in that way we are extremely different because i believe that if people agree on some rules that thing is unquestionable for anyone outside of the game.
If I decide to fight until death with someone you have no right to interfere even if what we do is against your moral code.
No, it's not 'unquestionable'. You have to actually have the legal right to get into a deathmatch with someone for this to make any sense at all. And even if you have that right, it doesn't necessarily take away my right to do something about it.
otherwise homophobic people have right to limit activities of gays.
just replace word "enslave" into word "marry" and we can legally throw them to jail.
The fact that you apparently don't understand that this sort of thing actually happens is part of the reason your whole argument is so flawed. No homophobe has the individual right to interfere with gay people, but if there's a law against homosexuality, then they can be interfered with. That's why gay people need to be able to act to protect their rights, not be blocked from doing so because of your misguided belief that it needs to be all or nothing.
I should say that I see consent more sacred that anything in the world and i would not hesitate even to act like Binladen to fight against people who dare to interfere with contracts of other people.
anyone is free to do anything with anyone else if they both agree on that. opinions of other people does not matter at all.
This is only moral value I have.
Then I have to say that your 'morality' is not very valuable. You don't have the right to act like bin Laden (you know, a murderous terrorist) because you think that people have the right to do whatever they want just because they signed some agreement. If that agreement breaks laws, then they don't have that right. It's that simple. And even if no laws are actually broken, other people have the right to intervene as long as they don't break any laws doing so.
i dont understand what does that mean.What it means is that you don't get to cherry-pick a given right you don't care to exercise anyway and use it as an excuse to say that other people shouldn't get to exercise that right either, or other rights which aren't related to it.
You have a bad habit of not responding to some statements, as the above demonstrates.
you are spining it in other direction when i specifically state that your hypothetical doctor is doing his job perfectly does not harass anyone or does anything inappropriate except that he gets sexual pleasure from his work.
The whole point is that it is not appropriate for a medical professional, whether a doctor, a nurse, or whatever, to get sexual pleasure from their work. That's what being a professional is about, not allowing personal feelings to get in the way of doing the job correctly. If a doctor is getting sexual pleasure on the job, then they aren't doing
their job. Your attempts to claim otherwise prove nothing except that you don't understand this basic concept.
all cases when employee is acting inappropriately are out of questions here.
also this is not because I like pedophiles very much,we can replace pedophile with necrophiliac which works at morgue, or serial killer working as executor in prison.
there ate lots of possible perversions.
*shakes head* Again, you don't understand that both of those 'replacement' situations are inappropriate. If someone working at a morgue is getting sexual pleasure from corpses, then they aren't doing their job. And there is no way that a serial killer could realistically be trusted to execute people in a responsible manner, because they are a serial killer. So if employees acting inappropriately are out of bounds, then your examples of 'perversions' are also out of bounds.
the problem is that you don't want some group of people to enjoy their fetishes because you feel same same thing offensive.
Strawman. I said no such thing.
From when you can punish people in advance for something they had not done yet and have no specific plans to do that? I do not ask to prove who is who but you need to prove that someone is definitely going to commit crime or at least there is very high chance for that. just talking about your fantasies does not means that you are going to act them.
If they haven't committed a crime, they can't be punished for it. But it is fundamentally irresponsible to pretend that someone who is known to have 'fantasies' which would be crimes if they acted on them has the same presumption of innocence that someone else, not known for stuff like that, would have. Maybe it's just talk...maybe it's a plan if they think they can get away with it. Presumption of innocence doesn't justify ignoring obvious danger signals.
Please explain this in detail how I can harm someone by using its video or picture (assuming that i do not distribute them). It can be handy.
are we talking bout some voodoo or something?
*facepalm* I already explained it. While I'm willing to give allowances for your native language not being English, when you start talking about something like voodoo which I didn't even mention (not to mention the disgusting suggestion that it would be useful to know how to hurt people with a picture or video), then either you are not able to understand what I'm talking about because of an insurmountable language problem, or you are understanding and are deliberately pretending not to understand for some reason. Neither explanation gives me any reason to continue to try to explain.
I already proved that you are wrong here, because:
No, you didn't prove that I am wrong, and all of your reasons are flawed.
1 Piracy does not support producers. (you may argue here, i also hate copyright )
Oh, thank you so much
for your 'permission' to argue. I don't know what
I would have done if you hadn't said it was alright to argue. [/sarcasm] Anyway, you're assuming that this is some sort of piracy. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But pirating something illegal doesn't magically make it legal, it just means one committed an additional crime on top of supporting the kind of scum who do such things to begin with. I'm not talking about monetary support, you know; someone who 'pirates' child pornography is proving there's a market for such things, thus encouraging other people to continue to do it.
2 evidence is not concealed it is on public domain, that's objective fact (if cops are interested I can download and present several gigabytes for them to look and jack off or perform investigation. Too bad, if i try to gather that evidence i may end in jail, so criminals are going to be free.)
What makes you think it's necessarily in the public domain? The fact that something's on the internet doesn't mean it's public domain, and that's just a facetious excuse to justify theft. The other half of your statement here is nothing but a self-serving excuse not to do anything about something that you know is a crime. Police do take anonymous tips about stuff like this, for just that reason.
3 No purchase is done. Not even direct interaction with criminal happened. This is also fact.
Just because money didn't change hands doesn't mean anything. Just because they did not directly meet doesn't mean anything. The mere fact of getting it is itself an encouragement for the other party to continue.
if you object please give me exact description how criminals are supported here.
Please be objectively reasonable or admit your defeat.
I gave several reasons as a response to your points. You may not agree with them, but you don't get to pretend they don't matter just because you don't think they're objective.
(By the way I think l am allowed to support criminals morally, commenting that killer made good job murdering someone?)
You do know what "freedom of speech" means, I hope?
I have no problems with genocides if they do not involve me
Oh, of course
not. You apparently just like to make arguments involving them.
if you compare Jews enjoying their genocide and pedophile enjoying child rape. then I don't mind if if that rapist wannabe will be raped by another rapist who believes exactly same thing, since they both think rape is OK.
Get this straight, you're the one who made that comparison. I've been arguing against it because it's a ridiculous comparison to begin with. So you aren't going to be able to pretend that your follow-up statement is reasonable by pinning your ridiculous belief that there's actually a basis for comparison between genocide and pedophilia on me.
maybe that wannabe rapist will change his thinking after getting personal experience on that matter. this is not punishment it is just unfortunate experience.
It's neither. Effective punishment seldom involves doing bad things to other people because they did those bad things to someone else. And it's stupid to call a crime like rape an "unfortunate experience". What do we call battery, a "flesh wound"? People don't often change their thinking about something bad because they had it done to them, it just makes it easier for them to justify doing it to other people. Which is completely the wrong way to try to deal with someone who commits a crime.
maybe i should change my previous statement from "Hitler did good" job to "Jews got what they deserved, since Hitler is still criminal here, even If I think his actions were useful for society, we can see him as some kind of natural disaster.
Do you even realize just how bad this statement is? First off, as I already said, no group deserves genocide; even if they committed it, doing it back to them just stains with the same crime. Hitler's attempt at genocide was anything but useful for society, and there is no possible way you can argue that Hitler qualifies as a 'natural' disaster.
since i do not want to be eaten some day, I think, it is better not to eat each other and other people may also think so. otherwise it is ok for me.
Exactly. You don't want to get eaten, so you think it's better not to eat other humans. Except that you seem to be saying that cannibalism is okay otherwise (presumably, not involving you). Do you not understand that this is the very definition of hypocrisy? You don't approve of something if it harms you, but you're okay with it otherwise.
you can watch this movie (it is on youtube) i cant find text version http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nice_Guys_Finish_First
basically it explains how "tit for tat+ forgive" was programmed into our genes.
That is the text version. Well, summary. And I'm aware that people tend to retaliate for some perceived wrong with something similar, then 'forgive' the other person, and that it's on the level of instinct. The problem is that it doesn't always, or often, result in the situation you describe. Even if one person forgives after retaliating, there is no guarantee that the other person won't get upset and retaliate back. What does it matter if they each forgive each other after retaliating if the other one gets pissed off anew because of the retaliation? That's how you end up with things like feuds.
profit is same as evolutionary advantage.
And if discourage was important issue, punishments would be public.
I believe the legal system is in fact public. It is indeed possible to get information on how someone was punished. That makes it a deterrent. As far as profit being an "evolutionary advantage", no. An evolutionary advantage is something that benefits the species. Profit benefits the individual.
unfortunately fools are feeding evil. every time you give your money to crooks you make them stronger
people donate money to church so that church could use that money to trick even more people and fight against these who are trying to tell the truth about that scam
I have no argument about this, except to say that those people aren't intentionally supporting evil, as you put it. Evil people may be taking advantage of the inexperienced or stupid, but the ones responsible are the ones taking advantage.
size of punishment does matter. If you just fine me $100 for murder , may consider doing that twice a week and even pay voluntarily so you get 100% justice.
if you do capital punishments for robbery then it becomes profitable to kill few all people you rob to decrease chances of being caught..
three strikes policy also means that after third crime you are free to do do anything and you can't be punished . so correct version should be random number of strikes and you are out.
You did not respond to what I said, you responded to what you thought I said. Nobody in their right mind would consider levying a $100 fine for murder to be justice. In fact, I do not believe most people consider any size of fine to be a just punishment for murder. That's what I meant when I said that the size of the punishment didn't matter as much as whether the punishment is considered just. And the "three strikes you're out" policy does not give people a bye to commit more crimes without punishment. What it is, is a large punishment (usually, a stint in prison) for repeated offenses, even if the individual offenses themselves would not justify a prison sentence.
when you are completely unable to catch criminal (If he is smarter than whole society) it is profitable to forgive him in exchange to promise not to act in that way anymore and repay some damage so that you can observe him and prevent from doing further crimes. both will bet fresh start instead of hurting each other indefinitely.
I think it is more profitable to forgive serial killer after he kills 3 people than wait until there will be 50 victims and he is still on the loose
only problem here, that you may encourage other to act same way but if you cant catch him anyway then it is not better.
Think about it. If you're dealing with someone who's so smart that he never gets caught, why would he have any reason to give such a promise? It might 'benefit' society to offer such a deal, but it certainly wouldn't benefit the criminal, and that defeats the purpose. And no, it isn't 'profitable' to forgive a serial killer merely because he's not easy to catch, for the same reason.
As you see, punishments must be carefully balanced to prevent them causing even more damage. but government ignores that and makes everyone suffer.
If this is your idea of "carefully balanced"...I'll take imperfect government justice anyday.
I must agree that you are right and i was wrong on this matter, because I accept that we should not hurt each other. So I do not have right to hurt you until you do not have right to hurt me.
This is the same thing you were saying all along, and I certainly don't agree with the way you put it. If someone is attacking me and trying to seriously hurt or kill me, I have the right to defend myself even if it harms the other person. But they never had the right to hurt me in the first place.
I think "subjective agreement" is same as compromise. at least that's how i understand it. objective agreement is when you are either right or wrong for some external reasons.
however you cant make any arguments on subjective things, you can only bargain that for something in exchange or trick them.
I don't agree with that. I can talk someone around to my point of view or come to a reasonable compromise between our respective points of view. So I can indeed make an argument based on a subjective point. Getting them to agree with it is another story.