1092 réponses à ce sujet

[Dean_the_Young]

If they don't survive, they're also Wardens. People who join in the Joining are buried as Wardens.

If people like Avernus and Sophia can be Wardens, anyone can.

Modifié par Dean_the_Young, 22 août 2010 - 07:32 .

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

I didn't miss your point. The posts you've made today haven't addressed them at all. And sure they can. If they survive the Joining then they are Wardens. Or do you really think that their crimes will cause them to choke and die like Daveth?

Unfortunately not, and that´s why they must be killed before the JoiningB)

Also, bad laws are not crimes. Crimes are things that break the law. Bad laws may be morally unsound but they are the exact opposite of crimes.

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

I didn't miss your point. The posts you've made today haven't addressed them at all. And sure they can. If they survive the Joining then they are Wardens. Or do you really think that their crimes will cause them to choke and die like Daveth?

Unfortunately not, and that´s why they must be killed before the JoiningB)

No 'must' about it.

Also, bad laws are not crimes. Crimes are things that break the law. Bad laws may be morally unsound but they are the exact opposite of crimes.

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

There is no such universal law. That very law is a contradiction, because it impinges on people's freedom, hence it is illegal.

[Sarah1281]

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

Despite your clearly extensive study in law school, you're wrong, and no policeman, judge, or jury would agree with you. No one signs a statement agreeing to the laws of the land and agreeing to be bound by them. You are bound by them by being in a nation with laws. Just because I don't like the speed limit doesn't mean I can get off without a fine. If I don't pay the fine I go to jail. No one gets to choose which laws to agree to and which not to.

Indeed. However, you are not morally bound to these sh!t. You are forced to obey in the same way you are forced to obey a terrorist who threatens to kill you if you refuse his commands.

In reality, you are very likely to obey because the consequences if you don´t are unbearable. But it is perfectly fine to break these laws if you think you can get away with it (and in fact I always drive faster than the limit if I know the police won´t noticeB))

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

Despite your clearly extensive study in law school, you're wrong, and no policeman, judge, or jury would agree with you. No one signs a statement agreeing to the laws of the land and agreeing to be bound by them. You are bound by them by being in a nation with laws. Just because I don't like the speed limit doesn't mean I can get off without a fine. If I don't pay the fine I go to jail. No one gets to choose which laws to agree to and which not to.

Indeed. However, you are not morally bound to these sh!t. You are forced to obey in the same way you are forced to obey a terrorist who threatens to kill you if you refuse his commands.

In reality, you are very likely to obey because the consequences if you don´t are unbearable. But it is perfectly fine to break these laws if you think you can get away with it (and in fact I always drive faster than the limit if I know the police won´t noticeB))

Okay, let's pretend the rest of us aren't anarchists and accept the fact that, morally bound or not, breaking a law makes you a criminal. This has nothing to do with morality although the more serious the crime is the more likely it is that you've also done something morally wrong (setting fire to an orphange in the middle of the night, for example).

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

Well, sure. Hitler made it legal to oppress non-arians and murdered millions of jews and others WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAW VALID IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME. If you want, go ahead and defend this as justice. But don´t be surprised if I will consider you an idiot afterwards, because you´re wrong. The laws of a state are in no way more valid than the rules of a terrorist enforced by violence.

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Okay, let's pretend the rest of us aren't anarchists and accept the fact that, morally bound or not, breaking a law makes you a criminal. This has nothing to do with morality although the more serious the crime is the more likely it is that you've also done something morally wrong (setting fire to an orphange in the middle of the night, for example).

Ok, for the sake of bringing this back to topic, let me rephrase: I´m fine with criminals being Wardens. I DON´T want cruel, amoral monsters as wardens.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

Well, sure. Hitler made it legal to oppress non-arians and murdered millions of jews and others WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAW VALID IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME. If you want, go ahead and defend this as justice. But don´t be surprised if I will consider you an idiot afterwards, because you´re wrong. The laws of a state are in no way more valid than the rules of a terrorist enforced by violence.

Lovely strawman you've constructed there. I love how you decided to invoke Godwin's Law, too.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

Well, sure. Hitler made it legal to oppress non-arians and murdered millions of jews and others WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAW VALID IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME. If you want, go ahead and defend this as justice. But don´t be surprised if I will consider you an idiot afterwards, because you´re wrong. The laws of a state are in no way more valid than the rules of a terrorist enforced by violence.

Did you really just fall back on Reducto Ad Hitleram? Can't you be, I don't know, less lazy? Come on, try Khan at least.

Justice and Law are two related, but separate, concepts, not synonyms. Depending on one's code of ethics, they can be two different things entirely. An injust law is still a law, and a criminal is based on the law, not justice.

The legitimacy of state laws versus terrosism depends on the basis of authority. If the legitimacy of the state is violence, you are correct in that there is no difference. If the legitimacy is by divine right/divine mandate, than the moral path is set out. If it is a democratic mandate, the the law is justified by the acceptance and collective (implied) agreement and consent of the people.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...
Indeed. However, you are not morally bound to these sh!t. You are forced to obey in the same way you are forced to obey a terrorist who threatens to kill you if you refuse his commands.

I'm not at all bound to them in the same way. I'm legally bound to one because I chose to drive in the state where that speed limit is the law. If I choose to obey a terrorist, it's out of fear for my own life, not because I might have to deal with the relatively minor annoyance of a traffic ticket. Policemen and judges are not terrorists.

In reality, you are very likely to obey because the consequences if you don´t are unbearable. But it is perfectly fine to break these laws if you think you can get away with it (and in fact I always drive faster than the limit if I know the police won´t noticeB))

The consequences are certainly not unbearable. I'm not going to be sentenced to death because of a speeding ticket. Not getting caught doesn't mean it's fine to break laws. The act is still illegal.

Modifié par Monica21, 22 août 2010 - 07:44 .

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Okay, let's pretend the rest of us aren't anarchists and accept the fact that, morally bound or not, breaking a law makes you a criminal. This has nothing to do with morality although the more serious the crime is the more likely it is that you've also done something morally wrong (setting fire to an orphange in the middle of the night, for example).

Ok, for the sake of bringing this back to topic, let me rephrase: I´m fine with criminals being Wardens. I DON´T want cruel, amoral monsters as wardens.

What you want is irrelevant to what happens. Cruel, amoral monsters can and do get made into Wardens as well.

[Tirigon]

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

Well, sure. Hitler made it legal to oppress non-arians and murdered millions of jews and others WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAW VALID IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME. If you want, go ahead and defend this as justice. But don´t be surprised if I will consider you an idiot afterwards, because you´re wrong. The laws of a state are in no way more valid than the rules of a terrorist enforced by violence.

Lovely strawman you've constructed there. I love how you decided to invoke Godwin's Law, too.

I love how you use a word you found on wikipedia to sound intellectual and then come up with good ole Godwin instead of a reasonable and well thought-out argument. It proves how incredibly intelligent and eloquent you are, indeed it does.

Nevertheless I´m right, because if you defend laws just on account of being law somewhere, the N@zis didn´t do anything wrong. Nor did any other war criminal.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

 Okay, let's pretend the rest of us aren't anarchists and accept the fact that, morally bound or not, breaking a law makes you a criminal. This has nothing to do with morality although the more serious the crime is the more likely it is that you've also done something morally wrong (setting fire to an orphange in the middle of the night, for example).

Ok, for the sake of bringing this back to topic, let me rephrase: I´m fine with criminals being Wardens. I DON´T want cruel, amoral monsters as wardens.

Nobody cares what you personally want. It happens whether you like it or not. They are just as capable of stopping a blight as the Wardens filled with sunshine and rainbows.

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

The consequences are certainly not unbearable. I'm not going to be sentenced to death because of a speeding ticket. Not getting caught doesn't mean it's fine to break laws. The act is still illegal.

Well if they are not unbearable then you don´t obey. Which is, by the way, probably the reason why almost everyone breaks laws. For example by driving too fast (Don´t tell me you know people who never did this), taking drugs, loading music illegally (what according to studies almost everyone does...) etc.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

The consequences are certainly not unbearable. I'm not going to be sentenced to death because of a speeding ticket. Not getting caught doesn't mean it's fine to break laws. The act is still illegal.

Well if they are not unbearable then you don´t obey. Which is, by the way, probably the reason why almost everyone breaks laws. For example by driving too fast (Don´t tell me you know people who never did this), taking drugs, loading music illegally (what according to studies almost everyone does...) etc.

Unberable =/= inconvenient.

People swerve at inconvenience far sooner than unberable, neither of which have to do with the justification of a law.

[Monica21]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

Well, sure. Hitler made it legal to oppress non-arians and murdered millions of jews and others WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAW VALID IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME. If you want, go ahead and defend this as justice. But don´t be surprised if I will consider you an idiot afterwards, because you´re wrong. The laws of a state are in no way more valid than the rules of a terrorist enforced by violence.

Lovely strawman you've constructed there. I love how you decided to invoke Godwin's Law, too.

I love how you use a word you found on wikipedia to sound intellectual and then come up with good ole Godwin instead of a reasonable and well thought-out argument. It proves how incredibly intelligent and eloquent you are, indeed it does.

Nevertheless I´m right, because if you defend laws just on account of being law somewhere, the N@zis didn´t do anything wrong. Nor did any other war criminal.

If you continue down this path you're getting dangerously close to a part of history you clearly have no knowledge of and can't defend. Just to forewarn you.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The legitimacy of state laws versus terrosism depends on the basis of authority. If the legitimacy of the state is violence, you are correct in that there is no difference. If the legitimacy is by divine right/divine mandate, than the moral path is set out. If it is a democratic mandate, the the law is justified by the acceptance and collective (implied) agreement and consent of the people.

Thanks for including the word IMPLIED. So, if I imply that everyone likes to rape little boys, I can make that legal - after all, I imply the majority wants it?

In a democracy that deserves the name a law can only count if there is a DEFINITE agreement and consent, that is proven by actually signing the law. If the consent is only implied it´s just a badly disguised dictatorship.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

Well, sure. Hitler made it legal to oppress non-arians and murdered millions of jews and others WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAW VALID IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME. If you want, go ahead and defend this as justice. But don´t be surprised if I will consider you an idiot afterwards, because you´re wrong. The laws of a state are in no way more valid than the rules of a terrorist enforced by violence.

Lovely strawman you've constructed there. I love how you decided to invoke Godwin's Law, too.

I love how you use a word you found on wikipedia to sound intellectual and then come up with good ole Godwin instead of a reasonable and well thought-out argument. It proves how incredibly intelligent and eloquent you are, indeed it does.

Nevertheless I´m right, because if you defend laws just on account of being law somewhere, the N@zis didn´t do anything wrong. Nor did any other war criminal.

To respond to your argument, you have to respond to the one she makes. A strawman argument does not do that, so she can't.

The ****s didn't do anything wrong... by **** laws. Well, actually they did. They just didn't enforce the laws, which was in and of itself a crime.. The ****s did lose the war, and so were judged by Allied standards instead. If they had not been beaten, they wouldn't have been brought to justice for crimes... that the Allies also perpetrated. (You know, imprisoning parts of population by ethnicity, invading Poland, aerial carpet bombing, those sorts of things.)

[Tirigon]

Monica21 wrote...

If you continue down this path you're getting dangerously close to a part of history you clearly have no knowledge of and can't defend. Just to forewarn you.

Now you REALLY fail. FYI, I´m German, that means I am forced to know much more than I want to about this part of history. Which is quite much, as I am in fact interested in History. I would bet that I know much more about it than you, but that´s really not relevant for this discussion, so can we please stop questioning the other´s intelligence (or lack thereof) and use these nice little things called "arguments" instead? I once heard they make a discussion much more useful and pleasant.
If I want a flamewar I rather play DotA or CoD instead of posting here......

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Tirigon wrote...

Sarah1281 wrote...

Bad laws break the only universally valid law, which is not to harm anyone or limit anyone´s freedom. So they are indeed crimes, even in your definition.

Yeah, that's not a 'universally valid law.' Maybe it's how you and others feel the world SHOULD work but it's not actually a world-wide mandate. So no, my definition of actual laws that have actually been created and actually accepted by countries really doesn't fit in with the 'let's all hold hands and be nice to each other!' ideal you're trying to pass off as a law.

Well, sure. Hitler made it legal to oppress non-arians and murdered millions of jews and others WITHOUT BREAKING ANY LAW VALID IN GERMANY AT THIS TIME. If you want, go ahead and defend this as justice. But don´t be surprised if I will consider you an idiot afterwards, because you´re wrong. The laws of a state are in no way more valid than the rules of a terrorist enforced by violence.

Lovely strawman you've constructed there. I love how you decided to invoke Godwin's Law, too.

I love how you use a word you found on wikipedia to sound intellectual and then come up with good ole Godwin instead of a reasonable and well thought-out argument. It proves how incredibly intelligent and eloquent you are, indeed it does.

Nevertheless I´m right, because if you defend laws just on account of being law somewhere, the N@zis didn´t do anything wrong. Nor did any other war criminal.

...I didn't just find the word 'strawman' on wikipedia. Seriously, why the hell would you make assumptions like that? I've known that word for quite some time and have heard it gone over in class as well. I wasn't trying to sound intellectual, it just was a pretty good way to describe what you said.

Me pointing out that there is no 'universal law' saying you can't take away peoples' freedoms and, regardless of morality, breaking a law makes you a criminal and you responding with 'well Hitler didn't break any laws and I can't believe you'd be so stupid to defend him' is both invoking Godwin's law of having a discussion that's gone on long enough devolving into discussions about Hitler (and thus ruining the topic) and constructing a strawman as it's quite easy to say 'it's stupid to defend Hitler's actions and call them justice' but it's not what I said. At all.

I found you accusing me of supporting Hitler killing millions of people because the definition of a criminal is someone who breaks a law and **** Germany did not feel the need to make Hitler's actions illegal to be ludicrous that and detached from reality that there was no need to explain exactly what was wrong with your statement as it's really self-evident. That said, does the fact that the **** Germany that Hitler created wouldn't consider him a criminal shock or surprise anybody or touch upon morality at all? 

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The legitimacy of state laws versus terrosism depends on the basis of authority. If the legitimacy of the state is violence, you are correct in that there is no difference. If the legitimacy is by divine right/divine mandate, than the moral path is set out. If it is a democratic mandate, the the law is justified by the acceptance and collective (implied) agreement and consent of the people.

Thanks for including the word IMPLIED. So, if I imply that everyone likes to rape little boys, I can make that legal - after all, I imply the majority wants it?

Nope, one person isn't the majority.

If you and a majority of people elected enough senators and representatives to change the law, then yes, you would be part of the majority. The implied refers to the indirect nature of representative democracy. However, democracies often approve of certain limitations that can not be changed by momentary political movement.

In a democracy that deserves the name a law can only count if there is a DEFINITE agreement and consent, that is proven by actually signing the law. If the consent is only implied it´s just a badly disguised dictatorship.

Only if you reinvent the standard of the last, oh, two hundred years. Representative democracy is a legitimate form of government, so long as certain democratic principles and freedoms are maintained. (The right to petition, the ability to change prior decisions, freedom of movement, and so on.). If you can address it, change it, or leave it, it isn't a dictatorship.

[Dean_the_Young]

Tirigon wrote...

Monica21 wrote...

If you continue down this path you're getting dangerously close to a part of history you clearly have no knowledge of and can't defend. Just to forewarn you.

Now you REALLY fail. FYI, I´m German,

Prove it.

that means I am forced to know much more than I want to about this part of history. Which is quite much, as I am in fact interested in History. I would bet that I know much more about it than you, but that´s really not relevant for this discussion, so can we please stop questioning the other´s intelligence (or lack thereof) and use these nice little things called "arguments" instead? I once heard they make a discussion much more useful and pleasant.
If I want a flamewar I rather play DotA or CoD instead of posting here......

None of that actually has anything to do with you being good at history.

Plenty of interested idiots in this world who should no better but don't.

[Sarah1281]

Tirigon wrote...

Dean_the_Young wrote...

The legitimacy of state laws versus terrosism depends on the basis of authority. If the legitimacy of the state is violence, you are correct in that there is no difference. If the legitimacy is by divine right/divine mandate, than the moral path is set out. If it is a democratic mandate, the the law is justified by the acceptance and collective (implied) agreement and consent of the people.

Thanks for including the word IMPLIED. So, if I imply that everyone likes to rape little boys, I can make that legal - after all, I imply the majority wants it?

In a democracy that deserves the name a law can only count if there is a DEFINITE agreement and consent, that is proven by actually signing the law. If the consent is only implied it´s just a badly disguised dictatorship.

The fact of the matter is that if the ruling body of a nation decided to make that a law (and the law passed and wasn't defeated by a supreme court or anything of the like) then it would be legal. Would it be moral? Of course not. Stop acting like legality and morality are the same thing or have to be connected. They really don't.

[Tirigon]

Dean_the_Young wrote...


The ****s didn't do anything wrong... by **** laws. Well, actually they did. They just didn't enforce the laws, which was in and of itself a crime.. The ****s did lose the war, and so were judged by Allied standards instead. If they had not been beaten, they wouldn't have been brought to justice for crimes... that the Allies also perpetrated. (You know, imprisoning parts of population by ethnicity, invading Poland, aerial carpet bombing, those sorts of things.)

We are talking on different paths. I am aware that the N@zis wouldn´t have been accused of anything had they won. HOWEVER, my point is that they would STILL have committed mass murder, torture and plenty of other crimes.
The fact that noone has the power to judge a criminal doesn´t mean the crime doesn´t exist.