Messages

3601

Real World Topics / Re: Right Wing or Left Wing?

« on: June 08, 2014, 04:09:43 PM »

No, my viewpoint is that, if we have a government at all, then its primary purpose should be preventing harm to people and providing a decent standard of living for everyone, not protecting the property of the rich.

People are equal before the law, and the property of the higher stratas of society warrant the same protection as the other property. Discriminating the rich because they are rich is foul.

That is still not a justification for it. It's essentially "it's there because I say it's there and people believe it".

Democratic processes in action. If you are not content about that, move to non-democratic country.

There are very few people who consider property rights to be sacred, as evidenced by the examples I gave. People expect property to be protected when losing it will significantly harm the person who owns it, but not when the owner is suffering little harm from the loss (e.g. a rich person having money stolen from them, or stealing from a large corportation).

Except most country have laws that punish people from stealing from rich people and corporate entities. Everyone is equal before the law, and the property should be protected no matter who owns it.

People recognise that stealing is a crime, yes, because crime is a matter of legality. They pretty obviously do not consider it to be wrong in such a case.

And, yes, stealing someone else's home is not a minor thing because it has a serious effect on their own ability to live. I will definitely not deny that. However, going into an empty building and squatting is not harmful. Indeed, until fairly recently, it was not even illegal to do so, and someone who had squatted in a place long enough got given ownership of it.

Now it is illegal, so it is illegal. Democratic process in action, again.

No, I will not, because this is not an argument about whether theft is illegal or whether the government considers property to be legitimate, it's an argument about whether property rights should be considered legitimate and whether theft is always immoral.

I am well aware that theft is illegal, but the fact that something is true does not necessarily imply that it should be true. Further, you were arguing above that the reason property rights are considered legitimate is because the majority of people believe those rights should be absolutely protected, and the popularity of Robin Hood as a character blows that argument right out of the water.

Seriously, do you believe people treat popculture seriously?

HDI doesn't measure how poor the poorest people are, though.

There is a newly revised scale that takes account income disparities, and USA is still high on the list.

No, I'm sure they're not "happy with their lot", but the reason they're not happy is because they have not got a permanent place to live or enough food to eat, not because they lack property. Plenty of people do not own the places they live (possibly even the majority, depending on where you live) and are perfectly OK with that, because they do at least have a place to live.

So you expect homeless to not try to acquire property and improve their lot in more permament way? Actually owning means is always more stable and secure.

No, I agree that it doesn't do so, but such a society certainly has existed in the past, and you are saying that it is how society should run now. My point was that, ultimately, a society in which all the government did was protect property and life (with the two considered on an equal level) would provide no incentive to the very poor to actually accept the rules of that society, at least freely.

You'd be surprised that there are poor people that vote for Republicans. They are not a hive mind which will vote as you expect them according to your communist dogma.

Yes, society quite obviously does not want anarchism, but it's pretty clear from voting records that the poor generally do support socialism. And, as you yourself pointed out, even the most right-wing governments do still generally provide some level of social support, because they know that what I said is fundamentally correct.

The right wing, both moderate or more radical, is on rise in Europe. Overwhelming number of poorer people in my country vote for conservatives. Don't make assumptions.

3602

Real World Topics / Re: Debate Everything

« on: June 08, 2014, 01:51:01 PM »

Link to my poll thread, a case of shameful self-advertisement:

http://darksidemoon.net/SMF_forum/index.php/topic,438.0.html

3603

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) The RP

« on: June 08, 2014, 01:26:14 PM »

Kyle nodded pensively. Hard to tell if Ash did the right choice here. Some would consider it compassionate. Others would argue that it was indeed cruel to condemn her to an eternal life.

"It should get better soon," he said with encouragement. "It's all new but eventually, everyone adapts to changes in their life. Being supernatural is the same. It comes with some neat advantages and drawbacks that suck. Some get more pros than cons though."

"Well, I don't need to do my job during daylight, so being nocturnal does not bother me. Neither this blood drinking stuff once I get hang of how to do it on my own" Ellen stated plainly. She did not consider her cursed nor blessed, rather that it simply happened to her. Otherwise, she would be deader than dead, and she was grateful for being alive in a way.

"Hm, there's no deep meaning involved. Just that some people have to stand for those who can't defend themselves. Your average human doesn't have the means to deal with supernaturals. So, it falls upon some of the supernaturals to keep them in line. Well, that's roughly what we try to do, me and few others. You will meet them too if you tag along with Ash for a bit. Of course, there are some species that are too violent to be left alone, like werewolves. Those are to be disposed off as soon as possible."

He gave her a grin.

"That's the reason most of them fled to the no man's land. "

"You are not in hurry of getting disposed yourself" remarked Ellen, seeing discrepancy in how he called his own species too violent

3604

Real World Topics / Re: Right Wing or Left Wing?

« on: June 08, 2014, 01:03:33 PM »

Mike, are you even anarchist? Because you defy authority yet you want the government to be involved as much as possible in social aid. Your political philosophy is incoherent.

If property cannot be claimed in the first place, then it cannot be owned, which means it therefore cannot be stolen.

And, honestly, it's not that I have no problem with theft, it's that I do not really consider land ownership (in particular) to be particularly legitimate and that I consider the concept of property ownership in general to be more a matter of convenience and a certain amount of courtesy towards others than an absolute right that can never be abridged.

Land ownership is as legitimate as others because people seems to be fond of it in general and defend it. The consensus of society makes it legitimate, as well as recognizes theft a crime. Millions of people in former USSR pay the highest price in attempt to defend their farms from grubby hands of the government. So if people find it defending, it's legitimate, and I bet if politicians sharing your view on property started disrespecting this kind of property rights, people would rise and defend their stuff in desperation.

That's a pretty good explanation of why we have property laws, yes, but it is in no way a justification of why we even have property in the first place, or why we should have it. There are plenty of things that have been seen as "right" by society in the past which we now consider to be very wrong indeed. This is not an argument about the current legal situation, it's an argument about moral and political beliefs, and the fact that I am in the minority does not in any way make my belief any less legitimate.

Further, whilst society as a whole does see theft as generally a bad thing, I don't think it's true that the majority of society sees theft as always unacceptable. Most people would consider stealing food to feed a starving family to be OK and, similarly, most people would have relatively little objection to stealing from people who they perceive as immoral.

Now there is democracy, and people in overwhelming majority recognizes property rights as legitimate, or some even sacred, so the fact they are in majority actually makes their view more legitimate because it is supported by the very fabric of laws and customs.

Food, not land property. Court would release such people because of marginal harm done to society, but seizing one's home and property is not marginal at all. Still people recognize stealing as crime, and acknowledge it's a crime even if done in desperation, the society just feel magnaminous enough to give a loop that allows to not punish harshly people who commit minor acts of crime in desperation. Again, seizing property unlawfully is a major crime.

Not really, his story is always about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor. Plus, the Normans were the rich, so that's kind-of a red herring.

And, regardless, my point is that Robin Hood was a thief, and people are quite OK with that (even if the original legend was Saxons vs. Normans, the first thing modern people associate with Robin Hood is "robbed from the rich and gave to the poor", and he is very much celebrated for that). Similarly, you often get Hollywood films with thieves as sympathetic protagonists in a way that you would never get with someone committing more violent crimes (Mafia films are a bit different, but then the Mafia isn't generally portrayed as sympathetic in those).

Use legal arguments, not legends and popculture.

It is, but poor people in the US are a lot worse off than poor people in this country.

USA is still in high tier according to HDI scale.

Yes, this is a valid point for why property should exist, but it doesn't justify absolutely inviolable property rights, because a Hobo would be better off if he could just steal food and find some empty office to sleep in.

Further, whilst you do need somewhere to live, food to eat and so on, you don't actually need to own any of that. It's entirely possible to live in a house without owning it, and eat food without having previously owned it

.

Most people feel more comfortable about actually owning stuff. I don't think homeless are particularly happy about their lot, many are resigned.

So, you're saying that someone who would let their child starve to death rather than steal food is a decent person? Because I sure as hell don't think they are. And, anyone who allows theirself to starve to death rather than steal food is not a "decent person", they're an idiot, because they need that food far more than the shop owner does.

And, frankly, I would say that anyone who prioritises their own ability to buy a slightly bigger house over the ability of the poor to buy a house at all is an utterly horrible person, so if we're going by the "the government should enforce decency" argument, then they should most certainly be taxed in order to pay for social welfare.

Ultimately, though, my point was that, as you alluded to above, property is ultimately a matter of social consensus. We accept that it exists because we believe it to exist and because it is convenient for it to exist, not because there is any fundamental moral reason it should exist. Therefore, people will only obey it if they consider society as a whole to be worth supporting. And, if that society is leaving them to starve to death, then why would they have any desire to uphold that society?

Society is not leaving people starve to death except in really severe dictatorship or where the society crumbled into anarchic like state. There are charities, non-profit organisations, finally government actually steps in when there is any danger to human life (food stamps are thing even under Republican administrations). And poor people are content with non-anarchists because the society votes in anyone but anarchists. Funny that.

3605

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) The RP

« on: June 08, 2014, 02:41:50 AM »

"It's alright. I won't pretend I expected Ash to give you a thorough explanation." He checked his watch in order to avoid looking at her. "But since she decided to beat on some scumbags, it's probably wise to wait a bit before going back in. So, let's a have a little chat." He paused, throwing a glance at the building. "How are you feeling? I don't know the reason as to why she turned you but, if you wanna share a bit of it, I can listen. My own experience wasn't really pleasant so I see no reason why yours should be necessarily better."

He realized that he hadn't even introduced himself to her. Best time as any.

"Oh and full name's Kyle Teems. I... kill supernatural stuff for a living."

"Uh, Kyle, how to put this. I was stabbed by somebody and all I know that Ash saved me. By turning me into a vampire. I'm kind of glad I'm still 'alive', but I think I'll have trouble adjusting. I didn't know people like you or her existed, it was just fantasy to me" she let it out, confessing what happened. Though one thing he said puzzled her "You earn for a living killing supernaturals? But you are a supernatural yourself, what's your reason for doing that?"

3606

Real World Topics / Re: Right Wing or Left Wing?

« on: June 08, 2014, 02:14:13 AM »

No, the sins of the father do not affect the child, but if the initial reason why you have ownership of something is illegitimate, then that ownership itself is illegitimate. If I buy stolen goods, I have to give them back (without any right to compensation from the original owner or the government) even if it I was in no way at fault, because the person who I bought it from did not have legitimate ownership, and thus my ownership is also not legitimate.

Yet you seem to be okay with act of theft yet has a problem that humans has claimed property which did not have any owner.

Why?

Because of social census. Society generally acknowledges theft is not acceptable, thus government protects the property rights on the behalf of society.

Well, I would say that protecting the lives of the citizens is a primary function of the state. Protecting property is a function, but I don't think it's on the same level as protecting life, and nor do I think most people see it as being on that level (otherwise characters like Robin Hood wouldn't be anything like as popular).

Robin Hood was about Saxons vs Normans, rather than poor vs rich. He robbed people Saxons did not like much in the stories.

And yes, property is important because it provides stable means of sustaining oneself. Hobos don't have easy life.

Fair enough, but that's certainly not the impression I've got from countries like the US (which have a shit social welfare system).

USA is still one of wealthiest countries, so it's relative.

No, the state does not have to do everything, but it should ensure that it is being done. If the rich want their property protected, then they should ensure that the poor are given proper social aid. Otherwise, why the hell should the poor respect their property "rights" when the government is giving them nothing in return for them doing so?

Because many poor are decent folks and don't feel like stealing from others?

3607

Video Games / Re: Dark Ages: Polandball

« on: June 08, 2014, 02:03:33 AM »

Reddish brown one.

3608

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) The RP

« on: June 08, 2014, 02:02:47 AM »

"Well, I'm not too sure about why gender would be an isssooowwww!!!"

Interrupted by the young vampire's bite, Kyle closed his eyes. One issue, or advantage would probably say the blood suckers, about draining someone were the euphoria and arousal it placed on the victim. Regardless of sexual orientation, one couldn't be drained without experiencing it. And it applied to Kyle too. Not that he hadn't been aware of it beforehand, his interactions with vampires were too numerous to account. In fact, it had been part of his plan. Offer his blood to the fledgling so that he can have his way with the sire as compensation. As his mind was filled with lust, he sensed his body become hotter and eventually his arousal peaking literally in his boxer. For some reason, even has she took more of his essence, his body had enough left to keep him hard. The girl didn't seem ready to let go of him yet.

"...Not that bad, I take it."

Having her fill, she pulled away. She did not have much clue her bite would have such effect on those she fed on "Erm, gender matters because I'm straight and it's less awkward for me if I feed on men, I guess. But I had honestly no idea that my bite works like that..." she explained shyly, a bit embarassed about whole thing.

3609

Video Games / Re: Dark Ages: Polandball

« on: June 08, 2014, 01:54:50 AM »

Poland is the one on the other side of Baltic (south to Sweden) and east to that goldish yellow blob (Bohemia). The borders are still largely modern except for Mecklemburgia and bits of Western Ukraine.

3610

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) Discussion Page (OOC).

« on: June 08, 2014, 01:34:10 AM »

Replied. I have this urge to hit the hay, but I will try to keep going since Magos and Daiki are still online.

3611

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) The RP

« on: June 08, 2014, 01:32:19 AM »

She's a stubborn bitch isn't she.

The Driver's grumbling was something Law could agree on. "Look, Mordred, it'd make me a lot more comfortable if you were up here instead of back there. I know you're a spirit and all, but still, just climb the fuck on up here and buckle up."

"But promise you will behave yourself, and I will get back there" she retorted, trying to save her face and not surrender too quickly.

Kyle gave her a glance as they walked out. "I'm one of the cursed, a werewolf. Usually my species doesn't meddle much with leeches but, circumstances being what they are, I kind of get along with the Iron Maiden. Don't think she actually likes me much but, you could say we trust each other, I guess."

He invited d for her to come closer and offered his neck.

"You won't have to hold back this time. Taste might be less appetizing than supreme human vintage but it should be nutritious regardless. You can take more to compensate for it if you want. You should hurry up though, we might have a need to run soon." He looked around. "It's no good gathering too much attention around these parts. Even more so when you're weakened."

"Hey, I might be a vampire now, but I'm not a leech" Ellen protested. She might have been not a human anymore, but she did not like the monicker even if it was the first time she heard it. "But forget your manners, you are right. I didn't have a drink and you are a guy, so that won't be too awkward, I think" saying that she sinked the fangs in his neck and started draining blood. Though indeed the blood tasted kind of weird, she felt better about it since it was not offered for money but out of good will of his.

3612

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) The RP

« on: June 08, 2014, 01:06:12 AM »

She would regret that, mere moments later, when Law had to suddenly brake for another car pulling out of the massive parking lot.

Indeed, it shook her a little. Nothing serious happened, but still she was not much happy about that. She pretended it's not inconveniencing her, not turning into spirit form just to prove her point.

3613

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) The RP

« on: June 08, 2014, 12:58:20 AM »

Well, of course she would snap.

Kyle sighed with a nod. He had seen this coming from from the beginning. He patted Ellen on the back.

"Come on girl, you don't want to be caught in this, trust me." He started to walk, encouraging the girl to go out with him. "I'll give your blood fix too".

Still, he was somewhat surprised to know that she was Ash's progeny. With a look in the barmaid's direction, Kyle pointed the guy in red with a thumb. "On me," he said, placing a bill on the counter before leaving the building. He didn't want these guys to become a problem.

She followed Kyle. He seemed to be familiar to her sire, so she was somewhat trusting if somewhat wary. "Hey, you seem to know her. You are not a human either right?"

3614

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) The RP

« on: June 08, 2014, 12:42:25 AM »

"You'd be safer up front. No seatbelts back there." Law grinned and revved his engine for emphisis. "Just climb up front."

"Hmpph, I do not care about your speeding" Mordred disregarded Law's advice.

Ash blinked as Kyle showed up.  Normally her patience for the werewolf wasn't exactly the greatest, but she was happy to see him now.  And if anything, he can give Ellen a nip or three, she thought.

She smirked at the werewolf, took the glass and said, "It took your arse long enough to get here.  Bloody hell."

Then the other two showed up to mock Frost.  The one in the red duster said, "Midget in the head, midget in the sack… heh."

Ash chuckled and said, "I'd assume so, but even then even I have standards."

"Not what I heard.  Heard you suck anyone off if they gave you enough quid, you fucking whore," Frost said with a smirk to Ash.

Red flashed in Ash's vision as she looked at Kyle and said, "That's Ellen.  She's my fledgling.  Take her and get out of here before I bring this fucking building down with me."

"Oh, so going to go a little berserk then?  Losing your temper?" Frost asked with a smirk.

Ellen, even if she was rather inexperienced, to put it mildly, sensed that Ash is not in good mood. She was inclined to agree with Ash and leave with that Kyle person just to avoid trouble.

3615

2.0 Archive- the one no one cares about / Re: Cross Effects: Rebirth (2.0) Discussion Page (OOC).

« on: June 08, 2014, 12:13:24 AM »

Poasted.