This is a classic example of the gap between what each of us as individuals thinks about something and everything that it is possible to know about something.
The incident on the Rust set occurs. We read about it, hear about it and react.
Depending of course on what we read and what we hear. Depending further on such things as our own political prejudices rooted existentially in dasein. Depending finally on all of the facts that can be gathered about the event.
Some will emphasize one set of facts, others another set of facts. But which set of facts reflects the optimal or even the only rational manner in which to evaluate and judge an event?
That’s why even in the either/or world of facts, mere mortals are still stuck with subjective points of view.
To wit:
In the Rust incident however there is considerably more ambiguity. There’s the fact that Baldwin did what he did. Everyone there saw it. But there are also all the facts that can be accumulated such that those on both sides are able to make reasonable arguments for or against his culpability.
Then the objectivists on both sides who insist that, no, unless you think as I do, you are flat out wrong.
Same with the moral objectivists among us, of course. God or No God.
Whoever is guilty or not… Maybe they should implement a new procedure on every set that a clearing barrel is included and used before anyone is allowed to fire a weapon, and ban live ammo during both rehearsal and filming? That’s why God made special effects.
Re: Moving in a vacuum? Erm, no. thread.
[size=85]Postby MagsJ » Fri 20 Jan, 2023 19:54[/size]
Motor Daddy wrote: ”It is easier to stop a bullet traveling at 10 feet per second than it is to stop a bullet traveling at 1,000 feet per second. The reason that increasing the speed of a given mass bullet will go through thicker targets is that it takes more force to STOP IT. If it doesn’t stop as quickly then it will obviously penetrate a greater distance, hence go right through the target at a higher velocity. The mass didn’t change, the velocity did.”
[i]I replied: “Yes, and Alec Baldwin has now been charged with involuntary manslaughter.
Live rounds are not allowed on set, but yet… there they were”.
__
To win, prosecutors need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Baldwin committed a ‘lawful act which might produce death in an unlawful manner, or without due caution and circumspection.’
In plain English, Baldwin would have had to believe that his handling of a gun used as prop could kill.
The district attorney for Santa Fe County, Mary Carmack-Altwies, lays that blame squarely at Baldwin’s feet, stating he should never have pointed a gun at anyone. ‘You should not point a gun at someone that you’re not willing to shoot,’ she said. ‘That goes to basic safety standards.’ dailymail.co.uk/news/articl … LIBOR.html“[/i]
I’m not a moral objectivist personally, but… You say this like it’s an inherently bad thing. But is it? Is it bad to think that you believe something that is correct, and other people who disagree with you are incorrect?
it seems like one of the fundamental elements of criminal liability in the united states is, intent. i don’t think that actors on a movie set who are using what they believe to be prop guns/blank ammo intend to shoot anyone with a real bullet.
the reason why this issue is politicized is because baldwin rad a recurring stint on snl where he made fun of trump.
He fired the gun at someone, and the camera wasn’t even rolling… which is against film-production policy btw, as there is a specific set procedure on how firearms are to be handled on set… and what he did weren’t it.
Firearms should only be brought on set when the cameras are ready to roll, and the firearm checked and cleared before being handed over to anyone. That was not the case when the gun went off… as we all know.
See? That’s how these discussions often unfold. Someone makes what she construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as she knows them, and another makes what he construes to be reasonable points regarding the facts as he knows them.
And neither is really able to make the other’s facts go away. Not completely. It just comes down to how subjectively the facts that are able to be established are interpreted. Yes, it’s reasonable that he was charged in the shooting death…no it’s unreasonable that he was charged.
Me, I’m no less “fractured and fragmented” about this too.
What’s crucial though is that the authorities investigating the incident presumably have the greatest collection of facts to be had. But then to what extent do their own political prejudices become a factor here? And, in the end, it’s still all just a subjective “leap of faith” to one decision or another. Only a God, the God embodies the omniscience needed to know everything about it, right?
That’s the plight of mere mortals in a No God world. I’m hopelessly “drawn and quartered” myself. But others here are “fiercely fanatical objectivists”. You either share their own point of view about Baldwin or it’s the “usual idiocy from a resident idiot”.
For the objectivists, what’s crucial is that there can only be but one optimal, rational conclusion. And it is not your conclusion if your conclusion is not their conclusion.
No, in a No God world where the value judgments of mere mortals are not either inherently/necessarily good or bad, but just the embodiment of subjective prejudices rooted existentially in dasein, there is what is able to be established as in fact true about the Rust shooting…and there is the extent which any of us can demonstrate that our own reaction to the fact that Baldwin was charged is inherently/necessarily right or wrong.
I merely take this frame of mind to any other moral and political context in which some insist that others must think as they do about what is correct…or else.
In other words, the part where in regard to things like abortion and guns and capital punishment and homosexuality etc., some acquire the power in any particular community to actually punish those who don’t think “correctly”.
The Baldwin case is just particularly ambiguous given the fact that it all unfolded on a film set where there is often a considerably greater gap between pretend and reality.
I’ll be following the court case, and see how it unfolds in real-time.
I have no expectation of the outcome, as expectations aren’t part of my vibe. Please remember that for similar future exchanges… as I find insinuations about my emotional character demeaning to my personage.
