In order to combat SPAM on the forums, all users are required to have a minimum of 2 posts before they can submit links in any post or thread.
Discussion in 'UO Siege Perilous' started by Sweeney, Oct 8, 2009.
Ignorance is never an excuse.
Good thing this is a privately owned forum and is not subject to case law...
Gotta love armchair lawyers...so much entertainment.
If Kelmo says ignorance isn't an excuse, he's wrong, though. It's an excuse, it's just not a valid one...
A single reference to a time when ignorance was an excuse proves Kelmo wrong. It may have no bearing on the forum, but it was relevant.
It's a valid excuse, it's just not a sound excuse.
Gotta love armchair philosophers...so much entertainment.
he did use () not 
Have *you* studied Friedrich Nietzsche? I have. I would say I have a much clearer view on philosophy than most of the posters on this forum.
Amateur? Perhaps, but definitely not "armchair"
Ever read Kierkegaard?
BTW, I am definitely an existentialist...can you tell?
Not everybody's into Star Trek.
Nihilism is perhaps the stupidest philosophical concept to ever be thought of.
Kant, Kierkegaard, Plato, Hume, Nietzsche, just for starters, would you like me to continue to the list, or is that sufficient?
If you're going to call someone an armchair lawyer for missing what you obviously consider a basic tenet of law, missing a basic tenet of philosophy reduces you to an armchair philosopher, no matter how many philosophers you've studied.
i hate french
Your Wiki-Fu is quite impressive.
Let's get back to this. What makes this a valid excuse? Is it because he *can* use it, or because he *did*
It's obviously not a sound excuse, most excuses rarely are. But validity is determined by those who write the rules. That isn't Kelmo, he merely reminds people of rules, he doesn't make them.
We need the actual owner of Stratics in on this debate, I believe.
I disagree. The moon orbits the earth, not the sun.
It's a valid because-
Premise 1: I don't know the rules
Premise 2: If you don't know the rules, you are not responsible
Conclusion: I am not responsible
Valid as the conclusion logically follows the premises. It's not sound because Premise 2 is False.
Just because Premise 2 is false doesn't make the argument invalid, it makes it unsound, which therefore makes it an unacceptable reason for breaking the rule.
I guess Nietzsche didn't cover that.
Edit: After doing some research as to how 'valid' is defined legally (since I admittedly have no expertise in matters of legality), it is not a valid excuse, as valid legally means that it is legally binding or effective. It's not a valid excuse legally. Although it is valid logically for the reason explained above.
But if you still want to argue over philosophic tenets, please continue.
Edit 2: I may have to retract edit 1, since Sweeney pointed out, it 'could' be a legally valid excuse. While I didn't read in depth what Sweeney posted, if the 'ignorance as an excuse' worked in case law, could it not work in private?
I'm not a lawyer, but just because it's case law and doesn't apply privately doesn't mean the same outcome couldn't occur? As you aptly stated: "validity is determined by those who write the rules", so the actual owner of Stratics would make the call, no?
Assuming there's no prior precedent that has already been made that ignorance is not an excuse? And since it's privately owned, could owner not decide that is *this* case, regardless of prior decisions, ignorance is an excuse?
Edit 3: And since it's private, and I assume you are not the owner, you have no reason to believe it's a valid or invalid excuse until said owner states whether it is or not, correct?
As is your ad hominem.
Really, I'm sure the earth orbits the moon! Damn armchair astronomers...
I think it would binocular astromers.