have much. To say the least.

[Terrapin Station]

Why should they refrain from moralizing etc.? Can you justify such a request/demand that they should refrain from moralizing etc.?

There are no true normatives. No normatives are facts. It's simply the case that it's possible for them to refrain from moralizing (contra claims that they'd not be able to do this, should such claims be made), and beyond that, it's a matter of trying to persuade people to behave in particular ways, which is best handled on a case-by-case basis.

And secondly, how does such a request/demand to refrain fit in with your free speech absolutism?!

It's a speech act that's not prohibited.

But then some (perhaps, many) people will feel violated, legally forced into tolerance.

What laws are we talking about here?

Tolerance itself is oppressive: it means one may not express oneself as one wishes.

You seem to be under the impression that we're talking about "tolerance laws" for some reason.

So long as you have a theory of morality that points out the problem, but doesn't provide a solution to it, you don't have much. To say the least.

It's not a problem. Just a fact about how things are.

[baker]

Why should they refrain from moralizing etc.? Can you justify such a request/demand that they should refrain from moralizing etc.?

There are no true normatives. No normatives are facts. It's simply the case that it's possible for them to refrain from moralizing (contra claims that they'd not be able to do this, should such claims be made), and beyond that, it's a matter of trying to persuade people to behave in particular ways, which is best handled on a case-by-case basis.

And you'd, like, what, sit down with a Klan member and try to dissuade him from his convictions?

And secondly, how does such a request/demand to refrain fit in with your free speech absolutism?!

It's a speech act that's not prohibited.

But it's a speech act with which you're asking others not to say what this same absolute freedom of speech grants them to say.
As in, you're free to say whatever you want, but others are not.

But then some (perhaps, many) people will feel violated, legally forced into tolerance.

What laws are we talking about here?

Some existing ones against racial discrimination, shaming, etc. for example.

Tolerance itself is oppressive: it means one may not express oneself as one wishes.

You seem to be under the impression that we're talking about "tolerance laws" for some reason.

You seem to be an idealist and a romantic.

It's not a problem. Just a fact about how things are.

Which reminds me of an exchange between Lucy and Charlie Brown which went something like this:

Lucy said to Charlie Brown, “Discouraged again, eh, Charlie Brown?” “You know what your whole trouble is? The whole trouble with you is that you’re you!” Charlie asks, “Well, what in the world can I do about that?” Lucy answers, “I don’t pretend to be able to give advice… I merely point out the trouble!” Lucy speaks up, “You know what the whole trouble with you is, Charlie Brown?” Charlie answers, “No, and I don’t want to know! Leave me alone!” He walks away. Lucy shouts after him, “The whole trouble with you is you won’t listen to what the whole trouble with you is!”

[Terrapin Station]

And you'd, like, what, sit down with a Klan member and try to dissuade him from his convictions?

Did you look at the definition I referenced for what "moralizing" is?

But it's a speech act with which you're asking others not to say what this same absolute freedom of speech grants them to say.
As in, you're free to say whatever you want, but others are not.

I'm not going to keep going over the same things again and again. Do you not understand the difference between having the ability to do something versus choosing to do it?

Let's settle one thing at a time so I don't have to repeat myself.

[Terrapin Station]

Some existing ones against racial discrimination, shaming, etc. for example.

I should mention this, even though it's yet another thing to tackle. Were you thinking I was referencing and/or supporting laws to that effect? (And if so, what led to you thinking that?)