Wolfire Games Forums

Stopping someone from commiting suicide should be illegal?
I don't get that. Should I be put in jail for disarming someone that would otherwise shoot him/herself?

Ultimatum479 wrote: The reason for prohibiting marijuana is that the government thinks it should look out for the health even of those who don't wish to look out for their own health. Otherwise, stopping someone from committing suicide would be illegal.

I don't understand what you mean at all with this.

Renegade_Turner wrote: I've never committed a crime. Not once.

Gosh I'm a loser. I should break the law more because it's cool.

Coolnes or morality has nothing with the law to do.
I don't keep myself from killing people because it's illegal, but because
it's stupid. What we'll want to debate is why we think it's stupid.

David wrote:Social behavior is not an on/off switch. Genetic mutations don't work like in X-men or Heroes, you can't have a mutation that singles out a specific trait and changes it just like that. If you were really a sociopath like you seem to want everyone to believe, then you wouldn't be going around trying to get everyone to believe it. For some reason you want to persuade everyone that you are somehow above all human society, and don't care what anyone thinks of you. You can't 'use' people if you keep bragging about how much of a 'user' you are. The fact that you argue your case so vehemently proves that you are wrong.

Indeed, it's a _collection_ of traits which combine to form one's social behavior, but my point still stands. Probabilistically speaking, it's nigh impossible for billions upon billions of humans to be born and for all of them to share those genetic traits of altruism. After all, as time goes on, altruism becomes less of a positive selection factor even by selfish gene theory.

Crill, I'm saying you should be tried for civil or perhaps criminal crimes if you invade someone's privacy in ways you shouldn't. Breaking into someone's house to disarm them or forcing someone to receive medical care against their will after they survived an attempted suicide should be illegal.

Crill3, I don't break most laws because they're usually there for good reason and make sense. I overlook some like the legal drinking age, because in my opinion I'm mature enough by now to drink (I only have to wait 10 more months anyway). The whole drinking age thing, anyway, is there to try to make it so that people who aren't mature enough to take alcohol are kept from drinking. However, most of the people I see starting fights while drunk that I see when I'm out seem to be the ones who are actually well over 18. It's about mental maturity really more than physical maturity.

Sorry for going off on a tangent. =/

Still, what kind of school do you go to where you need to kill people, Ulti?

I think you're making all this up. You're some rich fat kid trying to impress other rich fat kids.

Thumbtack punch!



Dude! But what if the other guy is packing a ballpoint pen?

It's a new one, I'll give you that.

Lollllll David should definitely put in a little Easter Egg in Lugaru 2 where instead of brass knuckles Turner wears thumbtacks.

Zantalos wrote:Dude! But what if the other guy is packing a ballpoint pen?

*Rolls*

rudel_ic wrote:Still, what kind of school do you go to where you need to kill people, Ulti?

I _don't_ need to kill people. That doesn't mean there's any harm in being prepared to defend myself. Fights are actually much more rare at Atlantic High than in most schools in the district despite its reputation, although theft is more common than in most of the others. As for the pen issue, I also always have a broken compass in my pocket which is much more useful if I have time to take it out, but not so easy to hide in a watch for swift access.

Renegade, drinking has nothing to do with maturity. Some people are just born with a higher tolerance for alcohol than others. I know someone who's 15 and can chug several bottles of beer without feeling a thing. I also have a friend who recently turned 18, yet she starts feeling it after half a glass of wine.

It's largely more to do with how long you've been drinking. If you've only started drinking, you get drunk easily. If you've been drinking ages, it takes quite a few pints to get you drunk properly. Not to incur or promote the use of national stereotypes, but I should know as I'm from Ireland.

Anyway, that's not relevant as I was talking about maturity as in the maturity to not drink too much and know when you are getting too tipsy. I'm able to distinguish when I'm getting too bad. I've never gotten wrecked.

My point was that some people get addicted with a small amount that might not even get them fully drunk yet, and thus they wouldn't be able to stop no matter how "mature" they are. But, for that particular reason, I've never willfully had a sip in my life, so I'm not exactly an authority on this. I'm speaking not from my experience but from the experience of many people around me who drink, so you can have the last word on this topic due to your personal experience.

Which means we can return to the paragraph that spawned this discussion:

Renegade Turner wrote:Crill3, I don't break most laws because they're usually there for good reason and make sense. I overlook some like the legal drinking age, because in my opinion I'm mature enough by now to drink (I only have to wait 10 more months anyway). The whole drinking age thing, anyway, is there to try to make it so that people who aren't mature enough to take alcohol are kept from drinking. However, most of the people I see starting fights while drunk that I see when I'm out seem to be the ones who are actually well over 18. It's about mental maturity really more than physical maturity.

Hah, so you lied when you said you'd never committed a crime ever! Not that I care. It annoys me that you can join the army and get yourself stupidly killed while fighting for a stupid government that doesn't care about you at an earlier age than you can get drunk and get yourself stupidly killed while having fun.

Anywho. Laws are there for "good reason" from a societal point of view. They're there to protect the many, not the individual. If you're an individual, laws are generally not beneficial from your point of view, so the reasons behind their creation should no longer be "good", correct?

Oh, by the way, national stereotypes aren't a problem if you're from Ireland yourself. Who better to know and dispel/verify the truth behind the fable? If you don't dispel it, then we're all forced to assume the stereotype is valid, and thus you've verified it, and now it is forevermore an accurate stereotype. Thanks.

Oh, by the way, national stereotypes aren't a problem if you're from Ireland yourself. Who better to know and dispel/verify the truth behind the fable? If you don't dispel it, then we're all forced to assume the stereotype is valid, and thus you've verified it, and now it is forevermore an accurate stereotype.

When did I say it wasn't true? And/or care if it was true? A lot of people from Ireland do drink, many of them underage.

So what?

You try too hard.

Renegade_Turner wrote:Not to incur or promote the use of national stereotypes

Sounds like caring to me.

Ultimatum, you have conveniently ignored the main point of David's post (as well as similar points in two of my posts).

Didn't I quote and answer him at 11:54?

Ultimatum479 wrote:The reason for prohibiting marijuana is that the government thinks it should look out for the health even of those who don't wish to look out for their own health.

NO.....but tabacco is legal!! The chemicals inside tabacco cause cancer, oral health problems, why do our government only targeted on marijuana?? Actually, that is also my question, what standards do we use to determine what is dangerous and what is acceptable?

Ultimatum479 wrote:Didn't I quote and answer him at 11:54?

The main point of David's post was:

David wrote:If you were really a sociopath like you seem to want everyone to believe, then you wouldn't be going around trying to get everyone to believe it. For some reason you want to persuade everyone that you are somehow above all human society, and don't care what anyone thinks of you. You can't 'use' people if you keep bragging about how much of a 'user' you are. The fact that you argue your case so vehemently proves that you are wrong.

Or, similarly:

Silb wrote:Also, you might notice you care about other people enough to try to convince them and give a certain idea of yourself to newly met foreigners.

Silb wrote:I only said some people who do have some moral feelings but deny them wind up having psychological issues they don't understand when they start acting immoraly (sorry by the way, by nevrose I meant neurosis, but spelled it in french for some reason).

If you don't feel angry/bitter/in need of validation/etc then it's all good.

This was, in fact, suggesting that you live in denial, althoug the irony in the last part would have been clearer if we were actually talking.

In short: if you were actually comfortable with your amorality, you wouldn't need to hammer it out in every thread (thereby derailing them, and then derailing the thread that was meant to contain said derailments).