/edu/ checkpoint Anonymous 17-07-23 11:23:53 No. 19860 [View All]
Everytime you visit /edu/, post in this thread. Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! Just be sure to pop in and say hi.
Previous thread
>>>/leftypol_archive/580500 Archive of previous thread
https://archive.is/saN3S Excuse me coming through
A quick note on the video @ >>>/leftypol/1538283
Also [vid related] for archival purposes
Around the 29 minute mark Peterson criticizes Marx and Engel's for assuming that workers would magically become more productive once they took over.
This actually happened historically, most of the actually effective productivity tricks work places use now were developed by Stakhanovites.
https://soviethistory.msu.edu/1936-2/year-of-the-stakhanovite/year-of-the-stakhanovite-texts/stalin-at-the-conference-of-stakhanovites/ Reality has a Marxist bias
416 posts and 63 image replies omitted. Anonymous 30-08-25 21:19:49 No. 24982
And now back to what the thread is supposed to be about:
>Tell us about what you're thinking about, what you're reading, an interesting thing you have learned today, anything! I am reading this about how to maximize clarity in math papers:
https://dwest.web.illinois.edu/grammar.html Anonymous 31-08-25 08:04:51 No. 24985
>>24981 >I literally told you about a concept existing for real in law the law you posted did not reflect the concept you were describing, which is why you cannot defend yourself. you were mistaken about the law itself.
>You are not a German lawyer. You are not a Swiss lawyer. You want to argue over the finer points of law texts written in languages you don't speak 🤣🤣🤣 dont double down on your ignorance, bro.
>Now you assert that gifting something just doesn't happen with written contracts where? you implied interpersonal gift exchange as a legal category of concern; i disputed it and was proven right due to citing the qualification of "donation" in the law, which you aptly left out by posting french and german pages rather than transcribing them. you can theoretically contract a gift, but nowhere was this ever implied or discussed. so, wrong again. but i'm used to this by now. i just wish you would stop boring me with your prideful insistence.
>angry incoherent rambling just remember that you are really just mad at yourself for getting into this unwinnable battle. as i say, the sooner you log off, the better things will be for you.
Anonymous 01-09-25 03:39:51 No. 25011
>>24985 >the law you posted did not reflect the concept you were describing What's the difference you believe to be there then.
>was proven right due to citing the qualification of "donation" in the law There is no distinction in law between gift and donation. This is literally pointed out by
>>24981 (I do not believe you read to the end of that post before writing your reply):
>You want to make a big deal about the difference of meaning between "donation" and "gift" in your analysis of law texts, law texts that you have to read in translation because you can't read the fucking original language; and then this difference in meaning of these two terms you believe in doesn't even exist in English. (This is the one thing you have actually learned from the blogger, but that's because the blogger makes it clear in context that he means one of the two to be more formal and could as well have chosen that attachment just the other way around.) This category of "interpersonal gift exchange" as something legally fundamentally different from other exchanges exists in your head. I don't know how it got there. But it's certainly not by reading law. If you want "interpersonal gift exchange" to mean "gifting without written contract" in this conversation, that is fine with me, but you have to understand that I disagree with your speculation about how the legal system works in that situation. And I am stubborn in this because my disagreement is rooted in knowledge.
Anonymous 01-09-25 07:24:13 No. 25013
>>25011 >What's the difference you believe to be there then. we were talking about interpersonal gifting and you imply that if i gave my son a broken playstation, he can sue me - this is not reality.
>There is no distinction in law between gift and donation and what makes a gift or donation subject to law? a contract, presumably, which is not how interpersonal gifting works.
>And I am stubborn in this because my disagreement is rooted in knowledge. you are stubborn because you are irrationally opposed to me, from the very beginning, where you mocked me for trying to help a fellow anon by providing sources. then you disputed the celebrated david graeber by an irrelevant blog which itself seemed to be out on a witch hunt against anti-marxist heretics. you are just pathological, so understand that nothing here is noble. im bored talking to you.
Anonymous 01-09-25 07:41:03 No. 25014
>>25012 according to marx, classical political economy begins with sir william petty (1662) in his treatise on taxation (marx also claims that petty is perhaps a founder of statistics):
>William Petty, the father of Political Economy, and to some extent the founder of Statistics… https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#87a >Pctty regards himself as the founder of a new science. He says that his method “is not yet very usual,” “for instead of using only comparative and superlative Words, and intellectual Arguments,” he proposes to speak “in Terms of Number, Weight or Measure; to use only Arguments of Sense, and to consider only such Causes, as have visible Foundations in Nature; leaving those that depend upon the mutable Minds, Opinions, Appetites, and Passions of particular Men, to the Consideration of others” (Political Arithmetick, etc., London, 1699, Preface). https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1859/critique-pol-economy/ch01a.htm#14 what makes his work "political economy" is that it deals in the economy of the state or nation (although, in aristotle's "oeconomica" and xenophon's "on revenues" they do the same thing, just less systematically). smith similarly approaches "national" wealth. marx also makes reference to people like petty and benjamin franklin (1729) as deriving a labour theory of value, before adam smith. people like aristotle approach a labour theory of cost, but he does not perceive that it is "labour" which is itself exchanged, but rather that articles of labour are exchanged according to supply and demand. someone like thomas aquinas (1274) in his "just price" theory of goods (summa ii.ii.Q77) also sees the reciprocity of labour being equal to its output, but does not substantialise labour in the same way that later classical economists do. some claim that ibn khaldun (1377) founds a labour theory of value, but reading over his text in "muqadimmah", it appears that when he refers to "profit" it is not in the sense of surplus value, but only personal gain. he perhaps has a labour theory of use-value therefore, but this is only intuitive where it regards the mechanics of production, and not the logic of exchange (which is where the LTV really matters).
Anonymous 02-09-25 13:46:36 No. 25023
>>25021 Just go through this bit by bit: Does a transfer of property require a contract?
What do you do when you go to the supermarket and buy something? Do you sign a contract? Is there a handshake? Perhaps there is some talk, but you don't have to say anything. Just hand over the money. So there is no written contract required. You are a citizen and the law system applies to you. You don't "log out" of the law system by doing things without a written record. Not even saying something is required. It is enough that there is an action that reasonable people interpret in a certain way.
Alice and Bob are at a party. Alice knows Bob has a peanut allergy and Alice gives Bob food with peanuts in it while claiming it contains none. Whether claiming it due to malicious intent or because she just couldn't be arsed to check, Alice can get into legal trouble. She cannot avoid punishment by pointing out the lack of a written contract or that it is was a gift.
Anonymous 04-09-25 01:48:36 No. 25034
>>25033 Correct me if I'm misrepresenting you. For convenience I'm numbering claims:
Your position was:
1.
There is a legal distinction between gifting and other property transfers in that gifting has no legal duties attached. Your argument in support of that distinction was:
2.
There is a lack of written contract in gifting .
My response was:
3.
Gifting is not always without a written contract. And:
4.
Other property transfers than gifting do not require the written form either. Points 3 and 4 are true (and I expect an average adult person to know that these points 3 and 4 are true on the basis of real-world experience). This means point 2 cannot work as support for point 1. So at this moment, point 1 lacks support.
Having found no supporting argument for your position yet does not mean the same as it being debunked, but is it plausible that you will find something? I suspect your intuition here demands something like a weight balance: Why should anyone complain about something they receive while giving nothing in turn? But the law doesn't care about that because the law does not have something like a balance to look at some objective "weight" (price? labor time?) of what each party gives. What matters is the two parties consenting.
In post
>>25023 I'm describing a situation where the type of property transfer is irrelevant to the question of punishment. That is, Alice is guilty of either bad intent or gross negligence. She does not have fewer duties because of the lack of a contract or because the transfer was a gift instead of a sale. This has been my position all along.
>if you willingly poison someone You simplify the issue because when you put it that way, you cut off the possibility of neglect instead of intent. Perhaps the example was too dramatic for you (I suspect you are mentally grouping that with events like getting stabbed). My claim is more general in that I say you can get sued for gifting a defective item and then lose in court and I stand by that. Do you still want to maintain that you do not believe that?
Anonymous 04-09-25 10:01:23 No. 25035
>>25034 >There is a legal distinction between gifting and other property transfers in that gifting has no legal duties attached. interpersonal, informal gifting, yes, which was the entire context in which we were discussing.
>There is a lack of written contract in gifting. in interpersonal, informal gifting, yes.
>Gifting is not always without a written contract. once gifting is contracted, it presumably becomes subject to law - which is something you denied.
>My claim is more general in that I say you can get sued for gifting a defective item and then lose in court and I stand by that. give me an example of this having legal precedence.
Anonymous 05-09-25 16:18:55 No. 25037
>>25027 this was the situation at the eastern front after pearl harbour when the us declared war on the axis, in that moment it seemed like the ussr was about to lose and the nazis would be able to focus on securing their conquered territories and impede any army landing on western europe
after the turn beginning at stalingrad the soviets could safely win the war up to france, balkans and italy, however since the wallies' were able to land on france and italy this meant a diminished soviet sphere on europe
Anonymous 05-09-25 16:30:16 No. 25038
>>25037 by that point the soviets abided to a great extent to the new world order imposed on potsdam
would it be logical, in the long term, for the us borgeoisie to support nazi germany? probably, but the borgeoisie doesn't always think as a unified class, instead seeing their proximal economic interest: this would also mean a competing, more ruthless imperialist center conflicting with us markets
Anonymous 06-09-25 19:46:58 No. 25067
>>25062 What makes the transfer of ownership of a movable object real:
https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__929.html Note that § 929 BGB does not ask for a written contract and does not distinguish between selling and gifting.
Anonymous 06-09-25 20:12:34 No. 25070
>>25067 >What makes the transfer of ownership of a movable object real the consent of the property owner - which is why gifting, borrowing, purchasing and stealing an item are all different things.
>selling and gifting are the same thing is this the hill youre dying on? and you still havent fulfilled my request for legal precedent for your propositions. give me a legal case of someone being charged for sending a bad gift. its been two days; youve had time to research.
Anonymous 06-09-25 21:07:08 No. 25072
>>25070 >gifting, borrowing, purchasing and stealing an item are all different things They are different words and they are different concepts; but, and here is a jump in your argument, they are not different in the way you claim them to be. This difference does not exist. Throughout this fruity debate, the support of your position that
the person giving a gift cannot be responsible for flaws as long as there is no written contract is something you have been building on nothing but how you personally feel about how it should be, repeated yourself, thrown in some laughing emojis. You have not shown
any laws.
But you have been shown laws:
Comment
>>24975 stated a person giving a gift is responsible for malicious intent or gross negligence, § 521 BGB.
Comment
>>25067 stated property transfer does not require the written form, § 929 BGB.
Draw the logical consequence from these.
Anonymous 06-09-25 21:10:31 No. 25073
>>25072 >the person giving a gift cannot be responsible for flaws as long as there is no written contract yes.
give me a single legal case to prove me wrong.
Anonymous 06-09-25 21:39:43 No. 25079
>>25073 And then what? And then you say the judge was mistaken. And you actually would have a better argument than your usual drivel (still a weak argument of course), because judges do make mistakes and so explicit laws illustrating a point are more important than individual cases. Alas, I have already shown you the relevant laws while you have shown nothing.
So right back at you: Show a law contradicting the laws already shown ITT by making the exception that you hallucinate to exist or do the weaker argument and show a case being dismissed.
Anonymous 08-09-25 09:57:24 No. 25097
>>25096 here:
>>24975 >>24976 https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__521.html >The donor is only liable for intent and gross negligence https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bgb/__524.html >(1) If the donor fraudulently conceals a defect in the gifted item, they are obligated to compensate the donee for any resulting damage. >(2) If the donor promised to deliver a thing specified only by type, which they were to acquire later, the donee may, if the delivered item is defective and the defect was known to the donor at the time of acquisition or remained unknown due to gross negligence, demand that a defect-free item be delivered instead of the defective one. If the donor fraudulently concealed the defect, the donee may demand damages for non-performance instead of delivery of a defect-free item. The provisions applicable to warranty claims for defects in a sold item apply mutatis mutandis to these claims. https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/27/317_321_377/fr#art_248 article 248:
>(1) The donor is liable to the donee for damages arising from the donation only in cases of fraud or gross negligence. (2) The donor is only liable for the security promised for the thing donated or the assigned claim. article 249:
>The donor may revoke the manual gifts and promises to give that he has executed and sue for restitution up to the amount of the other party's current enrichment: 1.100 when the donee has committed a serious criminal offense against the donor or one of his relatives; 2. when he has seriously failed to fulfill the DUTIES IMPOSED BY LAW towards the donor or his family; 3. when he fails, without legitimate cause, to fulfill the obligations encumbering the donation. are we done here?
Anonymous 08-09-25 12:35:59 No. 25098
>>25097 >donor Since you know German so well, tell me which German words to use for:
the gift
to gift
the act of gifting as a noun
the person giving a gift
Anonymous 09-09-25 03:37:44 No. 25101
>>25096 >Lie. >>25099 >LIES!! Incredible. You can't even quote a single-word post correctly.
And you know why I said that you lie? Because you do. You claimed you had shown something about the laws. But you did not. You then made a flimsy attempt of showing something through crappy machine translation in response to the post calling you out. I don't know if you understand how the arrow of time works, but me calling you out for lying was correct. And you are now adding another lie because the rest of what you just said cannot be a paraphrase or summary, nor even count as sarcastic summary or a just a humorous exaggeration by any stretch of imagination.
Now, to your flimsy attempt of dealing with the actual law (which is so weak it hardly counts as attempt, machine translation and putting things in UPPERCASE, seriously?):
You want to make a big deal about the difference of meaning between "donation" and "gift" in your analysis of law texts, law texts that you have to read in translation because you can't read the fucking original language; and then this difference in meaning of these two terms you believe in doesn't even exist in English. (This is the one thing you have actually learned from the blogger, but that's because the blogger makes it clear in context that he means one of the two to be more formal and could as well have chosen that attachment just the other way around.) Notice something? I already told you this twice. But I will reward your "effort" by acknowledging the stuff you put in UPPERCASE. Stuff in the law that emphasizes duties. Yes. You should definitely highlight that if you want to emphasize that gifting is regulated by law and that there are duties around gifting even if there is no written contract. Which is my position. Now why did you highlight that? Perhaps you have forgotten that you are not me.
According to you, gifting is something that happens without contract, as opposed to a donation, which you say happens with contract. There is no such hard distinction in German nor (and at least this you should know) in English. You think when somebody says they "donated old clothes" they must have signed a contract for that or what? Throughout this you have argued only on the basis of how you personally feel what the world should be like. And worse, you have disregarded laws explicitly saying it is not so. Of course I will not tolerate your nonsense. You don't know anything about German law. Nor Swiss law.
And anyway, burger law is not really that different and burger lawyers will tell you as much about your zero-point-zero-responsibility hypothesis in gifting. (Where did you even learn this nonsense? "Breadtube University Presents: Le gIft eConOmY whERe n0bOdy iS rEspoNsiBle foR anYthInG"?)
Anonymous 09-09-25 08:15:49 No. 25102
>>25101 >gifting is regulated by law and that there are duties around gifting even if there is no written contract. give me a single example of legal precedent, otherwise you have no evidence that you can be arrested for giving a bad gift. why cant you provide evidence?
>legal duties as opposed to non-legal duties… so you contradict yourself by assuming all interpersonal transactions are subject to law. so then, there must be a condition of law, which i see as a contract, verbal or written.
>According to you, gifting is something that happens without contract, as opposed to a donation, which you say happens with contract. thats what makes it subject to law.
>You think when somebody says they "donated old clothes" they must have signed a contract for that or what? what makes a donation subject to law?
Anonymous 09-09-25 08:31:50 No. 25103
>>25101 >>25102 to answer my own question, since i have no patience for your filibustering, i will present you german gift law:
https://www.german-probate-lawyer.com/publications/detail/gifts-in-german-civil-law-4378.html What constitutes a Gift (Schenkung):
<Under a gift CONTRACT, a DONOR uses his own assets to enrich a CONTRACTUAL PARTNER without receiving money or any other kind of payment and/or consideration in exchange. <There are at least two parties to the CONTRACT, the DONOR (Schenkender) and the DONEE (Beschenkter); The asset subject to the GIFT CONTRACT is specified; and The parties agree that the transfer is gratuitous. more forms of gifting.
hand gift:
>A hand gift occurs when the donor (Schenkender) transfers something of value from his possession to the donee (Beschenkten), provided both agree that the donee does not need to compensate the donor for the gift. See § 516 (1) BGB. A hand gift of this kind DOES NOT HAVE TO COMPLY WITH ANY FORMALITIES. Promise to make a Gift:
>A promise to make a gift (Schenkungsversprechen) is LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE ONLY IF IT IS MADE IN WRITING and is notarized. so a gift is made subject to law by CONTRACT, as i originally said and have repeated. duly, shut the fuck up and never reply to me again.
Anonymous 10-09-25 02:19:34 No. 25105
>>25101 >And anyway, burger law is not really that different and burger lawyers will tell you as much about your zero-point-zero-responsibility hypothesis in gifting. Burger law firm 1 says:
<Sometimes gift-givers may have some liability. If they registered the product and received notice of a recall, they would need to notify the gift recipient about the recall. Scenarios in which it appears that the gift giver was aware of the defect and did not disclose that matter to the recipient might lead to a degree of liability for the person who purchased the defective item. https://www.polanskycichonlaw.com/blog/2023/11/who-is-liable-when-a-defective-gift-hurts-someone/ Burger law firm 2 says:
<If you knew that a product was defective at the time that you gifted it to someone, and you did not inform them of the defect, there is a possibility that you could be liable in the event of an injury. For example, let’s say you got a new bike and are gifting your old bike to your nephew, but you forgot that the brakes were bad and never got it fixed before passing it down. If your nephew goes to take it for a spin and crashes because of the bad brakes, you could be held responsible for not making someone aware of a known defect. https://margolislawoffice.com/can-i-be-sued-if-my-gift-injures-someone/ >>25102 >>gifting is regulated by law and that there are duties around gifting even if there is no written contract. >give me a single example of legal precedent Why would you need an example case when the law explicitly says that? The law explicitly saying that is a better argument than a judge deciding that, since judges can disagree with each other.
>>25103 >https://www.german-probate-lawyer.com/publications/detail/gifts-in-german-civil-law-4378.html This is an OK article, but it is an introductory article written specifically for people who want their family to inherit their stuff while minimizing the tax burden. The
broken-bike situation is not on the mind of either writer nor intended audience.
The part highlighted by you just means this property transfer does not need to comply with formalities in order to be executed. It does not mean that you cannot be held responsible if you gift an item that is defective and you fail to inform the other party of that.
Literally written right after this:
<However, a defect in form is cured by executing performance as promised. See § 518 (2) BGB. Do you understand what "cured" means here? After handing over the item, the situation is treated as if there had been a written contract all along. After handing over the gift, § 521 BGB applies.
Anonymous 10-09-25 08:16:24 No. 25107
>>25105 >Why would you need an example case when the law explicitly says that? because otherwise you have no evidence of the legal actionability of a claim. you are still avoiding the topic of what makes a gift legally subject - i have proven that its a contract. you make no claim except that if i give someone a broken watch, i can go to jail - i ask for examples; you refuse, therefore you have no evidence.
>It does not mean that you cannot be held responsible if you gift an item that is defective if i give someone a broken watch, can i go to jail?
>After handing over the item, the situation is treated as if there had been a written contract all along. so the legal transfer of property is treated in the contractual form? thanks for proving me right, again.
Anonymous 10-09-25 09:22:08 No. 25109
>>25108 >You are saying the law itself isn't evidence. no im not. i provide a condition for the law - you dont.
>I can tell you that cases like that have already happened great. give an example.
>i cant give any examples too bad. you have no evidence, then.
>No you have not. yes i have, which is why i am the only one who has offered evidence from legal citation of "gift contracts".
>Can you stop making up shit for once. My example was getting into legal trouble for food poisoning so there is no law against providing a defective gift pet se? so to clear things up, answer this question directly:
- can you go to jail for gifting a broken watch?
(and you still havent explained what makes a gift transfer subject to law).
Anonymous 11-09-25 02:50:43 No. 25117
>>25109 >you have no evidence The law. § 521 BGB. Already quoted over a week ago:
>>24975 >i am the only one who has offered evidence from legal citation of "gift contracts". Earlier in the thread you made a big deal about the distinction in meaning between the words "gift" and "donation", with "donation" referring to a formal procedure with a contract, and "gift" referring to an informal procedure without a contract, a distinction which is followed by neither lay people nor lawyers, neither in America nor in Germany. You claimed that here:
>>24976 Now you have quoted yourself a law section about a "gift contract", without acknowledging your turn and without understanding at all what it means when taken in together with the other already quoted laws. The gift contract is NOT something that switches on applicability of the law for acts of gifting. (You can't just opt out of the law by informally gifting bikes with hidden defects, crack, and nuclear weapons.) The gift contract is specifically a
promise about the future . It is this promise about a future act which requires the written form in order for the person promising the gift to be held responsible for doing the future act. The requirement is really this limited. Quoting this bit to you from your own source for the third time, maybe you will notice it now:
<However, a defect in form is cured by executing performance as promised. See § 518 (2) BGB. This is called
Heilung des Formfehlers . Let's use the example of promising an old bike as a gift. If you don't gift anything at all after making the promise, you do not get in legal trouble if the promise was merely verbal. But if you then do gift the bike that is
Heilung des Formfehlers and the legal system proceeds as if you had given a written promise. If the bike has a dangerous defect, you may be liable if judged guilty of malicious intent or gross negligence, irrespective of whether the promise was in written form or not.
Anonymous 11-09-25 05:38:45 No. 25119
>>25118 (me)
Watched the rest and checked a couple of his essays. Hmmm all very vague. He could get really good if he tried writing something longer and deeper instead of dabbling.
Anonymous 11-09-25 08:18:23 No. 25120
>>25117 >Earlier in the thread you made a big deal about the distinction in meaning between the words "gift" and "donation" yes, because you were conflating the relationship between informal, interpersonal gifting and legally actionable trade (of which the condition you have still not defined, while i have). you implied that a "defective" gift will get you in legal trouble - i suggest a broken watch, you deny it, therefore proving that no such relationship exists except under specific conditions. i ask for the conditions, you refuse to provide them (restating that a defective gift gets you in trouble, which you already disputed, proving me right).
>If the bike has a DANGEROUS defect, you may be liable if judged guilty of malicious intent or gross negligence, irrespective of whether the promise was in written form or not. DANGEROUS defect? MALICIOUS intent? so the law has nothing to do with the form of the gift itself, like you have already disputed with the example of the watch? therefore, no one is tried for giving a bad gift, but for malicious intent or gross negligence generally - for harm sustained by the gift. this is suggested by your omission of legal precedent. a confident person would give evidence, while you give none.
to conclude:
- a person cannot be in trouble for giving a broken watch, therefore the defect of the gift must be speficic, namely, as a means for malicious intent. the legal condition of the act then has nothing to do with the gift directly, but its underlying effect, which is under the law as a harmful act, not a failure to provide value. the gift is a means, not an end of the law, except where a contract is written (something you denied existing until 2 seconds ago). so then, you have admitted that i was right about everything and it would be preferable for you to desist now. thanks.
Anonymous 12-09-25 04:17:11 No. 25123
>>25120 >>Earlier in the thread you made a big deal about the distinction in meaning between the words "gift" and "donation" >yes, because you were conflating the relationship between informal, interpersonal gifting and legally actionable trade False. You were confusing "formal" and "informal" with "donation" and "gifting". And your confusion was pointed out in comment
>>24940 (bolding some bits):
>people can promise a future delivery of a thing or service, and in that case they are in debt. And contrary to what you feel about laws, promises and gifts can be quite constrained and formal. In real life, if you gift somebody something that turns out to be defective, you might get sued and actually get punished. I bolded these bits to contrast with how you misrepresent the argument:
>you implied that a "defective" gift will get you in legal trouble You are exaggerating.
>- i suggest a broken watch, you deny it I guess what you mean to convey here with "you deny it" is that I don't make use of your example. That's because it is lacking context. You were told in comment
>>24975 that the one giving a defective gift might be held responsible if there is malicious intent or gross negligence. You need to flesh out your scenario.
>i ask for the conditions, you refuse to provide them Ctrl-f this thread for "gross negligence" to see you are full of shit about no presented conditions. Ctrl-f for "bike" to go through an example provided.
>restating that a defective gift gets you in trouble You are making the same exaggeration again.
>no one is tried for giving a bad gift, but for malicious intent or gross negligence generally What level of idealism are you on, son? What is the harm done to others by having evil thoughts? The law explicitly refers to people in roles like giver and receiver of an object. These aren't references to just thoughts in the head about how people feel about themselves, but observable actions.
>to conclude: >- a person cannot be in trouble for giving a broken watch, therefore the defect of the gift must be speficic, namely, as a means for malicious intent. the legal condition of the act then has nothing to do with the gift directly, but its underlying effect, which is under the law as a harmful act, not a failure to provide value. the gift is a means, not an end of the law, except where a contract is written (something you denied existing until 2 seconds ago). so then, you have admitted that i was right about everything and it would be preferable for you to desist now. thanks. Holy shit this reads like what a lawyer would say in a Sonichu comic!
Anonymous 12-09-25 11:13:07 No. 25126
>>25123 >gross negligence is the legal condition wonder why you didnt say this a hundred posts ago?
and so you admit that what people are charged with is gross negligence or malicious harm, NOT the failure to provide an adequate gift. so, this is the end of the conversation. thanks for wasting my time.
Unique IPs: 38