Posted by jade k on June 26, 2010, at 13:26:40
In reply to Re: the system here, posted by Dr. Bob on June 26, 2010, at 0:40:48
> > What I meant was if something is deemed not civil, in my experience saying my intent was not to cause harm is no defense against something assumed by you or the deputies to be harmful.
>
> > I don't know, someone gets sanctioned because the administration assumes there was [harm]. Then I read Bob apologizing to the purported victim because he assumes the person was hurt. It just seems like there's a lot of assuming going on here.
>
> I wouldn't say we assume there actually to have been harm. I'd say we use our judgment to consider there to have been potential harm.
>
> Like when someone gets a ticket for going over the speed limit, it's not implied that there actually was harm (or intent to harm). But there could have been harm, and if they keep speeding there could be harm in the future.
>
> Bob
"there could be harm in the future"? Yikes!!I'd "encourage" you to slow down Toph, but alas, its just not in my nature...(what kind of car do you drive btw?)
~Jade
poster:jade k
thread:951844
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20100321/msgs/952259.html