You didn't quote anyone and you seem to ramble around aimlessly in a non-direct response to anything post in this thread, so I'll just assume you aren't replying to anything in particular...
I don't quote people because I like to write a coherent text, as everyone should. Toribash discussion is the only place I ever saw that made a habit of commenting on each line of someone. It's rather awkward and I don't like it at all.
Premeditated murder is obviously not the same as manslaughter.
Using intoxication as an excuse and claiming that this made the situation out of your control is unacceptable.
I believe I already said that people should be held accountable to their actions.
Unfortunately there are people who do abuse various substances. Whether these people have mental illness or are just addicted is a problem in itself, we should tackle the root cause.
Well, that's not the purpose of laws lol.
The purpose of laws is to define what is and is not acceptable. Murder? Not acceptable. Theft? Not acceptable. Drugs? Not acceptable. I don't want to live in a society filled with substance abusers, and most people don't want to either.
I won't subscribe to your false dicotomy, I choose option 3: I think it's much better to have a society without any substance abusers. Whether it's a case of educating the people who make bad choices, or jailing them is another matter.
This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. Do people want firearms or do they want safety? They are selfishly sacrificing safety in order to have firearms. To the residence of Sodom, Sodom was a moral place - is this acceptable?
If your society has various problems (substance abuse, or firearm lust) then they will attempt to change the laws to fit their warped worldview. You need to fix the problems with the people first - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Handguns kill FAR more people than grenades.
I don't quote people because I like to write a coherent text, as everyone should. Toribash discussion is the only place I ever saw that made a habit of commenting on each line of someone. It's rather awkward and I don't like it at all.
Originally Posted by Redundant
People are able to argue that they were drunk when they did bad things because it is the truth. Why would you not want people to use the truth in a court?
Surely that does not mean that being drunk is an excuse to do bad things. It just means that their rationality was unable to function properly in that situation.
If being drunk cannot be used to evaluate how bad a crime is, then what can? Anger? Ice cold development of a strategy to harm someone? Not only the result of an action matters in a courtroom. How those actions came to be matters as well. It is a great difference if someone kills his wife during a fight or plans the murder for several weeks and executes it with a calm mind. Intoxication is also a factor that needs to be taken into consideration unless you think that being willfully ignorant is a good thing.
Premeditated murder is obviously not the same as manslaughter.
Using intoxication as an excuse and claiming that this made the situation out of your control is unacceptable.
I believe I already said that people should be held accountable to their actions.
Originally Posted by Redundant
We could declare that the act of advertising drugs is immoral and proceed to ban pro drug ads. I see no problem with that, seeing as ads tend to be very manipulative and that drugs are viewed upon as negative thing in general. That does not limit a person's personal freedom to choose to do those drugs, nor does it heavily affect the economy. That would be a healthy way of going about this situation.
Unfortunately there are people who do abuse various substances. Whether these people have mental illness or are just addicted is a problem in itself, we should tackle the root cause.
Originally Posted by Redundant
Compared to actual problems we have with drugs, that seems to be a rather minor one.
There are drug related problems that are far greater. Look at South America, for instance. Drug lords vs police.
Drugs are already banned there. The drugs that got prohibited gave those druglords the ability to gain insane amount of moneys by circumventing the laws. Those people have no interest in a change of those laws.
I dare to suggest that prohibiting things that are high in demand is the root of a lot of criminal acts all around the world. Gotta ask yourself what's worse: Legalized junkies or war on the streets. People who want to do illegal drugs can do illegal drugs already. They don't care about them being illegal. It's just insanely unsafe and many people suffer due to that.
Why not provide an environment where those people can do drugs safely in a way that does not endanger people as it does today?
Legalizing it does not mean condoning it, and you still can take measures to prevent people from taking those drugs, as long as those do not interfere with the freedom to choose.
Well, that's not the purpose of laws lol.
The purpose of laws is to define what is and is not acceptable. Murder? Not acceptable. Theft? Not acceptable. Drugs? Not acceptable. I don't want to live in a society filled with substance abusers, and most people don't want to either.
I won't subscribe to your false dicotomy, I choose option 3: I think it's much better to have a society without any substance abusers. Whether it's a case of educating the people who make bad choices, or jailing them is another matter.
Originally Posted by Redundant
We could also get a take on firearms as well, I guess, since this thread seems to be about everything now.
Banning firearms in a country where the general populace believes that the possession of guns is immoral is correct. If it is the consensus and generally agreed upon there is no problem with that.
The problem occurs once you try to ban firearms in a country where guns are an important part of the culture, and people own firearms traditionally as well as for safety reasons.
In those countries banning firearms would be immoral because people have a high demand for them, and taking away their rights to secure their own safety is not a very clever way to deal with a criminal environment. When a person feels the need to protect himself you should examine his situation closely and then form an opinion if his environment is, in fact, dangerous. Declaring right away that those firearms should be taken off the streets no matter what is a very ignorant way of dealing with the situation.
When there is a high demand for firearms there will be firearms, even if there is a ban. The only thing you are going to accomplish is that many more people will become criminal, some people will make a lot of money with being criminal, and in the end you caused more problems than you solved.
This kind of thinking is extremely dangerous. Do people want firearms or do they want safety? They are selfishly sacrificing safety in order to have firearms. To the residence of Sodom, Sodom was a moral place - is this acceptable?
If your society has various problems (substance abuse, or firearm lust) then they will attempt to change the laws to fit their warped worldview. You need to fix the problems with the people first - you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink.
Originally Posted by Redundant
Of course that does not mean that firearms should go totally unchecked. There are certain ones that are more dangerous to your own safety than others. A grenade, for instance, has very little value in a street fight. You cannot defend yourself with it. It can only be used offensively. Therefore the access to grenades should be restricted, and I believe that most people all over the world would agree that the access to grenades should be restricted. The primary function of a grenade is causing a lot of destruction, which is a bad thing. So a ban would make sense here.
The primary function of a handgun, however, is not destruction. It's security. So saying that owning a handgun in general is a bad thing would be wrong.
I could write more now, but I am getting lazy and tired.
Go ahead and plow through my reasoning.
Handguns kill FAR more people than grenades.
Last edited by Redundant; Mar 26, 2014 at 07:27 PM.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Yes, I understand that you strive for an ideal situation where everyone behaves as they ought to, according to your personal understanding.
That, however, is not efficient and will not solve many problems but create a lot of new ones, as I argued in my previous post.
A law that does not work at all, or very limited, should not be a law. What point does a law have when it cannot be enforced with the desired effects? Literally none, it only criminalizes people.
Your idea of a drug free society is a good one. Not many people (as in a great majority) agree with that drug free society though, and you will limit the freedom of those greatly who do not agree with it. Those who do not agree with it will attempt to become free to choose what they wish, thus becoming criminals. Now you have a lot of criminal people, nor a drug free society. Now, do you really think that is a good society to live in?
Are you willing to criminalize those who do not agree with your moral code?
I personally choose to respect people's moral codes as long as they respect my freedom to choose my own as well, and I think that is a healthy way of going about that.
Everything else leads to pain and suffering, because people do not tolerate others who claim the authority to limit their freedom significantly.
Also, be aware that I do not speak in absolutes. I definitely do not respect a person who attempts to morally justify something I personally consider evil by default.
That, however, is not efficient and will not solve many problems but create a lot of new ones, as I argued in my previous post.
A law that does not work at all, or very limited, should not be a law. What point does a law have when it cannot be enforced with the desired effects? Literally none, it only criminalizes people.
Your idea of a drug free society is a good one. Not many people (as in a great majority) agree with that drug free society though, and you will limit the freedom of those greatly who do not agree with it. Those who do not agree with it will attempt to become free to choose what they wish, thus becoming criminals. Now you have a lot of criminal people, nor a drug free society. Now, do you really think that is a good society to live in?
Are you willing to criminalize those who do not agree with your moral code?
I personally choose to respect people's moral codes as long as they respect my freedom to choose my own as well, and I think that is a healthy way of going about that.
Everything else leads to pain and suffering, because people do not tolerate others who claim the authority to limit their freedom significantly.
Also, be aware that I do not speak in absolutes. I definitely do not respect a person who attempts to morally justify something I personally consider evil by default.
How are you?
10% of the USA uses marijuana - the most pervasive drug. How can you say " Not many people (as in a great majority) agree with that drug free society though"? Most people do agree with it, by far, the vast majority.
No, I will not criminalize people who do not agree with my moral code. However I will definitely criminalize people who do not respect the law. Substance abuse causes many problems for other people. Those who are selfish and arrogant enough to smoke weed deserve to be punished - they know it's illegal, they know it causes problems for people, they know the kind of system they are contributing to. The basest requirement to live in a society is to follow their rules. People who knowingly break the law because they do not agree with it do not deserve mercy. There is due process for changing the law.
If we remove all laws we will have no criminals. How is this a good idea? It's a terrible idea.
What do you do when you encounter someone who has no moral qualms to murdering people? "Oh it's their choice I respect their freedoms"? Insane. We shouldn't have to even say things like "don't murder, don't steal, don't abuse substances", people should know that these things are wrong. It's because of moral corruption that we need laws at all - people can't act nice without threat of punishment.
No, I will not criminalize people who do not agree with my moral code. However I will definitely criminalize people who do not respect the law. Substance abuse causes many problems for other people. Those who are selfish and arrogant enough to smoke weed deserve to be punished - they know it's illegal, they know it causes problems for people, they know the kind of system they are contributing to. The basest requirement to live in a society is to follow their rules. People who knowingly break the law because they do not agree with it do not deserve mercy. There is due process for changing the law.
If we remove all laws we will have no criminals. How is this a good idea? It's a terrible idea.
What do you do when you encounter someone who has no moral qualms to murdering people? "Oh it's their choice I respect their freedoms"? Insane. We shouldn't have to even say things like "don't murder, don't steal, don't abuse substances", people should know that these things are wrong. It's because of moral corruption that we need laws at all - people can't act nice without threat of punishment.
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
Cigarettes, alcohol, and cigarettes are drugs, so I can say that a vast majority of people uses drugs on a daily basis fairly easily.
I believe you misunderstand me greatly. You need to read my posts more thoroughly, you keep misinterpreting what I say.
Never did I say that all laws are bad, I said that those laws that have no positive impact on society are bad. Respecting a law that is not efficient is counter productive, I will challenge it whenever I can.
I also clearly stated that not all actions are good. I actually stated that there are things that are evil, and society is right to punish them.
Please stop using strawman arguments, I also tell you this as a moderator.
I believe you misunderstand me greatly. You need to read my posts more thoroughly, you keep misinterpreting what I say.
Never did I say that all laws are bad, I said that those laws that have no positive impact on society are bad. Respecting a law that is not efficient is counter productive, I will challenge it whenever I can.
I also clearly stated that not all actions are good. I actually stated that there are things that are evil, and society is right to punish them.
Please stop using strawman arguments, I also tell you this as a moderator.
Originally Posted by Redundant
Also, be aware that I do not speak in absolutes. I definitely do not respect a person who attempts to morally justify something I personally consider evil by default.
Originally Posted by ImmortalPig
What do you do when you encounter someone who has no moral qualms to murdering people? "Oh it's their choice I respect their freedoms"? Insane. We shouldn't have to even say things like "don't murder, don't steal, don't abuse substances", people should know that these things are wrong. It's because of moral corruption that we need laws at all - people can't act nice without threat of punishment.
How are you?
Drugs means something specific in this context. I'm not trying to ban asprin mate.
Stop making abstract and out of context comments. What are you even talking about? Your argument is extremely flawed and based on false assumptions.
I'm not using any strawman arguments. How ironic that you are labeling my arguments as strawman because you don't want to deal with hyperbole -_-;
"evil by default" what does this even mean?
Stop making abstract and out of context comments. What are you even talking about? Your argument is extremely flawed and based on false assumptions.
I'm not using any strawman arguments. How ironic that you are labeling my arguments as strawman because you don't want to deal with hyperbole -_-;
"evil by default" what does this even mean?
<Faint> the rules have been stated quite clearly 3 times now from high staff
