That's moving the goalposts. The point upthread was that splitting a single deposit made you "a criminal guilty of structuring".
But yeah, sorta: if you are repeatedly splitting such deposits in exactly the way needed to avoid reporting and scrutiny, and don't have a valid non-structuring explanation, those facts are going to go a long way toward proving intent in the minds of a jury. Would you seriously argue otherwise?
Maybe I structure my deposits because I don’t feel safe carrying $10,000+ to the bank. So five times a week I’m depositing $5k in the bank, until the DA seizes my businesses working capital to put me out of business and you on the jury vote to convict me because my behavior was “repeated”?
> Not feeling safe is a valid reason to avoid large physical cash deposits.
It's a reason shared by everyone. It's even true for drug dealers laundering their drug money. If that's a valid reason then who could be charged under this law?
That's the problem with the laws against money laundering. They prohibit things that are perfectly innocuous and done by honest people for legitimate reasons. They give prosecutors something to charge anyone they don't like with, even though thousands of other businesses are doing exactly the same thing without being charged because the prosecutors don't care about them.
It's nothing but an excuse to charge someone with something when you can't prove the thing they're actually supposed to be guilty of.
>It's nothing but an excuse to charge someone with something when you can't prove the thing they're actually supposed to be guilty of
This is exactly it.
If you want to stop a drug dealer, then prove they are dealing drugs, and put them in prison for that.
But it's too hard to prove they're dealing drugs, so create a law that criminalizes something that could potentially help a drug dealer cover his/her tracks, like concealing large transfers from the government. Now all of a sudden a new category of crime has been created that affects far more than drug dealers.
Anti-money-laundering laws are a blunt instrument for fighting crime that restricts the rights of millions of innocent people, in the name of stopping a small population of criminals.
This is certainly the standard practice. However, there's a recent case, Luis v. US (2016), challenged on 6th amendment grounds (right to counsel) that permits a Defendant to use funds that have no reasonable connection to the crime. Of course, in practice, they'll seize your assets or restrict your use (via pretrial conditions), and you'll need those funds to engage your attorney to move for the modification in the first place.
> The Immigration Act of 1990 limits to 65,000 the number of foreign nationals who may be issued a visa or otherwise provided H-1B status each fiscal year (FY). An additional 20,000 H-1Bs are available to foreign nationals holding a master's or higher degree from U.S. universities.
> Those who have the U.S. master's exemption have two chances to be selected in the lottery: first, a lottery is held to award the 20,000 visas available to master's degree holders, and those not selected are then entered in the regular lottery for the other 65,000 visas. Those without a U.S. master's are entered only in the second, regular, lottery.
> I'm going to guess this dodge is here because you support, or at least wish to avoid antagonising, people who believe that killing other people is a legitimate criminal punishment and so somehow it's not "murder" if the state chooses to do it. Although it's also possible you condone extra-judicial killing, with the same dodge, it's OK to torture somebody to death so long as you know, they're bad guys...
I don't believe killing an embryo is murder, but this comment is a red herring. You're claiming it's possible that ¬innocent ∧ murder. But this is entirely consistent with mjh2539's claim that innocent → murder. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denying_the_antecedent.
We've drifted far off topic here, but what's happened here is you've (hopefully by mistake) mistaken human natural language for a system of logical statements.
Human utterances in natural languages have a bunch of unspoken rules, breaking the rules is something that happens periodically by accident, and enables some amusing comedy (the late Ronnie Barker's most famous work "Four Candles" is a classic example) but on the whole honest participants in a conversation are not trying to break the rules. So. One of the rules is you mustn't mention things in the utterance that are irrelevant. For example:
"I've never been to Sweden in the summer" doesn't _logically_ preclude having never been to Sweden at all, but the rule means "in the summer" shouldn't appear in this utterance unless it's relevant, so it becomes a reasonable assumption for the listener that the speaker _has_ been to Sweden in some other season.
If a person says they believe "Innocent people should not be hanged" you're correct that _logically_ this offers no opinion on whether it's fine to hang guilty people. But the rule says it _does_ carry such an opinion implicitly, if innocence wasn't important it would not be mentioned.
When somebody is being very careful to define something in terms of other words and phrases they've used, we shouldn't assume they just threw some of them in for a laugh, they must all be part of the meaning intended - otherwise we can't communicate at all, just as we can't communicate with people who insist on Humpty Dumpty's rule (a word means whatever Humpty chooses it to mean).
You were wrong (and were also being uncharitable). The reason why I phrased the definition the way I did was so that I did not preclude the possibility of killing someone who was not innocent. This includes every instance of lack of innocence, but minimally, instances of self-defense.
I found your talking about implicature patronizing.
I agree, we can't communicate with people who insist on Humpty Dumpty's rule; what you fail to recognize is that you're happy to use Humpty Dumpty's rule in regard to 'human'. You have to make recourse to odd language like 'clump of cells'. The human fetus is a human being; that is, it is a human, and it doesn't really matter that you don't want to admit what is obvious to biologists, OB/GYNs, couples trying to conceive, people in parts of the world that haven't been colonized by Westerners and their ideologies, etc.
> For example, nuclear energy is a real physical phenonenon. It doesn't exist because of various abstract relations - i.e., simulating a nuclear reactor in a computer doesn't mean you have nuclear energy. We know that matter of a specific kind arranged in a specific way creates nuclear energy.
> do strong AI proponents think that causal relationships must be involved to run a program to make it conscious? Or is it enough for the abstract relationships to exist? For example, how about a computer program written down on a piece of paper? Yes or no? Why is the physical running of it important? If so, please explain the physics of how running it in dominoes, water valves or transistors all produce the same phenomenon. If not, does this mean that any abstract set of relations is also conscious - the program on a piece of paper? Doesn't that then also mean that there are an infinitude of consciousnesses since an infinitude of abstract relations exist between all of the bits of matter in the universe?
Analogy: Simulating fluid dynamics on a computer does not mean the computer becomes wet. Simulating a black hole on a computer does not mean the computer starts curving the spacetime around it. Simulating an electric field on a computer does not mean the computer creates an electric field. Simulating a brain on a computer may or may not mean the computer creates consciousness.
Why should the person who profits most be held the most responsible? Suppose the person in charge of safety clearance makes less money than the original developer. How does that shift responsibility to the developer, as opposed to the situation where the developer makes less money?
The concept of a mind is not the same as an instance of a particular mind, any more than a algorithm is the same as a running process, or the idea of 3 is the same as a set of logic gates designed to represent a 3 in binary.
Mistaking our own internal representation of our own mind (our consciousness) for our actual mind is what Dennit is arguing against.
What question? It seems pretty clear what they are saying: the concept of mind is a social contruct, metaphorical, a figure of speech rather than a figure of physical reality.
