It seems that you're using an outdated browser. Some things may not work as they should (or don't work at all).
We suggest you upgrade newer and better browser like: Chrome, Firefox, Internet Explorer or Opera

×
avatar
Mafwek: I think we would both agree that restriction on alcohol before the legal age is to protect children (eh, teenagers) from somebody else, not themselves; since they can become hard alcoholics after they are legally adult.
From whom then? Adults are seen as responsible for themselves.
Teens want to drink booze, shops want to sell booze, why is it forbidden? Because the government decided it has to protect children and teenagers from that - their own desire.

We can also talk about the prohibition of really hard and destructive drugs like Crystal Meth. Why is it forbidden? To make it hard for people to get it and destroy their lives with it. Lift that ban and you not only eliminate the organized crime surrounding it (a problem with any form of prohibition) but you can also tax it generating income which could be used for shiny new schools or bombers...

Now we could argue that alcohol is a hard drug too and should be prohibited in the same way, and some people actually do say that. But alcohol consumption is rooted deeply in our cultural heritage and banning it... well see American history books about how well that went. And the people who decided this had the best for the people in mind, in a way.

Some laws are definitely needed and useful for protecting people from themselves. Because people are not always rational but follow their desires and urges - and peer pressure too.
Like I said, individual laws and regulations may be overdone, useless or even counter-productive. But that doesn't mean there are no laws like that which actually make sense.
Post edited February 22, 2019 by toxicTom
avatar
David9855: ... Watching the trailer for the rooftop game I can see one of the realtionships is a student and teacher relationship that might be sexual, that sort of thing is illegal in american, I would like gog to make more of a statement about this sort of issue.
Last time I checked, murder is illegal too, but there is no shortage of games, movies, books and other pieces of art depicting it and even glorifying it. I'm not sure how far the above mentioned game goes to show that relationship, but I doubt that it comes anywhere close to the Saw movies or Postal 2 in terms of explicit content.

These games are not my cup of tea, but I respect that other people enjoy them. I'll let them post ratings and reviews to see how it compares to similar products, rather than me pissing all over the place just because I don't like the whole genre.
avatar
toxicTom: From whom then? Adults are seen as responsible for themselves.
Teens want to drink booze, shops want to sell booze, why is it forbidden? Because the government decided it has to protect children and teenagers from that - their own desire.

We can also talk about the prohibition of really hard and destructive drugs like Crystal Meth. Why is it forbidden? To make it hard for people to get it and destroy their lives with it. Lift that ban and you not only eliminate the organized crime surrounding it (a problem with any form of prohibition) but you can also tax it generating income which could be used for shiny new schools or bombers...

Now we could argue that alcohol is a hard drug too and should be prohibited in the same way, and some people actually do say that. But alcohol consumption is rooted deeply in our cultural heritage and banning it... well see American history books about how well that went. And the people who decided this had the best for the people in mind, in a way.

Some laws are definitely needed and useful for protecting people from themselves. Because people are not always rational but follow their desires and urges - and peer pressure too.
Like I said, individual laws and regulations may be overdone, useless or even counter-productive. But that doesn't mean there are no laws like that which actually make sense.
David Hume would tell you that people are never reasonable, but passionate.

From the shops which would sell them booze of course. Alcohol isn't a hard drug by any means, but it's much easier for "stupid kids" to get addicted on that then "adults". Crystal meth is ban also morally based in idea of its sellers purposely addicting and exploiting others for their own gain. Mind you, I am talking about purely moral reason for ban; not political.
avatar
Mafwek: From the shops which would sell them booze of course. Alcohol isn't a hard drug by any means, but it's much easier for "stupid kids" to get addicted on that then "adults". Crystal meth is ban also morally based in idea of its sellers purposely addicting and exploiting others for their own gain. Mind you, I am talking about purely moral reason for ban; not political.
It would be economic suicide for any store to sell alcohol to kids even if there was no laws against it. I mean, around here most shops don't sell energy drinks to anyone under 18, and there are no laws that tells them to.

If parents decide that their kids can't have alcohol and shops allow kids to purchase it anyways, it would not end well for those shops.

Morally, it's probably worse to ban drugs. That always end up with even more harmful designer drugs. That, and more expensive drugs which can't be afford the legal way for many addicts.

Darn it, got political, I should stop it here. This subject intrigues me way too much.
Post edited February 22, 2019 by user deleted
avatar
Mafwek: From the shops which would sell them booze of course. Alcohol isn't a hard drug by any means, but it's much easier for "stupid kids" to get addicted on that then "adults".
Come on, the kids spend their allowance anyway. Just for sweets, soda and crisps and other unhealthy stuff. And internet data volume... it's a zero-sum game. Who may be losing out are the brewers and liquor manufacturers, but somehow I can't imagine those stalking the kids trying to sell their products...

avatar
Mafwek: Crystal meth is ban also morally based in idea of its sellers purposely addicting and exploiting others for their own gain.
As I wrote, the state could take control of it, and even generate tax revenue. The sellers just want to make money. If they would be long-term thinking they would sell other drugs that don't destroy their customers as fast...

avatar
Mafwek: Mind you, I am talking about purely moral reason for ban; not political.
You only say that because of Chandra's post above, admit it :-P
avatar
DadJoke007: It would be economic suicide for any store to sell alcohol to kids even if there was no laws against it. I mean, around here most shops don't sell energy drinks to anyone under 18, and there are no laws that tells them to.

If parents decide that their kids can't have alcohol and shops allow kids to purchase it anyways, it would not end well for those shops.

Morally, it's probably worse to ban drugs. That always end up with even more harmful designer drugs. That, and more expensive drugs which can't be afford the legal way for many addicts.
Now you are getting into politics and economics which are forbidden on this forum. I could very much talk about how crystal meth ban is do the fact that it's really fucking hard to organize "productive" society when your entire population is made of junkies, but I won't.

I am purely interested in moral and deepest teleological reasons. And as I see, guiding idea for any law and regulation is ultimately to protect people from each other, not from themselves - if I lived alone, I could do whatever I want because it doesn't affect anybody else; but I live with others, so I have to watch how my actions affect others.
avatar
toxicTom: You only say that because of Chandra's post above, admit it :-P
Well, politics and ethics are interconnected, but every political question is ultimately an ethical question - question of how we should act, and why should we act that way.

Yes, it also nicely circumvents the ban of politics on this forum, but I always find politics to be superficial and absurd, since it devolves into ideologies and sides sooner or later.
avatar
toxicTom: Come on, the kids spend their allowance anyway. Just for sweets, soda and crisps and other unhealthy stuff. And internet data volume... it's a zero-sum game. Who may be losing out are the brewers and liquor manufacturers, but somehow I can't imagine those stalking the kids trying to sell their products...
I believe alcohol and drugs affect people differently than unhealthy food...
However, it got to me that children are not given equal status as the adults, and you may be right in saying there are laws to protect them from themselves, but legally speaking, they aren't "people" (NOTE: this doesn't mean I am child hating bastards or don't consider them human etc. It means just that they aren't given equal rights as adults)

Edit: I'll need to rethink this. Since I am not satisfied with my argument. But I find it problematic when you say that there are laws which protect people from themselves, and you also say that adults are supposed to take care of themselves. The last one would imply that they are also supposed to take care of themselves from highly addictive drugs, no?
Post edited February 22, 2019 by Mafwek
avatar
toxicTom: As I wrote, the state could take control of it, and even generate tax revenue. The sellers just want to make money. If they would be long-term thinking they would sell other drugs that don't destroy their customers as fast...
Yes, if they would be long-term thinking they wouldn't be destroying people so fast. They destroy people, hence why crystal meth is considered bad; and why every law which is made against it is based on idea of protecting people from predatory practices of others.

State legalizing things for taxes starts to get into question of interests and ideologies which I don't like.
Ok. Three lil' thingies there.

1) "Politics" is a weird word, that can label many talks of (scientific or armchair) sociology, history, moral philosophy, even hard science (medecine, sexual biology, etc). "Politics" is basically the collective consequence of our knowledges and understandings about humans, so, discussing these knowledges and understandings can easily be deemed as"politics" or not, depending on the intent (for instance, which sort of exchanges to curb on a forum).

2) Laws protecting people "from themselves" and "from others" are often then same thing, given how often others profit from people's self-harm, or encourage it one way or the other. Scammers often rationalize their morality by claiming that their victims "had it coming" because they were too naive, old, young, trusting, ignorant, etc. It's a sort of victim-blaming that puts the responsability on so-called "self-harming people", with the idea of preventing laws (or other people) to protect citizens against manipulation. It's generally hard to draw a honest line between self-harm and victimization, and it shouldn't be the point. For instance : laws forbid slavery even though people would be pushed in a situation where willing slavery would be the last resort. It's a way of fighting against such situations, and against those who facilitate (or would profit from) them.

3) Discussions on drug legalization usually (always) concern light drugs, hard ones are implicitely still forbidden. One recurring argument for the criminalization of light drugs is that their illegality makes them all the more of a getaway towards stronger, more destructive drugs. It's not an argument in favor of hard drugs legalization, on the opposite.
Post edited February 22, 2019 by Telika
avatar
Telika: 3) Discussions on drug legalization usually (always) concern light drugs, hard ones are implicitely still forbidden. One recurring argument for the criminalization of light drugs is that their illegality makes them all the more of a getaway towards stronger, more destructive drugs. It's not an argument in favor of hard drugs legalization, on the opposite.
Pft, I'm all for legalization of heroin as well. I do, however, not find it moral to sell it or consume it.
Post edited February 22, 2019 by user deleted
avatar
chandra: The review is now removed, sorry it took us a while but thanks for bringing this to our attention.

You can always contact GOG Support or PM me in similar cases, we'll always do our best to deal with it as fast as possible.
Thank you. You've also restored my hope after all the stories how this place isn't moderated at all :)

Let's finish the thread with a little amusement.

Two new terms coined!
Disclaimer: unless someone already coined them, not gonna exercise my google-fu.

First, positive hate society. Thinking about it, I think this group also hosts people who hate migrants, religions, races, sexual orientations... you name it. People who think hate leads to solutions. Well, maybe the kind of solutions which Timmy was mentioning. Gasing people in chambers of death. What a wonderful future to promise! (I hope my sarcasm isn't dripping at this point)

Second, forum trolls. Such interesting creatures. But why are they called trolls? Seriously. Because it's pretty obvious they should be called forum vampires. First they bite you and then they suck on your blood (if you care to bleed). Also, they don't suck on each other's blood (would kill them).

Op, out ^^
Post edited February 22, 2019 by bmihoric
avatar
DadJoke007: Pft, I'm all for legalization of heroin as well. I do, however, not find it moral to sell it or consume it.
I don't believe in "morals" - as Brecht said: "If we were sharks, our morality would be killing."



avatar
bmihoric: Let's finish the thread ...
Sorry...

avatar
bmihoric: Second, forum trolls. Such interesting creatures. But why are they called trolls?
See:

In modern English usage, "trolling" may describe the fishing technique of slowly dragging a lure or baited hook from a moving boat[21] whereas trawling describes the generally commercial act of dragging a fishing net. Early non-Internet slang use of "trolling" can be found in the military: by 1972 the term "trolling for MiGs" was documented in use by US Navy pilots in Vietnam. It referred to use of "...decoys, with the mission of drawing...fire away..."[22]

The contemporary use of the term is said to have appeared on the Internet in the late 1980s,[23][24] but the earliest known attestation according to the Oxford English Dictionary is in 1992.[25][26][27]

The context of the quote cited in the Oxford English Dictionary[26] sets the origin in Usenet in the early 1990s as in the phrase "trolling for newbies", as used in alt.folklore.urban (AFU).[28][29] Commonly, what is meant is a relatively gentle inside joke by veteran users, presenting questions or topics that had been so overdone that only a new user would respond to them earnestly. For example, a veteran of the group might make a post on the common misconception that glass flows over time. Long-time readers would both recognize the poster's name and know that the topic had been discussed repeatedly, but new subscribers to the group would not realize, and would thus respond. These types of trolls served as a practice to identify group insiders. This definition of trolling, considerably narrower than the modern understanding of the term, was considered a positive contribution.[28][30] One of the most notorious AFU trollers, David Mikkelson,[28] went on to create the urban folklore website Snopes.com.

By the late 1990s, alt.folklore.urban had such heavy traffic and participation that trolling of this sort was frowned upon. Others expanded the term to include the practice of playing a seriously misinformed or deluded user, even in newsgroups where one was not a regular; these were often attempts at humor rather than provocation. The noun troll usually referred to an act of trolling – or to the resulting discussion – rather than to the author, though some posts punned on the dual meaning of troll.[31]
Sauce: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll#Origin_and_etymology
Post edited February 22, 2019 by toxicTom
avatar
toxicTom: I don't believe in "morals" - as Brecht said: "If we were sharks, our morality would be killing."
How can that have any validity when sharks don't have the capacity to make choices?
Post edited February 23, 2019 by richlind33
avatar
bmihoric: First, positive hate society. Thinking about it, I think this group also hosts people who hate migrants, religions, races, sexual orientations... you name it. People who think hate leads to solutions. Well, maybe the kind of solutions which Timmy was mentioning. Gasing people in chambers of death. What a wonderful future to promise! (I hope my sarcasm isn't dripping at this point)
Actually hate is a part of life for all humans, that's why not offending anyone isn't a possible state. That is also why professional sports help fill that gap in humanity so well.

Also some people that claim not to 'hate' especially in the categories you have mentioned are the most hateful and intolerant. For example there are plenty of people who proclaim they are feminists but that is just an excuse for them to hate on women they feel who don't tow their line and to hate on men to make themselves feel better about their lives.

Edited for a few spelling mistakes.
Post edited February 23, 2019 by David9855