MORE CURLY FRIES posted:

no one photoshopped sarah pulling off a mask of her face to reveal that she was really karpeles?

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

This is true, and probably is totally the case with Ross. By the end of his tenure as DPR I would definitely call him a bad person. But I think it's an iterative thing, the deeper a person gets, the easier it becomes.

It takes only one mistake to get on the road of illegal behaviour. It's like young kids who join biker gangs after trying meth. Once they get started, I bet a lot of them feel like they don't really have the option to stop. One bad decision leads them to keep making more, which makes it even less likely they can find a way out.

although, I guess I am omitting the choice Ross could've made to just step away from it all. Just say gently caress it and bail since he wasn't tied to it by name or anything.
But from his perspective though that would be giving up on a literal million dollar empire. A lot of people have killed for less than that.

He didn't jump straight to hitmen either, as I recall the first guy extorted him a bunch before he finally decided to try something to deal with it. Once he did it once, must get easier in his head.

He was too greedy to walk away and too naive and dumb to never get involved in the first place. I'd really like to believe that I wouldn't be willing to take that step if things somehow contrived to have me in a similar situation, but there have been enough examples of people getting power and doing things no one would've thought them capable of for me to say with certainty. Humans aren't nearly as internally consistent or rational as we pretend we are.

It's exactly why there needs to be checks and limits on any position of power. The temptation to abuse it, like Ross did, is going to be too much for a lot of people, so the best bet is to never let the opportunity present itself.

Fart Cannon posted:

faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaart

Fart Cannon posted:

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

the rich and powerful cannot be trusted, regardless of their espoused affiliation. Assange may like pissing of the US but he's part of the same incestuous inclub of elites that do poo poo like this.

quote:

Wait, how does this work?

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

The elite circles of influence in the world aren't one monolithic entity, and you can get into one by antagonizing another. At a certain level of wealth, influence or even popularity, people begin to get isolated from the consequences of their actions, usually through the connections they make. Invariably this leads to abuses.

I will however recant on this though, looking more into it seems like it's more likely just run of the mill cultural sexism that might lead him to not conceiving of what he had done as rape.

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

I think I was getting him confused with Dominic Strauss-Kahn tbh I wasn't fully paying attention when I was posting and I think my brain connected something stupid.

Taliesin posted:

Dude how old is your gf

triple sulk posted:

sorry I should have said clinics. it's medical

MORE CURLY FRIES posted:

no one photoshopped sarah pulling off a mask of her face to reveal that she was really karpeles?

triple sulk posted:

i was taking my gf to school just now

surebet posted:

ok so i promise i'll never shop stuff again because god drat i'm bad

surebet posted:

ok so i promise i'll never shop stuff again because god drat i'm bad

Robo Captain posted:

So according to smiley guy I could murder someone and get away with it because during trial no person could come foward and claim I had done harm to them?

quote:

There is method to do what you are asking, in common law, which is what I am talking about. If there is a witness, and if there is evidence that conclusively proves guilt, the harmed person would be the relative that was deprived of his property... the dead person. In this case, under strict common law, the harmed relative can essential require the death penalty.

What is better, that an innocent person be found guilty? or that a guilty person go free? If an innocent person is found guilty, then the whole law is guilty of whatever punishment they apply to him.

This might be philosophy, but the things I stated in my previous post are the basis of law in America, Canada and the U.K. However, basic law doesn't apply if you won't use it. And even if you do, mistakes will be made now and again.

Look at the websites listed above for the law regarding what I say. It is there, in plain English, in the court cases listed.

Smiley

surebet posted:

Weatherman posted:

it's not whether a racing pigeon can photoshop well. it's that a racing pigeon can photoshop at all

MORE CURLY FRIES posted:

god if only he hadnt commissioned hits on people

and facilitated the sale of literal poison

MORE CURLY FRIES posted:

god if only he hadnt commissioned hits on people

and facilitated the sale of literal poison

Ron Paul Atreides posted:

i plead guilty to v bad posting and hope that the system rehabilitates me eventually

surebet posted:

prefect posted:

do the bitcoin people think he didn't actually try to have people killed? or do they think it doesn't count because he wasn't successful?

prefect posted:

do the bitcoin people think he didn't actually try to have people killed? or do they think it doesn't count because he wasn't successful?

uncurable mlady posted:

most of them don't really address that point and like to say that Ross himself wasn't selling drugs (whoops! turns out he did for a while there), he was just a businessman facilitating transactions between others (and getting pretty wealthy off of it)

why does Obama hate small businesses???

prefect posted:

do the bitcoin people think he didn't actually try to have people killed? or do they think it doesn't count because he wasn't successful?

MORE CURLY FRIES posted:

and some legitimise him calling for hits on people because the other people initiated force on him first by trying to blackmail him

FrozenVent posted:

what if Sarah was karpeles?

jony ive aces posted:

but he hired MEN WITH GUNS

MORE CURLY FRIES posted:

when you fight against the state sometimes you become the state

Subjunctive posted:

more explicitly, what we have in this case is an incompetent and unsympathetic defendant who is facing LWOP because he tripped war-on-drugs mandatory minimums. that doesn't feel like an especially satisfying outcome, though I do enjoy the twisting of bitcoiner knickers that has resulted.

when he goes down for murdery stuff, though

Subjunctive posted:

who is facing LWOP because he tripped war-on-drugs mandatory minimums

surebet posted:

if he gets lwop'ed here what's the use of going after the conspiracy murder charges? hell i don't even think there's a statute of limitation on those, so they might as well save the dollars and pull that out later if needed