Moon what skid said was actually correct. You're the one who seems to not understand the argument here, and you calling him an idiot just makes you look worse when he does, in fact, have a better grasp on the situation.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
You don't understand what's going on yourself, based on what you've said.
The fact that the threat was intended to be sarcastic or satirical does not, in fact, pardon him in any way. He's currently being detained while they investigate it, and, assuming they don't find sufficient reason to believe he will harm someone, he will likely receive a lesser sentence if he is even convicted in the first place. He has yet to be convicted and 8 years is the MAXIMUM sentence.
I assume you mean my initial comment, before which I was too lazy to do anything other than skimming what what being written.
I think this stands to be repeated:
"You don't seem to fully grasp the situation nor fully understand how sarcasm and satire work.
If you don't understand a subject you should probably refrain from trying to discuss it."
Sirell hits the nail right on the head:
sirell wrote:
"The crime of
intentionally
orknowingly
instilling fear in another person or persons with the threat of bodily harm. Threat of harm involves injury, either physical or mental damage as the result of an act committed by one or more persons in an attempt to instil injury upon another person or persons. A terroristic threat is a crime involving a threat to commit violence in theintent
to terrorize others."Just because Moon doesn't seem to understand why a joke is not a threat.
Onto the matter as to whether or not he should have been initially detained. Yes, perhaps he should be. But it's been nearly 5 months since he was detained. I mean, wtf. In this case and circumstance, it really doesn't appear to take much time to determine that he wasn't being serious. On top of this, they set a bail of $500K, not accounting for the fact that he will probably be fined at least, if not serving jail time. I don't question him being detained. It's fair enough, given the circumstances - a school been attacked recently, it's Texas, w/e. But the circumstances in which he has been detained has been far too disproportionate. Unless they've found out that he was genuinely going to do as he said or something similar, there's no reason to be detaining him for so long nor set bail so high. And as we haven't heard anything of this manner, we can only assume that this is not the case.
"You can't have your privacy violated if you don't know your privacy is violated." - Mike Rogers, U.S. Representative for Michigan's 8th congressional district, 2013
I.e: Mike Rogers doesn't think it's rape unless the victim knows (s)he has been raped. Sounds legit.
I.e: Mike Rogers doesn't think it's rape unless the victim knows (s)he has been raped. Sounds legit.
All I said was that the fact he was being sarcastic doesn't prevent them from detaining him while they investigate the threat/during the trial. Which is true. They take possible terrorist threats very seriously, so of course the bail is high and the investigation is thorough.
I don't particularly think he belongs in jail for an extended period of time (aka several years) based on the facts so far. However, if they had chosen to ignore this based entirely on the fact that he was supposedly being sarcastic without any investigation, it would set a precedence that I'm really not too keen on as well.
The definition of sarcasm, ironically enough, makes that quoted statement moot:
"A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound"
That means, assuming he was actually being sarcastic and not just hyperbolic, his statement, ironic or not, was intended to inflict mental damage on a person.
EDIT: To clarify: based on the statement and context, it would appear that he was simply making an exaggerated remark not intended to be taken seriously (hyperbole). Which suggests that he doesn't even understand what sarcasm is.
I don't particularly think he belongs in jail for an extended period of time (aka several years) based on the facts so far. However, if they had chosen to ignore this based entirely on the fact that he was supposedly being sarcastic without any investigation, it would set a precedence that I'm really not too keen on as well.
The definition of sarcasm, ironically enough, makes that quoted statement moot:
"A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound"
That means, assuming he was actually being sarcastic and not just hyperbolic, his statement, ironic or not, was intended to inflict mental damage on a person.
EDIT: To clarify: based on the statement and context, it would appear that he was simply making an exaggerated remark not intended to be taken seriously (hyperbole). Which suggests that he doesn't even understand what sarcasm is.
5 months and they still can't tell whether he was sarcastic or not?
So, based on your definition, everyone who uses sarcasm should be arrested. No? Then why this one circumstance, over other circumstances? What makes some uses of sarcasm okay, but this one not?
In addition, I could challenge your definition of sarcasm. For example, I can think of sarcasm which is used primarily for humour and not intended to hurt anyone at all. e.g. "I'm so sexy(!)", "Life is great, isn't it?(!)" Since I can think of such examples, your definition is likely to be incorrect, or rather, incomplete.
Also, following your reasoning of sarcasm as intended as a mentally damaging tool, it doesn't seem to me as if he was trying to mentally inflict damage upon those schoolchildren where the threat apparently lies in this case with which he is being charged. It would surely be to the person who called JC insane on Facebook and only this person. There's a disparity between the two alleged threats to inflict damage. Not to mention that using sarcasm (by your definition) already surpasses the level of 'threat' into 'actuality'. What he has said was already intended to inflict damage, as opposed to the threat of damage.
So, based on your definition, everyone who uses sarcasm should be arrested. No? Then why this one circumstance, over other circumstances? What makes some uses of sarcasm okay, but this one not?
In addition, I could challenge your definition of sarcasm. For example, I can think of sarcasm which is used primarily for humour and not intended to hurt anyone at all. e.g. "I'm so sexy(!)", "Life is great, isn't it?(!)" Since I can think of such examples, your definition is likely to be incorrect, or rather, incomplete.
Also, following your reasoning of sarcasm as intended as a mentally damaging tool, it doesn't seem to me as if he was trying to mentally inflict damage upon those schoolchildren where the threat apparently lies in this case with which he is being charged. It would surely be to the person who called JC insane on Facebook and only this person. There's a disparity between the two alleged threats to inflict damage. Not to mention that using sarcasm (by your definition) already surpasses the level of 'threat' into 'actuality'. What he has said was already intended to inflict damage, as opposed to the threat of damage.
I followed that by stating his statement is more likely hyperbole, which, by its definition, is not intended to be taken seriously.
What it truly suggests is that people mistakenly use the word sarcasm, because what you're referring to is actually verbal irony.
What it truly suggests is that people mistakenly use the word sarcasm, because what you're referring to is actually verbal irony.
The fact that they used the wrong word doesn't actually make your point any stronger. And no it wouldn't be hyperbole, because that would make it rooted in truth, whereas he was making a statement meant to be ridiculously not true in order to make the point that he wasn't actually insane as the other user had posted. Either way that's neither here nor there. You understood what they were saying and tried to argue with what you could construe it to say meaning you just ousted yourself as using a straw man argument making none of your points valid.
The_Nameless_Bard wrote:
I followed that by stating his statement is more likely hyperbole, which, by its definition, is not intended to be taken seriously.
What it truly suggests is that people mistakenly use the word sarcasm, because what you're referring to is actually verbal irony.
are you running for any political office? I suggest you to learn fact denial next.
@MyRepublic All my statement suggests is that some people don't know what sarcasm is. Which, if I take previous statements as fact, means they shouldn't be trying to argue over how the law should apply to it.
If you'd read what I said instead of worrying about correcting me, you'd understand that I agree that him being sentenced for any significant amount of time is ridiculous. I didn't make that argument for the sake of making it, I was merely pointing out that the general misunderstanding of the difference between sarcasm and verbal irony is part of the problem with the argument that him being sarcastic means the statement holds no intent to cause mental distress.
TOTALLY UNRELATED: The definition of hyperbole is broader than you are claiming. The definition is only that it is a deliberate exaggeration or overstatement which is not intended to be taken literally (commonly used for emphasis or effect). Some is rooted in truth, yes, but there are examples of hyperbole in literature that have no root in truth at all.
@Pheyniex No, I have no intention of being a politician, thanks.
If you'd read what I said instead of worrying about correcting me, you'd understand that I agree that him being sentenced for any significant amount of time is ridiculous. I didn't make that argument for the sake of making it, I was merely pointing out that the general misunderstanding of the difference between sarcasm and verbal irony is part of the problem with the argument that him being sarcastic means the statement holds no intent to cause mental distress.
TOTALLY UNRELATED: The definition of hyperbole is broader than you are claiming. The definition is only that it is a deliberate exaggeration or overstatement which is not intended to be taken literally (commonly used for emphasis or effect). Some is rooted in truth, yes, but there are examples of hyperbole in literature that have no root in truth at all.
@Pheyniex No, I have no intention of being a politician, thanks.
You need to log in before commenting.
Its not an argument, its fact. My statement has as much to do with Justin Carter than any of the ridiculous claims in this thread. He used poor judgement when he stated his "sarcastic" comment on the net. The reality of the situation is that here in Texas those claims can and have been followed through in the past, so ignoring the territory in which this event happened is ignorant.
It was a woman from Canada who reported him. It wasn't someone else in Texas who thought, 'maybe we should take this seriously'. We don't even know if the woman was initially aware that JC was from Texas and then was consciously aware of the gun crime in Texas or whatever and then decided it would be prudent to inform the authorities. So whilst it's nice of you to bring up the context, I don't feel you completely describe the context accurately.
§ 22.07. TERRORISTIC THREAT. (a) A person commits an
offense if he threatens to commit any offense involving violence to
any person or property with
intent
to:(2) place any person in fear of imminent serious
bodily injury;
(4) cause impairment or interruption of public
communications, public transportation, public water, gas, or power
supply or other public service;
intentionally
orknowingly
instilling fear in another person or persons with the threat of bodily harm. Threat of harm involves injury, either physical or mental damage as the result of an act committed by one or more persons in an attempt to instil injury upon another person or persons. A terroristic threat is a crime involving a threat to commit violence in theintent
to terrorize others."Just because Moon doesn't seem to understand why a joke is not a threat.
Onto the matter as to whether or not he should have been initially detained. Yes, perhaps he should be. But it's been nearly 5 months since he was detained. I mean, wtf. In this case and circumstance, it really doesn't appear to take much time to determine that he wasn't being serious. On top of this, they set a bail of $500K, not accounting for the fact that he will probably be fined at least, if not serving jail time. I don't question him being detained. It's fair enough, given the circumstances - a school been attacked recently, it's Texas, w/e. But the circumstances in which he has been detained has been far too disproportionate. Unless they've found out that he was genuinely going to do as he said or something similar, there's no reason to be detaining him for so long nor set bail so high. And as we haven't heard anything of this manner, we can only assume that this is not the case.