Chappaquiddick, a name which will live in infamy. Tomorrow, July 19th, will mark the 40th anniversary of the night Edward M. (Ted) Kennedy, a fat bloated nasty-assed drunken bleary-eyed drooling lying cheating murdering whore-hopping piss-faced thieving crap-slinging treasonous 12-sandwich eating piece of shit killed Mary Jo Kopeckne in an act of negligent homicide.

<link>

Kennedy, now with one foot in the grave and the other on a banana peel, continues to live a life of excess and privilege, a man with no redeeming qualities that I can detect. It is to the everlasting shame of the people of Massachusetts that they have sent this sorry individual back to the Senate again and again, proving that votes indeed can be purchased if the price is right.

Fan the flames and stoke the fires of hell, devil; may it be extra hot when Kennedy checks in.

Jack

Speaking of vehicular homicides, how about this date:

6 November 1963

Or do former First Ladies not count in your scheme of things?

Well, let's see, a 17 year old girl has an accident and someone dies. Yes, that is an unfortunate occurance. A drunk, married, United States Senator, while driving a young female staffer out to a secluded area to fuck her, drives off a bridge into a river and then runs away and leaves the woman in the car to drown.

<link>

You sure you want to make that comparison?

Jack

Absolutely, Jack.

Becuase it highlights precisely what is wrong with your moral calculus.

Then you are an idiot...but we already knew that.

Jack

Sorry- since you're not Canadian, I can only call that an "honorary Canadian stupid trick".

But honorary or otherwise, it's the same as Schad's "repeating meaningless absolutes", which see.

and they are freaking wreaking HAVOC with the city!, I couldn't go, I would have LOVED to have met you....

Terrible heat eh? they went to a Rowdayo (my sister Jack, could never say it right, too much Beverly Hills in her blood)

And they went to a water park, dupped it 2.5 flags, instead of six flags,

BUT!, my cynical, strong minded, and breathtakingly intelligent daughter, gave your city a lovely compliment; the houses are beautiful, the people are wonderful, and the food is outworldly (her words, not mine)

Too bad I could come along Jackie, would have loved to have met you, was thinking of you though; considering the heat, I made you a new geisha fan, this one has a picture of James Watts on it!

:)

Regards

Pace

Placeholder for Demosthenes2:

Does the contextual intent surrounding a lethal accident change the degree of moral culpability for the accident itself?

IOW, is being responsible for a lethal accident morally worse if the accident occurred in the course of something less than innocent?

Tricky question - consider Gopal, for example.

It has been hot...very hot, with a slight break this morning. It's too bad you didn't come along; I would like to have met you too. I can usually maintain decorum for short periods of time when meeting Liberals from the Fray.

Jack

Kennedy's crime was running away and/or failing notifying the authorities. The girl might have been saved had he not sought to give himself sufficient time to sober up and to make up a good story.

If you see no difference in these two incidents then you are willfully blind.

Jack

Each moral act is evaluated on the basis of the intent and consequences of that act (i.e. an affiar doesn't cause a letha accident). One can compound another though by having the immoral motivation/act be the sine qua non of a subsequent act (cascade effect--i.e., in the commission of a pre-meditated murder one happens upon the victim's wife and committs and oppotunistic robbery and second murder that would not have occured but for the first illicit act). Depends upon the degree of association between the acts and nature of the inter-relation (or are they incidental--one decision leads to an unrelated accident, etc.) as well as the subsequent behaviors and remorse/or contnuation. .

So you agree with me.

Jack

You're not Canadian, so I'm not sure what your excuse is, Jack.

It's far less likely that he agrees with you than with me.

Lack of intent. Lack of predicate causation with direct bearing. Dave's right on this one, you're wrong. Both Laura and Ted lacked the requisite intent and predicate (direct) causation. You're free to argue otherwise but affiars don't cause car crashes anymore than joy-riding, speeding after a pep rally in Texas (and I thought those things had to include reckless behavior by law in Texas). Again--no predicate cause that is in and of itself licit.

Yep.