In my belief, no laws can apply to private life which does not involve other people.
Which, of course, is why you cited the example of a deathmatch between two people to 'explain' why some other person "didn't have the right to interfere". I shouldn't have to keep pointing out the obvious deficiencies in your arguments and examples like this.
if you agree on that then we can continue on other topics, however if you believe that laws are allowed to regulate private life, then you basically claim that everyone is property of society so society is slowed to do anything it likes with its members..
Strawman (even if I believed that society could regulate private life, it wouldn't be remotely the same as claiming that everyone was the property of society). Also, you are the one trying to argue these things, but you keep introducing different ideas which undermine your previous arguments. I would strongly suggest that you spend a little more effort on sticking with the subject that you're actually discussing, instead of continually introducing tangential things which don't have much to do with anything you've talked about till then.
I personally do not agree to be slave even if that just theoretical slavery. If required I don't mind to fight against that society until it decides to give me freedom.
Of course since I can fight openly due to mismatch of powers only option is "asymmetric warfare".
So...what about all the other slaves that this theoretical society also had? Would you only fight against it until you got your freedom?
I see your point and fine, I choose to vote for denying gay rights and do not need any explanation why i do so. If majority decides that gay sex is crime punishable by death then it is completely legal to kill them.
Perhaps legal, but certainly not just. And using your own argument, it would be perfectly justified for gay people to fight against a society that had decided they could be executed for having gay sex. You cannot deny this without contradicting yourself.
I think we should also pass law against Jews, and make it illegal to be a Jew or Black. it should not be problem because there are enough of Jew haters to vote for that law. Then we will be able to exterminate them legally. I think Hitler did exactly that, so Jewish genocide was perfectly legal thing to do.
A law making it illegal to be black would be pure idiocy, and it is unfortunately typical of your attitude that you didn't even consider just how stupid that argument really was. I mean, a law making a genetic trait illegal? How exactly would you enforce such a thing? And that gets to the real point; the fact that people can pass some law doesn't mean the law is enforceable, or just. Something can be legal or illegal, but if enough people don't abide by it, it's a dead letter. That includes creating a group of people who have a strong incentive to resist the law, because that can actually rip a country or society apart.
I see that you base everything on laws and ignore natural rights.
so if there is law which allows you to bomb innocent people it is just fine to do so.
No, I don't base everything on laws and ignore natural rights. You just assumed that was the case. So no, a law which allows the murder of innocents is not "just fine". Laws like that are doomed to fail in the long run anyway, because a society which allows such things is a society which will not survive.
is it limited to sexual pleasure or I am not allowed to get any pleasure from my work?
please prove that If a doctor is getting sexual pleasure on the job, then they aren't doing their job.
I suppose doctor's job is to threat patients and what side effects occur from that job does not matter as long as it is done
Sexual pleasure is a form of euphoria. Euphoria, by its nature, interferes with the ability to think rationally, which is essential to the job of being a doctor (and most jobs, for that matter). There is a difference between being satisfied with one's job (which is generally a pleasurable sensation) and being in what amounts to a euphoric haze which can interfere with job performance. It's the same reason drug use is generally banned on the workplace.
same as above if job is done perfectly, how do you prove that employe is not doing it? of course if result is unacceptable then it is different story.
If a person is doing their job perfectly, and there's nothing to show that they're out of order, and nobody knows that they have the fetish in the first place (meaning it's totally private) then it's a moot point. The problem is, you're referring to someone who has a fetish for something getting sexual pleasure out of that fetish while on the job; that's not private, it is noticeable (thus out of order), and it does interfere with their doing their job because at best, their focus is split.
Assuming that firing someone from job is some kind of punishment you are contradicting yourself, because you propose punishment in advance.
I'm not talking about automatically firing someone just because they have a history of something (though, if they had a history of something and concealed it from their employer, that does justify firing them). I'm talking about taking precautions about someone who's known to have some fetish working with people who could be objects of that fetish. If they can show that they can do the job professionally without letting their fetish interfere, that's one thing. But they can't indulge their fetish on the job because it's not professional.
No you did not explained anything. I asked you valid question. how it is possible to hurt people by just using their image in private, because you claim that some people are doing that.
I really do not understand that, and believe that such thing is impossible.
As I have heard other people say on this site, your belief does not make a difference in whether it's possible or impossible. In any case, I'm talking about explicitly sexual images; in that case, the image has already done harm to someone (like a minor child). Spreading the image around to other people encourages the ones who did the harm to do so again to produce more images, whether or not they're paid for them. So someone having such an image may not do direct harm to the person who's image it is, but it indirectly harms them, and it indirectly aids and abets the ones who actually did the harm to continue doing it. Now, if you're talking about downloading some public picture off the internet that doesn't have explicit sexual conduct...well, whatever I personally think of it, as long as they keep it in private (meaning, in their own private property), I'm not inclined to start any witch-hunts.
You are contradicting with your statements below. about free speech.
piracy does snot fall under criminal justice laws.
If you think I'm contradicting myself, you have to explain why. And what makes you think that piracy doesn't qualify under criminal justice laws?
You are arguing like christian here.
No, I'm not. And you can't expect to be taken seriously by just pulling out some statement like "you are arguing like a Christian" without any explanation or justification.
What I said is fact no matter if you know it r not. and I can prove it objectively but I think it is inappropriate to do that in public no less than you can prove evolution.
You cant argue with facts.
What, you think you can just declare that you're right, and that you could prove it but you're not going to because you don't think it's appropriate to do so in public? That's nothing more than a pathetic attempt at a cop out. If you can't be bothered to show that something is a fact, and that your interpretation of it is a good one, then no matter what excuses you give for why, you've admitted that you don't have a valid basis for your argument. If you don't feel it's appropriate to try to prove it in public, then why are you trying to discuss something related to it in public in the first place?
you are contradicting yourself with statment below
The fact that you say something is a contradiction doesn't mean it's a contradiction unless you can show why it is one.
So for some reason it is legally OK to get off on falling twin towers but not ok to get off on child being raped
thats double standard.
As it's obvious you didn't understand what my reference to freedom of speech was, your attempt to segue it into an accusation about a double standard only proves that you didn't. And I'm not really interested in elaborating, if you can't understand a plain and simple question about whether you know what freedom of speech is.
I deliberately involve arguments that are psychopathic to eliminate any emotional reasoning. what you feel can be used to justify your own actions but you cant force your emotions on other people.
Doesn't work that way, because psychopaths are emotional cripples. Most - the vast majority - of human beings are not emotional cripples, and people can and do use their "emotional reasoning" as you put it. While you may have a point about setting up your argument without using emotions to try to sway the other side, you don't accomplish that by using arguments which will provoke an emotional reaction, such as trying to argue using a psychopath's reasoning.
I did not made such comparison You decided to present is as contradiction. and I had to defend myself. on this foolish thing. so lets forget it.
You most certainly did make the comparison, otherwise I wouldn't have had to point out the contradiction between the two. Provided you stop trying to pretend that I'm responsible for it, I'm okay with dropping it.
This is your own opinion and mine is different. You have right to think as you like, as much as I can do same. in any case there is no difference because accidents are not controllable. So you cant blame me if I enjoy that my neighbor got into car accident. and cant forbid me to display that joy in public.
There is no comparison between an accident and something like rape. Someone can't "accidentally rape" someone else, or "accidentally steal" from them, or "accidentally beat them up". As far as you taking pleasure in someone else's misfortune, that's schadenfreude. It doesn't have anything to do with anything except your own feelings. It won't really affect how the other person reacts or thinks about it.
It is pointless to discuss such things because they are subjective. something that is valuable for my may be harmful for you.
I will try to avoid saying such things in future.
The point is that something like genocide doesn't really benefit anyone. It is objectively bad for all parties involved.
It is not hypocrisy if I can justify it without contradictions. and I justify that with my egoism.
In fact all my moral values are based on my selfishness. if you base your values on another reason you either loose against me either you are hypocrite.
hypocrisy is when you say "I do not approve something" then you still approve it depending on situation.
The fact that you admit that you're using egotism and selfishness to justify how something isn't okay if it's done to you (saying you don't want to be eaten by cannibals) but is okay if it's done to others (saying that others can be cannibals if they want) doesn't prevent you from being a hypocrite. It just makes you an honest one.
even if what you say is true, this strategy proved to be most successful comparing to other strategies.
that counts as scientific proof, which you requested.
No, it is not scientific proof, unless the documentary compared all possible strategies to see how successful they were. I highly doubt that it did. And, in fact, I showed that this strategy has a big flaw to it. Something that badly flawed can hardly be described as "most successful". Just because a lot of people tend to instinctively act on that strategy doesn't make it the best strategy or the most successful one, just the most common one.
as I know it is generally accepted that evolution is working on individual level not on whole species.
Species is just abstract name to identify similar individuals.
You are basing this off of a misunderstanding of how evolution actually works. Evolutionary changes happen to individuals, but the fact that an individual gets some benefit from acting in a certain way doesn't make it an evolutionary change.
You said "size of a punishment doesn't matter" so I prove that it does matter.
No, what you proved is that it's whether the punishment is perceived as just that matters, not its actual size. Which is what I said. Punishments which are too small or too large are not accepted as just and eventually get changed to something that is seen as just. There are cases where a large punishment can be just (such as dealing with a repeat offender), or a small punishment can be just (someone stealing food because they were starving to death).
I wont argue on details here, maybe serial killer is not good example. Profit must be evaluated on each case separately, but in some cases it is valid choice.
The problem with your argument was not that it involved a serial killer, but that it set up a situation where a criminal had no incentive to cooperate with authorities, because the authorities could not catch him. There are situations where such a deal can be made, true, but they were not what you used as an example.
this is not optimal choice.
Of course if there is danger for long term loss because of short term profit it should be chosen properly.
But government is doing this job badly. they refuse to bargain with some murderer, but don't have problems to pay millions to pirates encouraging them in that way.
Government may not be especially good with regards to justice, but that is usually because it is a reflection of the common will (when it is not, it is because it does not express the common will in the first place, which is far worse). What you don't see is that without governments, the job would be done even more poorly than it is already, because the common will would be expressed in an even worse manner than what we have today.
by that logic does cop has right to hurt me if laws allow or even require that?
How you can logically derive your self defense rights? if you have no right to hurt other people there must be some logical justification to gain that right.
in my case if someone is trying to hurt me he just removes all restrictions.
Cops don't have the right to hurt you unless you resist arrest or act in a way that is threatening to them. They don't have the right to kill you unless you are presenting a lethal threat to them. As far as your question about self-defense rights goes, think about it. It goes back to the difference between the right to do something and the ability to do something that I touched on before. I don't have the right to hurt or kill other people, and they don't have the right to do so either. However, they (and I) do have the ability to hurt or kill other people. If they try to exercise that ability, they are doing something they don't have the right to do, and I have the right to defend myself against them until they are no longer trying to hurt or kill me.
And as far as your claim that all bets are off for someone who tries to hurt you, this is a flawed statement. Someone punches you, and you break their neck; you are thus guilty of murder because there is no way you can stretch self-defense to cover killing someone when your own life wasn't in danger. Even if you didn't kill them, if you used excessive force to subdue or defeat them (for example, they were trying to hurt you, but you were able to stop them, then you hurt them while they were subdued), you would still be guilty of a crime.
maybe it is problem with language, but I suppose that argument must be based on something objective or on something we already agree.
You cannot base argument on your own opinion( that does not count as argument) and demand others to accept it for no objective reason.
if we both accept some subjective point it becomes objective for us.
Not accurate. I can base an argument on my own opinion and convince people to accept it. The fact that they accept my argument doesn't mean the basis of that argument becomes objective. And in either case, they didn't already agree with me, but they changed their minds about it. So it doesn't have to be based on something objective or prior agreement.
