The Battle Bar, Our Wretched Hive of Scum and Villainy

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
I'm not talking about the unexpected consequences of an action, I'm talking about the expected consequences of an action. Ruining your life by abusing drugs is expected to have a profound negative impact on those that care about you.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
I'll ignore notions of legality and address the heart of the matter: I do not believe someone should have the right to drink excessively to the point where it will expectantly harm others.

OK, then what is the cut-off? You make it sound like there's a limit? What is it? Different amounts of alcohol affect different people very differently. What arbitrary cut-off do you imagine should be enforced, and why that number?

Don't dodge or beg these questions, actually answer them. You seem to have this all mapped out in your head, you should at least be able to hold up under some simple scrutiny.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
The difference being that when engaging in a sport, harming others is a real possibility but not something to be expected, and those very other people, just like the user, chose to participate in the sport knowing the risks. By accepting the personal risk of participating in a sport, you are effectively giving consent to other participants to accept the risk of harming you, and vice versa.

When drinking alcohol, harming others is a real possibility but not something to be expected. See? Works for that too. And what about the whole "profound negative impact on those that care about you"? If you get seriously injured on the field, what about your family? What about the family of the person you yourself injured? All for the sake of a past time?

You would enforce that mentality on one indulgence, but another? For what arbitrary reason?

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
The point which you seem to have missed was that, for all intents and purposes we will assume that the person is knowingly engaging in something with expected negative consequences on others. Whether those negative consequences are a reflection of one person's action or another person's reaction is irrelevant with respect to the idea that you shouldn't have the freedom to do whatever you wish to yourself if it will directly have negative consequences on others.

You shouldn't be allowed to do drugs because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to play water polo because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to ask your friend to help you move because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to spot someone at the gym because it could hurt someone else.

In any of those cases, someone who is not you could get hurt, whether physically or emotionally. Life is full of dangerous moments and perils, and the solution to that fact is not to tell people that they aren't allowed to make decisions for themselves in regards to what they do with their own body. Via the good intention of saving people, you're stripping people of the right to conduct their own affairs with their own bodies.

INTENT is what matters in regards to legal consequences for action, not potential results based on PERHAPSES before-the-fact. If you can't grasp that concept, then there's no point going further.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Absolutely, it's always going to be about weighing the pros against the cons, and a world without the use of cars would simply be a far less productive place. Society would not function anywhere near the level that it does without accepting those small losses, which in the grand scheme of things are not of massive consequence.

You don't ban planes because they have been known to crash, and the reason for that is the benefit to society of aerial travel versus those relatively few casualties.

Because the personal benefit to the user is vastly outweighed by his life being destroyed in the process, not counting the negative externalities? This is hardly comparable to an essential component of civilisation versus the occasional casualty.

In this world you envisage where people are forbidden from doing something that does not meet the convenience-to-cost ratio for a risky endeavor, who is the individual or group who gets to decide what gets banned and what gets permitted? Who are the arbiters in this world? And why do they get to be the arbiters? And what keeps them in check?

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
It was entirely coherent and I'm not sure if you're trolling right now or just have incredibly poor reading comprehension.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
Being pressured into doing something can be said to nullify your capacity to freely choose something. As such, not being allowed to do so, from a certain perspective has a cancelling effect on forces that impede on your free will, rather than impeding on your free will itself.

The overbearing effects that define 'peer pressure' will be nullified, partially (and only for some--perhaps) if the subject of said peer pressure is outlawed.

A.) The potential that peer pressure could potentially be limited does not justify a society-wide ban of a substance or activity.
B.) The actual efficacy of such a radical action is immensely tenuous at best, non-existent at worst. Just because you think it might work for you, does not justify tearing the rights away from everyone else.

Summary: stop trying to tell people what they can and can not do based on your fears and discomforts. The argument that stripping their rights is worth out of fears for safety holds little water, is full of contradiction, and is disturbingly reminiscent of PATRIOT.

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

In this world you envisage where people are forbidden from doing something that does not meet the convenience-to-cost ratio for a risky endeavor, who is the individual or group who gets to decide what gets banned and what gets permitted? Who are the arbiters in this world? And why do they get to be the arbiters? And what keeps them in check?

👆

What is "good" and "bad" is different for many people. Making laws for the sake of efficiency, to only oil the cogs of our system, is a rather tyrannical way of looking at things.

Who watches the watchmen?

Also can someone explain what PATRIOT is for me? I assume it's an American thing?

Originally posted by I Love Lucien
Tough shit for them. No law should ever be enforced for the sake of protecting feelings. And no law should ever ban something on the maybe-chance that someone could abuse something. "Maybes" and "perhapses" and "what-ifs" are not solid ground to tell people what they may and may not partake in of their own accord. What a totalitarian thing to consider.

Jesus Christ Lucien, way to miss the point on like, everything. What I was addressing was the principle behind people having the right to do whatever they wish if it only directly impacts themselves, not how that should be addressed in practise. I've made it perfectly clear that I do not advocate criminalising drugs, and more importantly that I personally approve of them when used responsibly.

If you think you've established that happiness isn't important by trivialising it using the word "feelings", you didn't. Laws absolutely exist to promote happiness; it's a fundamental measure of an individual's satisfaction in living.

Also, your point about the "maybes" and "perhapses" and "what-ifs" tells me that you still don't have a terribly adequate grasp of statistics, and the role it plays in society.

"Expectantly"?

OK, then what is the cut-off? You make it sound like there's a limit? What is it? Different amounts of alcohol affect different people very differently. What arbitrary cut-off do you imagine should be enforced, and why that number?

1. Again, I was addressing the principle, not the practicality, of the situation.

2. Obviously this would again be a question of statistics, and it's clear this is something you're not equipped to debate.

Don't dodge or beg these questions, actually answer them. You seem to have this all mapped out in your head, you should at least be able to hold up under some simple scrutiny.

[Darth Sexy]No..[/Darth Sexy]

What?

When drinking alcohol, harming others is a real possibility but not something to be expected.

I was specifically talking about excessive drinking to the point where it is something to be expected, e.g. in the case of someone who is an alcoholic and who worries his family to death by going to a bar and getting hammered.

"to drink excessively to the point where it will expectantly harm others."

See? Works for that too.

[Darth Sexy]No..[/Darth Sexy]

And what about the whole "profound negative impact on those that care about you"? If you get seriously injured on the field, what about your family? What about the family of the person you yourself injured? All for the sake of a past time?

You would enforce that mentality on one indulgence, but another? For what arbitrary reason?

The difference is the risk. You become addicted to heroin, you're guaranteed to mess up a large part of your life. You play sports as a past time, there's a very minimal chance that you'll ever receive anything more than a minor injury. Death, or a major injury to the point where it significantly impacts your life, is far from the norm when it comes to playing sports.

Yeah, and you can apply that exact same line of thought to literally anything. Try it:

You shouldn't be allowed to do drugs because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to drive a car because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to play water polo because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to ask your friend to help you move because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy machinery because it could hurt someone else.
You shouldn't be allowed to spot someone at the gym because it could hurt someone else.

This has literally... nothing to do with what I was saying. I was addressing the notion of how justifiable being personally negatively impacted by the fortunes of somebody else is.

In any of those cases, someone who is not you could get hurt, whether physically or emotionally.

The difference is the probability of that happening, however it would probably be best not to use that word around you.

Life is full of dangerous moments and perils, and the solution to that fact is not to tell people that they aren't allowed to make decisions for themselves in regards to what they do with their own body. Via the good intention of saving people, you're stripping people of the right to conduct their own affairs with their own bodies.

Again, the difference is the extent to which you can expect to negatively harm others by doing what you want with your own body.

INTENT is what matters in regards to legal consequences for action, not potential results based on PERHAPSES before-the-fact. If you can't grasp that concept, then there's no point going further.

If you're aware of the high probability of causing harm to others through your own actions, then it is exactly your intention to risk their wellbeing in pursuing your desire. You might not do it for the purpose of causing them harm and hope that it doesn't happen, but intention absolutely plays a part in it.

Getting in to repetition now, but answer this:

In this world you envisage where people are forbidden from doing something that does not meet the convenience-to-cost ratio for a risky endeavor, who is the individual or group who gets to decide what gets banned and what gets permitted? Who are the arbiters in this world? And why do they get to be the arbiters? And what keeps them in check?

Statisticians and economists, primarily. Because of their qualifications and credentials. Independent regulatory agencies.

Game, set and match.

No, it wasn't. Get over yourself.

If am I coherent it is anything.

OK... I'll reword it for you:

The overbearing effects that define 'peer pressure' will be nullified, partially (and only for some--perhaps) if the subject of said peer pressure is outlawed.

This was hardly necessary, and incredibly mean spirited.

A.) The potential that peer pressure could potentially be limited does not justify a society-wide ban of a substance or activity.
B.) The actual efficacy of such a radical action is immensely tenuous at best, non-existent at worst. Just because you think it might work for you, does not justify tearing the rights away from everyone else.

Summary: stop trying to tell people what they can and can not do based on your fears and discomforts. The argument that stripping their rights is worth out of fears for safety holds little water, is full of contradiction, and is disturbingly reminiscent of PATRIOT.

Again, was just responding to the notion that people should have the right to do whatever they want if it only harms them as it relates to drug abuse. I agree with the notion, but do not believe that it does only harm them (that it harms others is highly probable and expected), nor do I believe that it is entirely people's free will that is being affected, but largely agents that impede on a person's free will themselves, namely peer pressure and people lacking the emotional maturity to make such decisions for themselves. I do not agree with criminalising drugs, but from the angle you're looking at things it has far more to do with protecting the loved ones of users, fighting the negative effects of peer pressure and protecting people who lack the maturity to be responsible for their actions, then it does taking away anybody's liberty.

Originally posted by red8
👆

What is "good" and "bad" is different for many people. Making laws for the sake of efficiency, to only oil the cogs of our system, is a rather tyrannical way of looking at things.

You realise a society that functions more efficiently leads to a more advanced society that has all kinds of implications that can be tied back to health and safety, right?

Originally posted by UltimateAnomaly
Who watches the watchmen?

Also can someone explain what PATRIOT is for me? I assume it's an American thing?

You mean the Patriot Act? It pretty much allows the Gov't to legally spy on its citizens.

Originally posted by Astor Ebligis
You realise a society that functions more efficiently leads to a more advanced society that has all kinds of implications that can be tied back to health and safety, right?

At the expense of our rights and freedom? I guess, my real question is how far does this line of thought go?

Anyway, I'm all for legalizing drugs of pretty much all kinds. Not only do I think it is within a persons rights to do what they want to their own bodies, but I also believe this would ultimately be beneficial. Drugs and their distribution would be far safer, gangs major source of income would be cut out, and money spent fighting against the war on drugs could be better spent on things such as providing better recovery programs for addicts.

YouTube video

Very interesting if you rejects have the patience and/or the mental capacity.

**** off *****^

Originally posted by ares834
[B]At the expense of our rights and freedom? I guess, my real question is how far does this line of thought go?

Huh? I was talking about the situation with cars and driving casualties lol.

Oh, lol

Thought you guys were still on the drug stuff.

90 percent of people don't even die of of old age, because of all of this cancer bullshit, murder, gangs, drunks, car crashes.

90%? Oh you're throwing around random numbers again.

Sorry, I meant 99.9%

Sometimes I think playing swtor is half game, half Jedi dressup.

👆 I spent 30 dollars on my character's looks.

You have to pay for swtor again?

You can pay for cartel packs which have cool items in them, or buy them one the cartel market. I spent like an hour today checking out the cool new armor sets for Tulak Hord, Xoxaan and Ajunta Pall.

I combined Hords armor, Xoxaans gloves and Palls mask to make the ultimate Ancient Sith Set! I just... wish I could actually buy them.

Ant, you can also get items on the trade network for credits if you don't wanna spend real money. I mean, I can't get most of the good ones due to the credit cap, but keep it in mind in the future.

I bought Hord's chestpiece with credits, and now I'm drained. I mean, 2 million? Jeezus.

The dark sith armor looks like Galen mareks "lord starkiller" outfit.