Laws shouldn't be based on morality - General

[QUOTE='[LOA] SonofBrim;17114806']How does this keep going back to video games?? That's what i can't stand about some people... as soon as the argument starts to go slightly away from where they want it to be, they drag it into an obsurd, off topic thing that has almost nothing in common with the topic being discussed. Why?[/QUOTE] Are you stupid? Are you incapable of understanding a complex argument?

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;17114781]What are you doing Lankist? The Columbine shooting had absolutely nothing to do with video games.[/QUOTE] He's arguing using his logic.

Is your attention span that of a small rodent that you can't remember who is arguing what? [editline]10:57PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721v2;17114817]I'm going to refer you to this report, none of these experts said video games had anything to do with their actions: [url]http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/[/url][/QUOTE] I am going to refer you to this link that proves smoking does not cause cancer: [url]http://www.lockergnome.com/oztech/2008/07/06/smoking-does-not-cause-cancer/[/url] [editline]10:58PM[/editline] [url]http://d1002391.mydomainwebhost.com/JOT/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm[/url] This is a reference to the WHO whose own data proves smoking does not cause cancer [editline]10:58PM[/editline] Or maybe you can stop acknowledging fringe researchers and accept the fact of the matter. You can argue anecdotes and platitudes all you want, the general scientific consensus is that games facilitate violent behavior. There have most certainly been at very least a few thousand deaths that can be directly linked to unstable individuals using video games and acting on them. My question is how many people have to die before it is banned?

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17114775]I think I want to kill myself. How can anyone be this dense? You ignore lanklists point and just say "No." every time. You accuse us of having no arguments? Yeah, it's not us, it's you. One of the last things I'm going to try is a government report about DRUGS. But fine, 27% of crime is committed for drugs. If we got rid of em, guess what, that 27% of crime would still exist because something else came up to take it's place.[/QUOTE] I haven't been saying "no" i've been refuting them. Look at your own posts if you want to see someone saying "no". There is also no logic behind you saying "there would be other things that would replace it if it was removed" [QUOTE=Lankist;17114766]Prove it.[/QUOTE] I can't prove everything I say, you'll just have to follow along and use logic. There is absolutely no proof that unbanning meth makes crime go down, yet you claim to profess that. [QUOTE=Lankist;17114766][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre[/url] There is more than a lot of evidence in the psychological community that solidifies the notion that video games facilitate violence. I'll ask you what I asked the other idiot: Video games HAVE been the cause of violent crime. That is undeniable by anyone but a fucking idiot. It is scientifically proven that is has an effect. Therefore: Where do you draw the line? How many deaths does it take before something is too dangerous to be legal?[/QUOTE] You can't just point to any crime caused by two sociopaths, say "well they played videogames" and say that videogames cause people to die. It makes sense to me that people will have slightly more violent behavior, but it doesn't make sense that they would go out and kill someone because they saw a counterterrorist do it. If they go out and kill a dozen people, that is because they are already crazy in the head. In which case furtherment of pyschology would prevent those types of crimes. [editline]11:00PM[/editline] I'm going to sleep, it's past bedtime. [editline]11:00PM[/editline] I don't want mama wakin up

[QUOTE=Oecleus;17114869]Self glorifying :words:[/QUOTE] You've refuted something? How did you refute that crime would go down? You just said no. How did you refute that you didn't think thought crime was punishable? How did you refute anything that was said? You just said no. Goodnight, you're too young to understand anything.

[quote]I can't prove everything I say, you'll just have to follow along and use logic. There is absolutely no proof that unbanning meth makes crime go down, yet you claim to profess that.[/quote] 1: Prohibition. [QUOTE=Oecleus;17114869]There is also no logic behind you saying "there would be other things that would replace it if it was removed"[/quote] 2: So you want to ban guns? Because that's the same argument people use to try to ban guns. And yet you DEMAND I prove my claims when you refuse to do the same? [quote]You can't just point to any crime caused by two sociopaths, say "well they played videogames" and say that videogames cause people to die. It makes sense to me that people will have slightly more violent behavior, but it doesn't make sense that they would go out and kill someone because they saw a counterterrorist do it. If they go out and kill a dozen people, that is because they are already crazy in the head. In which case furtherment of pyschology would prevent those types of crimes.[/QUOTE] You can't just point to any crime caused by two sociopaths, say "well they used drugs" and say that drugs cause people to die. It makes sense to me that people will have slightly more violent behavior, but it doesn't make sense that they would go out and kill someone because they are jonesing. If they go out and kill a dozen people, that is because they are already crazy in the head. In which case furtherment of pyschology would prevent those types of crimes.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17114823]Or maybe you can stop acknowledging fringe researchers and accept the fact of the matter. You can argue anecdotes and platitudes all you want, [B]the general scientific consensus is that games facilitate violent behavior.[/B][/QUOTE] Bullshit. People that go out and commit crimes because they're mentally unstable, etc. Not because they play video games. There is no general scientific consensus that games facilitate violent behavior. Crime rates have decreased in the last decade; video game sales have INCREASED. If video games were so bad and made people go out and commit crimes, then why haven't the crime rates increased?

[QUOTE=Oecleus;17114734]There hasn't been links because there are no links, point me to a single case where violent video games were the reason why they killed someone over it. [/QUOTE] Let's stop arguing statistics. Look at it this way, HYPOTHETICALLY speaking, if video games were traced to a 5% increase in violent crime, would you have them banned? If you said no, then you've invalidated your entire argument. If you said yes, then I suggest you take a long hard look at your views on life, because they are fairly depressing.

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;17114908]Bullshit. People that go out and commit crimes because they're mentally unstable, etc. Not because they play video games. There is no general scientific consensus that games facilitate violent behavior.[/QUOTE] Not a scientist [editline]11:04PM[/editline] Not a researcher [editline]11:04PM[/editline] Not knowledgeable [editline]11:04PM[/editline] Not noteworthy [editline]11:04PM[/editline] [citation needed] [editline]11:05PM[/editline] Also the APA speaks on behalf of the vast majority of psychological researchers in this country. Their consensus is pretty clear.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17114913]Not a scientist [editline]11:04PM[/editline] Not a researcher [editline]11:04PM[/editline] Not knowledgeable [editline]11:04PM[/editline] Not noteworthy [editline]11:04PM[/editline] [citation needed][/QUOTE] Prove your claim that the general consensus in the scientific community is that video games facilitate violent behavior.

His view on life is "Live a boring life, but if you lived a long time.. it's worth it." Fuck having a boring life. If I die young, i'm going to be happier than someone who lived doing nothing for a long time.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17114823] I am going to refer you to this link that proves smoking does not cause cancer: [url]http://www.lockergnome.com/oztech/2008/07/06/smoking-does-not-cause-cancer/[/url] [editline]10:58PM[/editline] [url]http://d1002391.mydomainwebhost.com/JOT/editorials/vol-1/e1-4.htm[/url] This is a reference to the WHO whose own data proves smoking does not cause cancer[/QUOTE] Actually those are both unaccredited sources, and the census listed in the second 'source' is based on a decade old census that was not directly linked to the question in point. Read [url]http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/highlights/cancer/[/url] (the source for the claim in your second article was appropriated from this site) [url]http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v19/n4/full/jes200873a.html[/url] (requires subscription to the Nature science journal, looking for a public source) You're entitled to believe whatever you want i suppose, but those links do not constitute proof. Not commenting on the video games thing, don't read much related material.

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;17114934]Prove your claim that the general consensus in the scientific community is that video games facilitate violent behavior.[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.apa.org/science/psa/sb-anderson.html[/url] Direct from the American Psychological Association. [editline]11:06PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Athelus;17114943]Actually those are both unaccredited sources, and the census listed in the second 'source' is based on a decade old census that was not directly linked to the question in point. Read [url]http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/sgr/2004/highlights/cancer/[/url] (the source for the claim in your second article was appropriated from this site) [url]http://www.nature.com/jes/journal/v19/n4/full/jes200873a.html[/url] (requires subscription to the Nature science journal) You're entitled to believe whatever you want i suppose, but those links do not constitute proof.[/QUOTE] Thanks for pointing that out

[QUOTE=ryandaniels;17114429]It is not against the law to kill because it's "wrong", it's against the law because the government makes the laws and we made the government to protect us from harm. It's therefore against the law to kill because it goes against the governments primary objective.[/QUOTE] That's just another part of why it's illegal though. If you ask lawmakers why they decided murdering people should be illegal they won't just say, "Because we're responsible for keeping people alive." Generally they'll throw something in there about it being, "wrong" or what not. Plus you need to consider why it is that we feel the need to keep ourselves safe in the first place. As humans we are constantly focused on one goal and that's staying alive, so we've developed the idea that ending someone's life is counter-productive or as we more often refer to it, "wrong." So obviously as a whole we decided it was necessary to have someone stand up and say, "Killing is bad!" and everyone agreed a punishment should await anyone who was unlawful. You make the government seem robotic in the sense that they only have laws against murder, because we told them to do so.

I think Ocelous wants to live in a Puritanical world. In that world, being happy is fucking bad. I want to live in a world of Hedonism. Pleasure/happyness is key.

[QUOTE=-hibiki-;17114970]That's just another part of why it's illegal though. If you ask lawmakers why they decided murdering people should be illegal they won't just say, "Because we're responsible for keeping people alive." Generally they'll through something in there about it being, "wrong" or what not. Plus you need to consider why it is that we feel the need to keep ourselves safe in the first place. As humans we are constantly focused on one goal and that's staying alive, so we've developed the idea that ending someone's life is counter-productive or as we more often refer to it, "wrong." So obviously as a whole we decided it was necessary to have someone stand up and say, "Killing is bad!" and everyone agreed a punishment should await anyone who was unlawful. You make the government seem robotic in the sense that they only have laws against murder, because we told them to do so.[/QUOTE] No. Fifth time I've explained this: Murder is illegal because it violates the rights of the murdered. Our system of law is based on the notion of individual choice, free to do anything EXCEPT keep someone else from that same freedom. Murder is illegal because it violates the victim's right to their life, body and mind. Not because of morality. -Lankist Juris Doctor Doctor of Juris [editline]11:10PM[/editline] Doctor J. Lankist [editline]11:11PM[/editline] DJ Lankist [editline]11:11PM[/editline] Word upppp to your motherssszzzzz

[QUOTE=-hibiki-;17114970]That's just another part of why it's illegal though. If you ask lawmakers why they decided murdering people should be illegal they won't just say, "Because we're responsible for keeping people alive." Generally they'll through something in there about it being, "wrong" or what not.[/QUOTE] Well, that might be true, but it doesn't change the fact that the government is ideally objective. Also, no offense but I have trouble understanding your writing.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17115012]Murder is illegal because it violates the rights of the murdered. Our system of law is based on the notion of individual choice, free to do anything EXCEPT keep someone else from that same freedom. Murder is illegal because it violates the victim's right to their life, body and mind. Not because of morality.[/QUOTE] Also I would imagine a large basis of the law is the perceived impact on society, not just the victim. In fact I would say that the preservation of social stability, correctly percieved or not, is the major driving force behind most laws, and that individual rights are often secondary, especially in undemocratic states.

[QUOTE=Athelus;17115086]Also I would imagine a large basis of the law is the perceived impact on society, not just the victim. In fact I would say that the preservation of social stability, correctly percieved or not, is the major driving force behind most laws, and that individual rights are often secondary, especially in undemocratic states.[/QUOTE] No. Almost every law in existence has been justified by benefit to the individual, that is the main focus of debate. The government is explicitly forbidden from engaging in social engineering as overt as that. Society is but a collection of individuals, the majority opinion of individuals. Our entire system of government was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Protection of society destroys that ideal.

I forgot how much I loved lanklist.

[QUOTE=HumanAbyss;17115144]I forgot how much I loved lanklist.[/QUOTE] Do you love me?

Gus don't be a giant snapping turtle

[QUOTE=Lankist;17115117]No. Almost every law in existence has been justified by benefit to the individual, that is the main focus of debate. The government is explicitly forbidden from engaging in social engineering as overt as that. Society is but a collection of individuals, the majority opinion of individuals. Our entire system of government was designed to protect the minority from the majority. Protection of society destroys that ideal.[/QUOTE] Yes. I am talking in a general global sense, not about 'our', 'your' or 'my' government. And it would not be classified as 'social engineering', that has a somewhat different context. For example, ask any legislator why drugs are banned and chances are that they will reply not that it is 'immoral' but that it could cause harm to society. I am not saying that this is right, but mereley observing that this is the case. On a sidenote, as goes the video game thing, I think that this should sum up my views on all of that. [url]http://faculty.palomar.edu/pjacoby/Television%20Viewing%20and%20Aggressive%20Behavior.pdf[/url] Edit: The protection against the tyranny of the majority is arguably for social stability.

[QUOTE=JDK721v2;17115151]Do you love me?[/QUOTE] Yes, but you scare me and confuse me. You're like the twin that comes out of the closet and butt fucks me from behind.

Well fuck you all, you screwed me out of 2 hours of programming. Night :D

[QUOTE=Athelus;17115166]Yes. I am talking in a general global sense, not about 'our', 'your' or 'my' government. And it would not be classified as 'social engineering', that has a somewhat different context. For example, ask any legislator why drugs are banned and chances are that they will reply not that it is 'immoral' but that it could cause harm to society. I am not saying that this is right, but mereley observing that this is the case. On a sidenote, as goes the video game thing, I think that this should sum up my views on all of that. [url]http://faculty.palomar.edu/pjacoby/Television%20Viewing%20and%20Aggressive%20Behavior.pdf[/url] Edit: The protection against the tyranny of the majority is arguably for social stability.[/QUOTE] Banning things for the sake of directing what you perceive as an aimless society is social engineering. How many politicians have you spoken with? [editline]11:24PM[/editline] I'm not saying that all laws are right, I'm saying all first-world laws have to be justified in that context. Arguments in morality and societal issues are inadmissible.

The needs of the individual should always outweigh the needs of the many.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17115221]Banning things for the sake of directing what you perceive as an aimless society is social engineering. How many politicians have you spoken with?[/QUOTE] In that case your broad definition would assert that it is indeed social engineering. 'Aimless society' is not a phrase or idea I recall mentioning. David Blunkett, former British Labour party cabinet minister, Nigel Farrage Leader of the UKIP party, I have several MEPs as personal contacts also. You? [QUOTE=Lankist;17115221]I'm not saying that all laws are right, I'm saying all first-world laws have to be justified in that context. Arguments in morality and societal issues are inadmissible.[/QUOTE] I don't think that you've understood what i'm trying to say, I made no mention of right or wrong.

[QUOTE=Athelus;17115260]In that case your broad definition would assert that it is indeed social engineering. 'Aimless society' is not a phrase or idea I recall mentioning. David Blunkett, former British Labour party cabinet minister, Nigel Farrage Leader of the UKIP party, I have several MEPs as personal contacts also. You?[/QUOTE] More than I can honestly count. Have you asked any of them why drugs are illegal?

I agree with Lankist on all points.