|
Post by bnpederson on Nov 15, 2010 21:34:28 GMT
But that's my point, we know she feels like this (angryface!) prior to meeting Jack, so there's no reason to believe it was caused by him and every reason to believe it's just the same angryface returning after a short interregnum. Eh, I dunno, she seems a little frownier in this one than in the last one. From /co/ again: I guess it could just be her "going to get that homework done no matter the cost" war face. Don't buy it personally, take a look see at her smile to Kat and her smile to Jack. Unless her first angry-face expression had something to do with Kat, I don't think her second has anything to do with Jack.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 15, 2010 21:37:11 GMT
As soon as she has some time to herself, she remembers she's upset and I'll bet it has more to do with Rey and Surma than Kat or Jack.
|
|
|
Post by rosewind26 on Nov 15, 2010 21:38:31 GMT
Ok so my 2 cents on the issue. I didn't do it a lot but in highschool I did have minor incidents when I cheated or provided material for someone to cheat. I didn't do it a lot because I'm the type of person who gets caught at things. As a future teacher I feel that cheating is in general wrong but I also feel that a lot of teachers (especially in my highschool) were a lot smarter than people gave them credit for and simply let things work out the way they would (i.e. when people cheated on the homework busy problems, if they really didn't know what they were doing, would fail the tests).
Sorry that was a weird way of saying it but I guess I'm as conflicted on this issue as the rest of the board has been.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 15, 2010 21:55:51 GMT
Innocent until proven guilty should still apply even in traffic court, being caught has nothing to do with it (though at this point I'll admit it is basically just a revenue collection system). Also, if I'd turned myself in for running a red light (since parking violations =! moving violations, and parking violations aren't typically worthy even of traffic court), I'm sure there's a cop out there who'd write me a ticket for it, which would lead to exactly the situation I described. You're innocent until proven guilty but they have to have SOME reason to get you to court in the first place. They can't just grab random people without just cause. They can be sued if they do. We're talking about turning yourself in versus getting caught so people who haven't done anything won't be turning themselves in. This is limited to people who have actually done something. Police aren't supposed to give out tickets because you ask for one. Feel free to prove me wrong but what is he supposed to write on the ticket? "He said he was very naughty" I've never gotten a traffic ticket with a comments section, they're usually just a set of boxes to check for the offense, some lines for information about the person being cited and the vehicle being driven, the location of the offense, a signature line for the officer saying that he swears he has good reason to believe you did it, and a signature line for you saying you'll show up in court. Remember that anything you say to a police officer can be used against you, so if you directly told him that you ran a stoplight at the intersection of x & y street on so and so date in a specific car, he'd have enough to cite you for sure. Also, they grab random people without cause all the time. They usually cover for it later by charging people with such heinous crimes as 'disturbing the peace', 'resisting arrest', 'disorderly conduct' and anything else they can think of to cover the more general 'contempt of cop'. If you ever go to a political protest, you'll probably see it happen there. This is getting a bit off-topic, though.
|
|
|
Post by sentora on Nov 15, 2010 22:10:23 GMT
It might be possible that the homework book isn't containing homework, but something left behind by Kat or someone else. I really doubt she's worried about homework considering how anxious she is to get answers about Jeanne.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 15, 2010 22:19:18 GMT
You're innocent until proven guilty but they have to have SOME reason to get you to court in the first place. They can't just grab random people without just cause. They can be sued if they do. We're talking about turning yourself in versus getting caught so people who haven't done anything won't be turning themselves in. This is limited to people who have actually done something. Police aren't supposed to give out tickets because you ask for one. Feel free to prove me wrong but what is he supposed to write on the ticket? "He said he was very naughty" I've never gotten a traffic ticket with a comments section, they're usually just a set of boxes to check for the offense, some lines for information about the person being cited and the vehicle being driven, the location of the offense, a signature line for the officer saying that he swears he has good reason to believe you did it, and a signature line for you saying you'll show up in court. Remember that anything you say to a police officer can be used against you, so if you directly told him that you ran a stoplight at the intersection of x & y street on so and so date in a specific car, he'd have enough to cite you for sure. Also, they grab random people without cause all the time. They usually cover for it later by charging people with such heinous crimes as 'disturbing the peace', 'resisting arrest', 'disorderly conduct' and anything else they can think of to cover the more general 'contempt of cop'. If you ever go to a political protest, you'll probably see it happen there. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. You've gone on for quite awhile trying to establish some reasonable scenario* in which a policeman to give you a ticket based solely on your word but the point was "Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something" In your scenario, do they treat that person as badly as if they had been caught instead? *Its not reasonable for a policeman to swear he has good reason to believe you did it just because you say so.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 15, 2010 22:24:00 GMT
I've never gotten a traffic ticket with a comments section, they're usually just a set of boxes to check for the offense, some lines for information about the person being cited and the vehicle being driven, the location of the offense, a signature line for the officer saying that he swears he has good reason to believe you did it, and a signature line for you saying you'll show up in court. Remember that anything you say to a police officer can be used against you, so if you directly told him that you ran a stoplight at the intersection of x & y street on so and so date in a specific car, he'd have enough to cite you for sure. Also, they grab random people without cause all the time. They usually cover for it later by charging people with such heinous crimes as 'disturbing the peace', 'resisting arrest', 'disorderly conduct' and anything else they can think of to cover the more general 'contempt of cop'. If you ever go to a political protest, you'll probably see it happen there. This is getting a bit off-topic, though. You've gone on for quite awhile trying to establish some reasonable scenario* in which a policeman to give you a ticket based solely on your word but the point was "Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something" In your scenario, do they treat that person as badly as if they had been caught instead? *Its not reasonable for a policeman to swear he has good reason to believe you did it just because you say so. Uh, how is it not reasonable? That's how legal confessions usually work, no?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 15, 2010 22:27:53 GMT
You've gone on for quite awhile trying to establish some reasonable scenario* in which a policeman to give you a ticket based solely on your word but the point was "Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something" In your scenario, do they treat that person as badly as if they had been caught instead? *Its not reasonable for a policeman to swear he has good reason to believe you did it just because you say so. Uh, how is it not reasonable? That's how legal confessions usually work, no? A ticket is not the correct result of a legal confession. A ticket is a warrant. You don't get a warrant by confessing. And this isn't the point, is it?
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 15, 2010 22:34:54 GMT
Uh, how is it not reasonable? That's how legal confessions usually work, no? A ticket is not the correct result of a legal confession. A ticket is a warrant. You don't get a warrant by confessing. And this isn't the point, is it? If one were to confess to murder to a police officer, a warrant would be issued for one's arrest, right? And then there would be a trial (a short one, admittedly, but still)? The theory is the same for a traffic ticket, is it not?
|
|
creed
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by creed on Nov 15, 2010 22:36:20 GMT
I've seen a lot of people refer to Annie cheating off of Kat before, but I can't find the comic. Can someone point me in the right direction?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 15, 2010 22:37:28 GMT
A ticket is not the correct result of a legal confession. A ticket is a warrant. You don't get a warrant by confessing. And this isn't the point, is it? If one were to confess to murder to a police officer, a warrant would be issued for one's arrest, right? And then there would be a trial (a short one, admittedly, but still)? The theory is the same for a traffic ticket, is it not? Do you intend on addressing the point sometime soon?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 15, 2010 22:39:08 GMT
I've seen a lot of people refer to Annie cheating off of Kat before, but I can't find the comic. Can someone point me in the right direction? hereAnd Welcome!
|
|
|
Post by fuzzysocks on Nov 15, 2010 22:44:08 GMT
I think she's more pissed off that someone made ANOTHER reference about her and her mother.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 15, 2010 23:12:31 GMT
If one were to confess to murder to a police officer, a warrant would be issued for one's arrest, right? And then there would be a trial (a short one, admittedly, but still)? The theory is the same for a traffic ticket, is it not? Do you intend on addressing the point sometime soon? Sure! My point is that there's very little difference in outcomes between making a voluntary confession to a police officer (when they don't suspect you) and subsequently losing in court, and losing in court despite having not confessed. Either way, you end up going to jail/paying a fine. So, we've shown that there are indeed reasonable cases where coming clean does not net you a lesser punishment.
|
|
|
Post by cannedbreadmaker on Nov 15, 2010 23:12:50 GMT
Good going Annie! Cheaters always prosper.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 15, 2010 23:20:46 GMT
Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something, but I think Annie is currently 'unexpellable'; where would she go if she was expelled? I think that what makes Annie "unexpellable" is Reynardine; if she takes him with her after she's kicked out of the Court, they can't keep an eye on him any longer, and if she leaves him behind, that might sever her ownership of him, in which case he'll be able to leave the stuffed wolf body and do who knows what. (I wonder whether some of the Court faculty might be upset with Jones for getting Reynardine out of Jack's trap - his trapped condition would have provided them with the perfect opportunity to kick Annie out of Gunnerkrigg without freeing Reynardine in the process. Her act may be another piece of evidence that she's not beholden to the Court.)
|
|
|
Post by Hyru Wachai on Nov 15, 2010 23:25:57 GMT
Maybe it's understood that Annie will be copying answers, but she didn't say it explicitly because Anja was there.
It would be interesting if Annie hears someone come in and says "I'm almost done" without looking, and it's Anja, not Kat.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 15, 2010 23:33:18 GMT
Do you intend on addressing the point sometime soon? Sure! My point is that there's very little difference in outcomes between making a voluntary confession to a police officer (when they don't suspect you) and subsequently losing in court, and losing in court despite having not confessed. Either way, you end up going to jail/paying a fine. So, we've shown that there are indeed reasonable cases where coming clean does not net you a lesser punishment. Wrong! The point you began arguing about was "Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something" Support: 1) If you turn yourself in for a murder, you may get leniency. If you do not turn yourself in, you have no chance for this leniency. 2) If you screw up your taxes and report the error yourself, you may not get fined. If you do not turn yourself in and the error is discovered, you will probably get fined. 3) If you report yourself for running a red light, you will probably be told to be more careful. If you get stopped for running a red light, you're more likely to get a speeding ticket. Now, you support your side. How is this NOT true? (And remember, I say 'normally' not 'always')
|
|
|
Post by binarytears on Nov 15, 2010 23:47:25 GMT
I still think the most likely cause for Annie's 'determined frown' (both times, same determination), was her being told that the court insists she leave Reynard behind when going away with the Donlans. That would be absolutely unacceptable to her.
So from that moment she's been trying to think of a way of taking him with her secretly.
It occurs to me that Reynard mentioned he could exist in 'anything with eyes'. Obviously, the court may pay attention to whatever Annie takes with her, to check she isn't trying to sneak him out. So maybe she's looking for a way to hide him in something else? How about in Kat's homework book? Just draw on some eyes....
I really think the 'cheating on homework' idea is too simplistic here. She's got something very important on her mind, her solution has to be achieved in secret, and she has a limited time in which to do it.
|
|
|
Post by todd on Nov 16, 2010 0:18:06 GMT
Heck, the court might look at cheating as being resourceful in a crunch: "the ends justify the means." Given the Court's own past record, that sounds only too likely, except that if Annie's brought before them, that means she got caught - which is what they'd be punshing her for. (I wonder if the Court's approach of "punish delinquent students for getting caught, not for being delinquent", stems from two things: 1. Students who get caught aren't good at covering up their actions, which makes them poor candidates for future faculty members - the Court wants faculty members who are good at covering up things whenever it engages in unethical schemes (like murdering Jeanne or duping Reynardine). 2. The Court may realize, deep down inside, that in light of its own actions, it's on shaky grounds in telling off the children for breaking the rules - at least, telling them off on moral grounds.)
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 16, 2010 0:19:33 GMT
Sure! My point is that there's very little difference in outcomes between making a voluntary confession to a police officer (when they don't suspect you) and subsequently losing in court, and losing in court despite having not confessed. Either way, you end up going to jail/paying a fine. So, we've shown that there are indeed reasonable cases where coming clean does not net you a lesser punishment. Wrong! The point you began arguing about was "Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something" Support: 1) If you turn yourself in for a murder, you may get leniency. If you do not turn yourself in, you have no chance for this leniency. 2) If you screw up your taxes and report the error yourself, you may not get fined. If you do not turn yourself in and the error is discovered, you will probably get fined. 3) If you report yourself for running a red light, you will probably be told to be more careful. If you get stopped for running a red light, you're more likely to get a speeding ticket. Now, you support your side. How is this NOT true? (And remember, I say 'normally' not 'always') Your supporting examples all have 'probably' or 'maybe' or similar in them, and there's no empirical evidence here showing that these outcomes are normal. Edit: Also I'm pretty sure I started off by arguing that "you get a lesser punishment if you confess" was dependent on the situation, not that it was normal/abnormal.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 16, 2010 0:25:22 GMT
Wrong! The point you began arguing about was "Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something" Support: 1) If you turn yourself in for a murder, you may get leniency. If you do not turn yourself in, you have no chance for this leniency. 2) If you screw up your taxes and report the error yourself, you may not get fined. If you do not turn yourself in and the error is discovered, you will probably get fined. 3) If you report yourself for running a red light, you will probably be told to be more careful. If you get stopped for running a red light, you're more likely to get a speeding ticket. Now, you support your side. How is this NOT true? (And remember, I say 'normally' not 'always') Your supporting examples all have 'probably' or 'maybe' or similar in them, and there's no empirical evidence here showing that these outcomes are normal. Yes they do and they support the original point. Can you support how this is not true?
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 16, 2010 0:34:29 GMT
Your supporting examples all have 'probably' or 'maybe' or similar in them, and there's no empirical evidence here showing that these outcomes are normal. Yes they do and they support the original point. Can you support how this is not true? We'd have to define exactly what is meant by normal (is it that it happens that way exactly half the time, more than half, etc?), and I'd have to go rooting around for statistics on these subjects. Also, these things do support your argument, but they aren't facts, they're suppositions which need to be supported themselves. If that's sufficient proof, then I'll just claim that the opposite is true for each one, and we'll be at an impasse, right?
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 16, 2010 0:43:15 GMT
Yes they do and they support the original point. Can you support how this is not true? We'd have to define exactly what is meant by normal (is it that it happens that way exactly half the time, more than half, etc?), and I'd have to go rooting around for statistics on these subjects. Also, these things do support your argument, but they aren't facts, they're suppositions which need to be supported themselves. If that's sufficient proof, then I'll just claim that the opposite is true for each one, and we'll be at an impasse, right? No we don't. You started the argument, you must have some logical basis for this, just explain it. Assume if you turn yourself in for murder, you might get leniency but if you do not, you will not get leniency. With that assumption, support how the original point would not be true.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 16, 2010 0:46:58 GMT
We'd have to define exactly what is meant by normal (is it that it happens that way exactly half the time, more than half, etc?), and I'd have to go rooting around for statistics on these subjects. Also, these things do support your argument, but they aren't facts, they're suppositions which need to be supported themselves. If that's sufficient proof, then I'll just claim that the opposite is true for each one, and we'll be at an impasse, right? No we don't. You started the argument, you must have some logical basis for this, just explain it. Assume if you turn yourself in for murder, you might get leniency. With that assumption, explain how the point would not be true. No, my original argument from the start of this tangent was that it was dependent on the situation (eg that a case exists where there is no leniency for turning one's self in), which I've already shown.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 16, 2010 0:49:22 GMT
No we don't. You started the argument, you must have some logical basis for this, just explain it. Assume if you turn yourself in for murder, you might get leniency. With that assumption, explain how the point would not be true. No, my original argument from the start of this tangent was that it was dependent on the situation (eg that a case exists where there is no leniency for turning one's self in), which I've already shown. Yes, you said "adults" and you went to breaking the law. My statements are regarding adults who have broken the law. You had no statistical data when you started this, so it is not required now. Can you support what you've said or not?
|
|
|
Post by mikeymikemikey on Nov 16, 2010 0:55:03 GMT
Hmm, I find it interesting that people assume that the people who don't condone cheating think Annie is the anti-christ or something? That was never my intentions, and no I don't think the sky is going to fall down because of it. Cheating is a common character flaw, and understandable, considering everything Annie's gone through. My assumption that it is cheating is based on her doing it before, and the fact that the homework book looks more like a notebook and less like a planner just has me draw the conclusion that Annie is cheating for her own benefit, like everyone else has pointed out. Do I think it's the best decision? No. And cheating is a habit that escalates and becomes worse and worse and generally gets tempting. Now some people, admittedly, do not get very bad, but considering Annie has gone from peeking at her paper during a class or assignment, and onto stealing her homework book, I'm assuming it has escalated and may continue to do so. The best course of action would have been to ask Kat for help. Her choice and course of action, despite what her reasons are though, can be justified by anything, but ultimately is deplorable, academically and in terms of trust. Annie isn't little miss perfect, we've shown she isn't little miss perfect time and time again, and no matter how innocent people are pointing out her actions may be, there is a lot of evidence pointing to the contrary. It's based on assumptions but very good ones, and if anyone can actually be 100% positive about any situation in this comic I would be surprised. It tends to be vague on purpose, in my opinion. But that means we also get to sit back and think about things and come to our own conclusions, which is something I really enjoy about the comic too. This sums up my point exactly. I don't condone cheating, even minor instances. I'm a teacher, it's part of my job. And, like it or not, despite so-called valid reasons for cheating or people who otherwise don't need it doing it anyway, that still doesn't change the fact that many who do it are being lazy and have no real interest in learning. Do we say that these guys cheating is okay since they're learning, but it's not okay for those other guys? That's like saying petty theft is okay since it's not grand theft auto. But "don't like" or "don't condone" the act of cheating is very different from "condemning" the person/i]. It's always a mistake to assume that someone's point of view is one absolute versus another. People and situations are complex; absolutes are overly simple.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 16, 2010 1:04:47 GMT
No we don't. You started the argument, you must have some logical basis for this, just explain it. Assume if you turn yourself in for murder, you might get leniency. With that assumption, explain how the point would not be true. No, my original argument from the start of this tangent was that it was dependent on the situation (eg that a case exists where there is no leniency for turning one's self in), which I've already shown. By the way, '"Admitting something isn't normally treated as badly as getting caught doing something" includes the case where there is no leniency, which is why it says "normally" instead of "always" If there was always leniency, then it would say "always" but that is not the case. So if you think that case invalidates the statement, you're incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by hal9000 on Nov 16, 2010 1:12:32 GMT
No, my original argument from the start of this tangent was that it was dependent on the situation (eg that a case exists where there is no leniency for turning one's self in), which I've already shown. Yes, you said "adults" and you went to breaking the law. My statements are regarding adults who have broken the law. You had no statistical data when you started this, so it is not required now. Can you support what you've said or not? You said something along the lines of "Assume if you turn yourself in for murder, you might get leniency. With that assumption, explain how the point would not be true." If I assume that it is possible to get leniency for turning one's self in, and I can also assume that it is possible to not get leniency for turning one's self in, and that the two are mutually exclusive, then I can assume that either case is possible, and that it is contingent upon the situation at hand.
|
|
|
Post by jayne on Nov 16, 2010 1:19:18 GMT
Yes, you said "adults" and you went to breaking the law. My statements are regarding adults who have broken the law. You had no statistical data when you started this, so it is not required now. Can you support what you've said or not? You said something along the lines of "Assume if you turn yourself in for murder, you might get leniency. With that assumption, explain how the point would not be true." If I assume that it is possible to get leniency for turning one's self in, and I can also assume that it is possible to not get leniency for turning one's self in, and that the two are mutually exclusive, then I can assume that either case is possible, and that it is contingent upon the situation at hand. Come on, you didn't start this because either outcome was valid, did you? There's no point in arguing that, its already understood. Just make a logical statement.
|
|