|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 7:59AM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
The officer suggest the speeding motorit pull over. The motorist agree it will be a good idea.
First of all, those flashing blue and red lights are not "suggestions." They are commands. Backed by force of law.
But let's say the motorist doesn't. The police officer, instead of engaging in high-speed pursuit, records the licence plate number. The offender gets a ticket in the mail. The offender does not agree to pay the ticket. Next time the offender somehow ends up in police custody, the offender is forcibly kept until he pays. Evil.
Unless the parent physically pushes the food down the throat, it isn't forcing.
Or, you know, the parent grounds the child, takes away his toys, gives him a spanking when the terms of being grounded are violated, etc. Evil. Right?
The fact is, your definition makes every attempt to instill discipline in a child, or to stop someone from doing something bad to someone else, evil.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 24, 2012 - 8:59AM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Mar 15, 2008
|
I would argue scope. A police officer's job is to stop people from doing things that are wrong or evil. By speeding, the motorist is being neutral at best, sliding toward either chaos or evil (individual over group, self over others). Further, by breaking that law, the motorist is forcing other drivers and people near that road to do something they don't want - be somewhere needlessly dangerous. Therefore the cop is being LG, by stopping the person from forcing their will onto others.
There's a reason it's a philosophical concept. You can make a lot of different arguments work, if you make them properly. The OP needs to come up with a system of interpretting the alignment descriptions that works for their group.
"Not only are you wrong, but I even created an Excel spreadsheet to show you how wrong you are." --James Wyatt, May 2006
Dilige, et quod vis fac
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 25, 2012 - 8:42AM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
We agree to abide by a social contract. That contract allows punishment for disobediance of laws. As a society we agree what those laws should be by majority descision provided they do not infringe on specific and explained personal freedoms. The officer suggests you abide by them, or suffer their consiquences, but he does not force you to. If he didn't throw on lights and suggest you pull over, but rather triggered concealed spike strips forcing you to stop. That would be an example of him forcing you to stop breaking the law.
A parent child arrangement is very different than normal, but yes some of those forms of discipline you list I would consider evil. You get more flies with honey.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 25, 2012 - 3:58PM
#24
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
You get more flies with honey.
Yeah, but you get even more with manure...
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 26, 2012 - 10:13AM
#25
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
We agree to abide by a social contract.
If I decide to rescind my agreement (assuming I ever made such an agreement to begin with) to the social contract, then enforcement of those laws against me must be evil. I must be able to recind my agreement, otherwise I am now being forced to do something that I do not want, and that makes the social contract itself evil by your definition.
And no, the parent-child relationship cannot be significantly different for this purpose, otherwise that would prove the inadequacy of your defintion of evil (suddenly, there are glaring exceptions).
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 26, 2012 - 1:14PM
#26
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
If I decide to rescind my agreement (assuming I ever made such an agreement to begin with)
You agree to it by living within a country. To reject that contract is as simple as leaving said country. Countries where you aren't allowed to leave are considered fairly evil. At any time you are free to leave your country. To move into another one requires agreeing to their contract. You could also theoretically live somewhere unclaimed. The moon, much of the ocean and most of space are unclaimed. This is really the basis of all government. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 26, 2012 - 4:42PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2010
|
You agree to it by living within a country.
Where? When did I get a little popup box saying "By entering this country, you agree to abide by the social contract?" Did this happen while I was passing through a birth canal? When did I even accept the logic of this social contract? Or are you imposing this logic on me, in that very evil manner? The fact is, I'm here now. I was here before I ever had the opportunity to agree to anything, tacitly or otherwise. By insisting I sign on to the social contract to continue to live in my current state, you are imposing something upon me which I might not want, which is, by your arguement, evil.
And I won't get into how ridiculous "you can live on the moon" is. We're talking about evil here, not government legitimacy based on exit.
This is really the basis of all government.
And by your definition, then, all government is evil. I know some people who would agree with that.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 27, 2012 - 1:01PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Nov 30, 2005
|
I don't know or want to know where you live. A social contract is the idea that a government gets its power from the consent of the governed. The governed agree to give up certain freedoms in exchange for certain government provided ideas. If you disagree with your government you are free to leave, or try change your government. If your attempt to change your government is peaceful, your government must allow it. If not, then you can expect to be stopped. If a government doesn't follow this system, then yes by my definition they are evil.
5e comments and thoughts all in one place. Check it out to provide feedback, mock, or steal ideas.
http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/28835423/Krusks_5e_Design_Goals?sdb=1
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 12:22AM
#29
|
Date Joined:
Feb 24, 2008
|
So... let me try to get this right: if you disagree with a specific accord, like, let's say, a philosophical debate on good and evil should be posted in the "off topic tavern" and not in the "What's a player to do?" section (I' m taking a totally random accord, don't read anything into it...  and I decided to be peacefull in my protestation by posting in said hypothetical debate, would a moderator forcing the post to be moved to the off topic tavern be evil, since I was peacefull? Just asking, I'm getting confused!!
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 28, 2012 - 7:56AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Feb 25, 2012
|
Haha, of course nobody actually agreed to the social contract. You agree it to it only by staying living within the borders of your country and receiving the benificts of it. Ever gone to public school? Use mail? Roads? You continue to agree to the social contract by using any of these things. Sure, you were kind of forced to agree to it when you were born. You're practically your parents property/responsibility until you're an adult (emancipated, etc.) so your parents sort of signed if for you by staying in the country.
When Krusk mentioned free land on the water and the moon, I think he was pointing out how there really isn't any free land available. As unfair as it is, you pretty much have to agree to somebody's rules now. There isn't any free land, countries are everywhere thanks to an ever increasing human population. You are forced to agree to somebodies rules. It's totally not fair, but unless you want to live on the moon or on international waters, you're out of luck. Refuse to play by the rules and you get improsoned/fined/executed.
|
|
|
