[
*You* are still making these choices. *You* are choosing to rob the stores. *You* are chosing to fight the town guards. *You* are finding the kill comical. These are the choices you make when you don't have repercussions. That's one of the main points of Skyrim. If that concept makes you uncomfortable, think. Think real hard about the implications of that. Own up to your decisions. "It's fantasy" is woefully insufficient. 1984 isn't "real" either, but it's still a very powerful book that alters the world-view of those who read it.
Yes... when there are zero repercussions in Skyrim I did choose to rob people blind, murder them and occasionally throw a corpse into a fireplace for funnsies. I did that when there are ZERO repercussions. This is something that is literally impossible in the real world, because I recognize the fact that any human interaction in real life has repercussions. Even if I was in magical no laws land, killing someone makes that person dead, desecrating a corpse makes that corpse desecrated. I recognize that in a game all I am doing is moving bits and bytes. My Screen could show puppies playing or batman pillaging the countryside, it literally does not have any affect on anyone other than who is viewing it.
Do they? I am honestly curious. When my now wife was in college she found her roommate blog which detailed how she wanted to murder my wife... My Wife was the one that was moved into a different dorm room (and the roommate ended up giving a speech at graduation a few years later :/ ).
I certainly saw a few such forced moves when I was in school. Obviously, I can't comment on a particular instance, and I'm sure that different schools handle things in different ways.
I just wasn't sure if schools were more apt to move the "victim" or the "perpetrator". I know in my wife's case it was a kind of quiet rush deal where she reported it and the next day they moved all of her stuff when the roommate was in class and then the school confronted the roommate (giving her anger management classes to avoid charges) to avoid a possibly bad reaction.
I suppose it would largely depend on the case but I imagine in many cases it's probably easier to get the complaining student to jump at a chance to move versus getting the "problem" roommate to move.
Colleges frequently force students to move to different dorms or out of dorms for even minor disciplinary problems or roommate disagreements. Are these also violations of the students' due process rights?
Do they? I am honestly curious. When my now wife was in college she found her roommate blog which detailed how she wanted to murder my wife... My Wife was the one that was moved into a different dorm room (and the roommate ended up giving a speech at graduation a few years later :/ ).
Tiax... I don't think you understand just how annoying it is to have you jump into almost every debate at some point and tell people that you don't agree with the position they are arguing against but that they are debating wrong. How about instead of worrying about how other people are debating against something you also disagree with can just debate it the way you think it should be?
The claim I'm debating against is that Sarkeesian was being intellectually dishonest in her description of Hitman. I want to separate that point from the question of whether I agree with her arguments. She's wrong, but wrong is not the same as intellectually dishonest.
Then why don't you say something along the lines of "I don't disagree that x is wrong, but I disagree with your reasoning. This is why I disagree with x."
Frequently in debate threads you come across as just plain argumentative. Not really debating against the topic just debating against the ways other people are debating against the topic all the while hiding behind a shield of "I don't disagree that x is wrong".
I took 5 minutes to go see where this debate came from and I think you could have easily explained to Foxblade why you think he is wrong. Clearly your position is that Sarkeesian is saying that the fact that a game mechanic exists encourages players to explore that mechanic even if the mechanic is there as a punishment (just because you are punished for playing with dead bodies does not mean people won't derive some joy from seeing what they can do while playing with those dead bodies, who cares if you get minus 5 billion points if you can get a funny screen shot). Then you could state why you disagree with Sarkeesian.
If you would rather rage against your strawman version of her arguments, that's certainly your prerogative.
Tiax... I don't think you understand just how annoying it is to have you jump into almost every debate at some point and tell people that you don't agree with the position they are arguing against but that they are debating wrong. How about instead of worrying about how other people are debating against something you also disagree with can just debate it the way you think it should be?
So yes... we spend a lot of money on Defense.... and we spend a lot more money on health care. Selling a few air craft carriers isn't going to magically fund health care for all.
my money is my own, and I shall have no problem with my partner having the same belief.
That is a very strange way to view it... What if you need a new stove? or new carpeting? Who pays for those? Do you split the costs 50/50? How do you buy a house? Does only one of you pay for it and lose the ability to possibly get something nicer?
Typically a pre-nup it purely for instances where one partner has significantly more money than the other going into a relationship(celebrities). It is typically accepted that once married, both parties are contributing to total household value... if one partner works and the other does not the mind set would be that the non-working partner takes care of many things that allows the working partner to work enough to cover all expenses. If that couple were to separate it's typical that all assets gained after marriage would be split 50/50 even if they were all bought by one partner (because the other partner was providing non-monetary value like raising kids).
I'm still confused. Can you explain a situation in which your position differs materially from having no intrinsic rights? When you say that each person has a right to use their own ability, I don't understand what the implications of that are.
I cannot think of one... it's a small difference and may be nothing more than wording. That's why I said that I thought magicware and I had similar thoughts on the issue... I am not at all saying that he and I differ in any meaningful way at this time.
What exactly distinguishes an action I have a right to do from an action I don't have a right to do? It sounds like people get to stop me either way.
Any action you do, is your right to attempt. Really my position is not that much different than Magicware's position of their being no intrinsic human rights the only difference being that I see that each person has aright to use their own ability. Anything beyond that is not a "natural" right, it is purely a manufactured right given by some ruling body. So where Magicware would say that you have no right to speech without the government bestowing it on you, I would say that without the right to freedom of speech you do still have the right to attempt to speak... but it being a right does not prevent someone else from stopping you.
... money, the most trivial and worthless thing on earth.
Actually I would argue that since humanity came to power money has probably become the most valuable thing on Earth and human life is currently the least valuable... Forces of nature can wipe out thousands of lives and in a short period of time we move on as if nothing happened. The value of a human life is purely personal... I value my own life and the lives of the people around me, but there are hundreds of people dying as I type this and their lives hold zero meaning to me. On top of that human life is straining the resources of Earth, I think it would be hard to argue that Earth as a planet would not be healthier if the human population was cut by 90%.
I'm confused. If I have the right to steal bread, surely I also have the right to make other people pay for my health care.
No you have the right to try... I guess if you want you could boil it down to you have the right to do whatever is in your own ability. The key being your OWN ability... as soon as another party is involved their right to the same comes into play... so while you have the right to try to steal their bread, they have the right to try to stop you (part of their right to stopping you has resulted in laws that will punish you for doing so).
I don't believe that medical care is a basic human right. Because I don't believe in the concept of basic human rights, period.
So you've got people tied up and gagged in your basement because they have no basic human rights, period. Correct?
Jokes aside > No rights whatsoever? That's horrific....
I hope you're joking.
I think my views align pretty closely with magicware here so I'll chime in... I believe that the only innate right, the only right we have as humans that is not given to us by the body that governs the ground we were born on is the right to attempt to live. That is the only right we have that is not given to us. I have a right to attempt whatever I see fit to keep myself alive... but everyone else has the same right and thus we may conflict... if I am starving I can attempt to steal someone's bread, but they have the right to stop me. Any other right is given to us, not something we are born with. My "right" to freedom of speech has nothing to do with my ability to speak, it's purely a government construct that says I am free to speak (in most situations) without fear of punishment from the government. It says nothing about physically being able to speak, or being free from all consequences.
Now if we look at health care... I believe that each person has the right to seek out health care... go ahead try to keep yourself alive... but that does not extend to other people being forced to provide it for you. Just because someone is rich does not give poor people some right to the rich person's money. Being poor does not give you the right to be taken care of. Someone may choose to do so, but should not be forced to do so.
To put it another way... you could say I believe people have a right to anything they want until it involves another person in some way. Once someone else is involved that other party has the right to refuse the interaction and any deal brokered is not a right it is no more than a deal or business transaction. If you believe the best way to live is to pee on your lawn... good for you. If you believe the best way to live is to pee on my lawn, you're now interfering with my attempt to live and I have the right to stop you if I so choose.
A camera recording didn't do much good in the Eric Garner case. Autopsy ruled it a homicide and there is video recording of how the cop escalated the situation for no reason, yet no indictment. This is a systemic issue that isn't going to be solved with the production of more facts through video cameras. We know what cops do and we still can't affect change. Something more radical needs to be done.
I agree but I also want to add some caution. Police officers have a high stress job where they put their lives on the line. While the current untouchable status is bad, we also must avoid getting to a situation where officers are guilty unless proven otherwise. If that were to happen I imagine things will only get worse as less people will even want to become officers (I mean seriously, I already couldn't imagine doing that kind of work let alone adding onto it constantly having to worry about being sued/jailed for doing my job) which will lower the quality of officers in the field.
Even as an engineer it's a problem I worry about... the company I work for talks about adding medical R&D and if it were to happen I may jump ship and find a new job. I have heard of cases of individual engineers being sued over failing medical products. I can't control how much time/money my employer gives to these projects so if we did go medical and try to rush things out the door I certainly don't want my name on it.
Simply changing the system to make it easy to charge cops with a crime will probably just result in a lot of good cops changing careers. I think it may be better to put more responsibility on the departments instead of the individuals. Why are departments putting their employees in these situations and/or why are they not training them properly to handle them better?
1: The cost of having camereas there is that there will be more camera recordings. I call this an invasion of privacy and a step towards the surveillance state. Several other posters in this thread call this a negligible cost, but it's still a cost. Simply making more recordings is not, in itself, a benefit.
As I stated before I can't imagine how anyone can actually believe that body cameras on officers would increase public surveillance in a non-trivial way. We already have cameras in most stores and parking lots, we have dash cams, we have people running around everywhere with personal cameras blogging and whatever else... adding a few more cameras on police officers isn't suddenly making a surveillance state... putting cameras on every light pole would be much more worrisome.
I guess to me that is largely a separate but related issue... We have the discussion on inefficiencies in the current health care system and a discussion on how to "sell" or "distribute" health care. I was talking purely about distribution given the current inefficiencies. I don't know how feesable it would be to debate both at the same time as it would be quite complicated.
I will still contend that based on geography alone I am not sure that it's possible to provide every rural area with a relatively near by source of what most people would consider to be an acceptable minimum level of health care.
I do agree with you though that the inefficiencies in our health care system are a huge source of problems currently and for any changes. I think that would be a great place to make headway.
Okay, well even assuming the current inefficiencies, it would be possible to provide better healthcare to underserved areas. Which isn't just rural, as an aside. There are many areas of cities that can be considered underserved, or specific populations in cities.
Everyone is always so hung up on solving the problem, they often missing that simply alleviating some of the problem is a good thing.
Certainly we could, but would it be better to do that by reducing inefficiencies in the care system itself or by changing the way care is distributed? I think reducing inefficiencies in the system would go a longer way than changes to distribution. Let's make the system work better before we worry about how to provide access to an inefficient system to more people.
Quick real world example of crazy health care inefficiency... My Grandfather was the administrator at a hospital and he retired about 15 years ago. While he was the administrator his salary never went into 6 figures.... I know that the current Administrator at that hospital makes something in the range of $300,000+. I also know that while her employees have been on a wage freeze for years her salary has steadily increased every year (and by steadily I mean 20%+ raises).
I guess to me that is largely a separate but related issue... We have the discussion on inefficiencies in the current health care system and a discussion on how to "sell" or "distribute" health care. I was talking purely about distribution given the current inefficiencies. I don't know how feesable it would be to debate both at the same time as it would be quite complicated.
I will still contend that based on geography alone I am not sure that it's possible to provide every rural area with a relatively near by source of what most people would consider to be an acceptable minimum level of health care.
I do agree with you though that the inefficiencies in our health care system are a huge source of problems currently and for any changes. I think that would be a great place to make headway.
Yes... when there are zero repercussions in Skyrim I did choose to rob people blind, murder them and occasionally throw a corpse into a fireplace for funnsies. I did that when there are ZERO repercussions. This is something that is literally impossible in the real world, because I recognize the fact that any human interaction in real life has repercussions. Even if I was in magical no laws land, killing someone makes that person dead, desecrating a corpse makes that corpse desecrated. I recognize that in a game all I am doing is moving bits and bytes. My Screen could show puppies playing or batman pillaging the countryside, it literally does not have any affect on anyone other than who is viewing it.
I just wasn't sure if schools were more apt to move the "victim" or the "perpetrator". I know in my wife's case it was a kind of quiet rush deal where she reported it and the next day they moved all of her stuff when the roommate was in class and then the school confronted the roommate (giving her anger management classes to avoid charges) to avoid a possibly bad reaction.
I suppose it would largely depend on the case but I imagine in many cases it's probably easier to get the complaining student to jump at a chance to move versus getting the "problem" roommate to move.
Do they? I am honestly curious. When my now wife was in college she found her roommate blog which detailed how she wanted to murder my wife... My Wife was the one that was moved into a different dorm room (and the roommate ended up giving a speech at graduation a few years later :/ ).
Then why don't you say something along the lines of "I don't disagree that x is wrong, but I disagree with your reasoning. This is why I disagree with x."
Frequently in debate threads you come across as just plain argumentative. Not really debating against the topic just debating against the ways other people are debating against the topic all the while hiding behind a shield of "I don't disagree that x is wrong".
I took 5 minutes to go see where this debate came from and I think you could have easily explained to Foxblade why you think he is wrong. Clearly your position is that Sarkeesian is saying that the fact that a game mechanic exists encourages players to explore that mechanic even if the mechanic is there as a punishment (just because you are punished for playing with dead bodies does not mean people won't derive some joy from seeing what they can do while playing with those dead bodies, who cares if you get minus 5 billion points if you can get a funny screen shot). Then you could state why you disagree with Sarkeesian.
Tiax... I don't think you understand just how annoying it is to have you jump into almost every debate at some point and tell people that you don't agree with the position they are arguing against but that they are debating wrong. How about instead of worrying about how other people are debating against something you also disagree with can just debate it the way you think it should be?
Do you realize how little money $640 billions dollars is? After a quick google I found this: http://www.cms.gov/Research-Statistics-Data-and-Systems/Statistics-Trends-and-Reports/NationalHealthExpendData/downloads/highlights.pdf "In 2013 U.S. health care spending increased 3.6 percent to reach $2.9 trillion, or $9,255 per person, the
fifth consecutive year of slow growth in the range of 3.6 percent and 4.1 percent"
So yes... we spend a lot of money on Defense.... and we spend a lot more money on health care. Selling a few air craft carriers isn't going to magically fund health care for all.
That is a very strange way to view it... What if you need a new stove? or new carpeting? Who pays for those? Do you split the costs 50/50? How do you buy a house? Does only one of you pay for it and lose the ability to possibly get something nicer?
Typically a pre-nup it purely for instances where one partner has significantly more money than the other going into a relationship(celebrities). It is typically accepted that once married, both parties are contributing to total household value... if one partner works and the other does not the mind set would be that the non-working partner takes care of many things that allows the working partner to work enough to cover all expenses. If that couple were to separate it's typical that all assets gained after marriage would be split 50/50 even if they were all bought by one partner (because the other partner was providing non-monetary value like raising kids).
I cannot think of one... it's a small difference and may be nothing more than wording. That's why I said that I thought magicware and I had similar thoughts on the issue... I am not at all saying that he and I differ in any meaningful way at this time.
Yes you do.... and other people have the right to try to stop you.
Any action you do, is your right to attempt. Really my position is not that much different than Magicware's position of their being no intrinsic human rights the only difference being that I see that each person has aright to use their own ability. Anything beyond that is not a "natural" right, it is purely a manufactured right given by some ruling body. So where Magicware would say that you have no right to speech without the government bestowing it on you, I would say that without the right to freedom of speech you do still have the right to attempt to speak... but it being a right does not prevent someone else from stopping you.
Actually I would argue that since humanity came to power money has probably become the most valuable thing on Earth and human life is currently the least valuable... Forces of nature can wipe out thousands of lives and in a short period of time we move on as if nothing happened. The value of a human life is purely personal... I value my own life and the lives of the people around me, but there are hundreds of people dying as I type this and their lives hold zero meaning to me. On top of that human life is straining the resources of Earth, I think it would be hard to argue that Earth as a planet would not be healthier if the human population was cut by 90%.
No you have the right to try... I guess if you want you could boil it down to you have the right to do whatever is in your own ability. The key being your OWN ability... as soon as another party is involved their right to the same comes into play... so while you have the right to try to steal their bread, they have the right to try to stop you (part of their right to stopping you has resulted in laws that will punish you for doing so).
I think my views align pretty closely with magicware here so I'll chime in... I believe that the only innate right, the only right we have as humans that is not given to us by the body that governs the ground we were born on is the right to attempt to live. That is the only right we have that is not given to us. I have a right to attempt whatever I see fit to keep myself alive... but everyone else has the same right and thus we may conflict... if I am starving I can attempt to steal someone's bread, but they have the right to stop me. Any other right is given to us, not something we are born with. My "right" to freedom of speech has nothing to do with my ability to speak, it's purely a government construct that says I am free to speak (in most situations) without fear of punishment from the government. It says nothing about physically being able to speak, or being free from all consequences.
Now if we look at health care... I believe that each person has the right to seek out health care... go ahead try to keep yourself alive... but that does not extend to other people being forced to provide it for you. Just because someone is rich does not give poor people some right to the rich person's money. Being poor does not give you the right to be taken care of. Someone may choose to do so, but should not be forced to do so.
To put it another way... you could say I believe people have a right to anything they want until it involves another person in some way. Once someone else is involved that other party has the right to refuse the interaction and any deal brokered is not a right it is no more than a deal or business transaction. If you believe the best way to live is to pee on your lawn... good for you. If you believe the best way to live is to pee on my lawn, you're now interfering with my attempt to live and I have the right to stop you if I so choose.
I agree but I also want to add some caution. Police officers have a high stress job where they put their lives on the line. While the current untouchable status is bad, we also must avoid getting to a situation where officers are guilty unless proven otherwise. If that were to happen I imagine things will only get worse as less people will even want to become officers (I mean seriously, I already couldn't imagine doing that kind of work let alone adding onto it constantly having to worry about being sued/jailed for doing my job) which will lower the quality of officers in the field.
Even as an engineer it's a problem I worry about... the company I work for talks about adding medical R&D and if it were to happen I may jump ship and find a new job. I have heard of cases of individual engineers being sued over failing medical products. I can't control how much time/money my employer gives to these projects so if we did go medical and try to rush things out the door I certainly don't want my name on it.
Simply changing the system to make it easy to charge cops with a crime will probably just result in a lot of good cops changing careers. I think it may be better to put more responsibility on the departments instead of the individuals. Why are departments putting their employees in these situations and/or why are they not training them properly to handle them better?
As I stated before I can't imagine how anyone can actually believe that body cameras on officers would increase public surveillance in a non-trivial way. We already have cameras in most stores and parking lots, we have dash cams, we have people running around everywhere with personal cameras blogging and whatever else... adding a few more cameras on police officers isn't suddenly making a surveillance state... putting cameras on every light pole would be much more worrisome.
Certainly we could, but would it be better to do that by reducing inefficiencies in the care system itself or by changing the way care is distributed? I think reducing inefficiencies in the system would go a longer way than changes to distribution. Let's make the system work better before we worry about how to provide access to an inefficient system to more people.
Quick real world example of crazy health care inefficiency... My Grandfather was the administrator at a hospital and he retired about 15 years ago. While he was the administrator his salary never went into 6 figures.... I know that the current Administrator at that hospital makes something in the range of $300,000+. I also know that while her employees have been on a wage freeze for years her salary has steadily increased every year (and by steadily I mean 20%+ raises).
I guess to me that is largely a separate but related issue... We have the discussion on inefficiencies in the current health care system and a discussion on how to "sell" or "distribute" health care. I was talking purely about distribution given the current inefficiencies. I don't know how feesable it would be to debate both at the same time as it would be quite complicated.
I will still contend that based on geography alone I am not sure that it's possible to provide every rural area with a relatively near by source of what most people would consider to be an acceptable minimum level of health care.
I do agree with you though that the inefficiencies in our health care system are a huge source of problems currently and for any changes. I think that would be a great place to make headway.