Does game violence make you aggressive or is it competition?

[MrPopo]

I just wonder what other atrocities you'd be willing to tolerate if enough people jumped on the bandwagon. Is there anything you won't permit with enough electioneering? Do you have any moral code besides "do whatever you can get away with and get reelected"?

Have you ever stopped to think of WHY the majority of people are against something? That maybe there's a good reason for it? The whole point of democracy is that the majority rules.

[o.pwuaioc]

I just wonder what other atrocities you'd be willing to tolerate if enough people jumped on the bandwagon. Is there anything you won't permit with enough electioneering? Do you have any moral code besides "do whatever you can get away with and get reelected"?

Have you ever stopped to think of WHY the majority of people are against something? That maybe there's a good reason for it? The whole point of democracy is that the majority rules.

Let's not cross lines here. After all, slavery was supported by the majority of voters. Also, felons in many states are barred from voting, making their voices unheard if it includes certain drug violators.

Back to the topic at hand, the story doesn't really surprise me at all. Man, I've gotten into it with some people over Risk...but no one's going to ban that.

[Hatta]

I notice Mr Popo didn't answer my question. I'm taking that as a "no".

[MrPopo]

I just wonder what other atrocities you'd be willing to tolerate if enough people jumped on the bandwagon. Is there anything you won't permit with enough electioneering? Do you have any moral code besides "do whatever you can get away with and get reelected"?

Have you ever stopped to think of WHY the majority of people are against something? That maybe there's a good reason for it? The whole point of democracy is that the majority rules.

Let's not cross lines here. After all, slavery was supported by the majority of voters.

Until they lost their majority and seceded from the Union. I, personally, don't subscribe to a concept of universal morality. What is considered good and bad changes over time as society changes.

Also, felons in many states are barred from voting, making their voices unheard if it includes certain drug violators.

So either you're staying that drug users actually constitute a majority of people in this country but don't get to vote because of convictions or that they don't get to vote but are still a minority and thus their voting would lose out in the end anyway.

[MrPopo]

I notice Mr Popo didn't answer my question. I'm taking that as a "no".

My moral code is do what I can without getting hassled by other people (including the government).

[Hatta]

My moral code is do what I can without getting hassled by other people (including the government).

Do what thou wilt, huh? Does that include hassling other people? Is a net increase in person hassling acceptable to you, if it means avoiding being hasseled yourself? What if other people feel that it is acceptable for them to hassle you in order to avoid their own hasselment? Your philosophy, if adopted by others, may result in you being hasseled more often. Do you still advocate this philosophy? How can you do so consistently?

I think it's pretty clear that there is a universal morality. Human well-being is a measurable quantity. We can experimentally determine what makes humanity thrive. That is what is good.

We already know what makes humans thrive. And we know that fear, hate, and ignorance are not among them. That is what makes people ban things like violent video games (and drugs, and homosexuality, and interracial marriage, and jazz music, and pornography, and hijabs, and so on. None of these things are anywhere near as dangerous as the people who seek to ban them).

[MrPopo]

My moral code is do what I can without getting hassled by other people (including the government).

Do what thou wilt, huh? Does that include hassling other people? Is a net increase in person hassling acceptable to you, if it means avoiding being hasseled yourself?

Yes. However, most of the time me hassling someone else will cause them to hassle me in return, so I don't engage in it.

What if other people feel that it is acceptable for them to hassle you in order to avoid their own hasselment? Your philosophy, if adopted by others, may result in you being hasseled more often. Do you still advocate this philosophy? How can you do so consistently?

Indeed it might. Which would lead to me engaging in advocacy to get myself hassled less. No one is going to be 100% happy no matter what your philosophy is.

I think it's pretty clear that there is a universal morality. Human well-being is a measurable quantity. We can experimentally determine what makes humanity thrive. That is what is good.

No, there is no universal morality. You're using some very vague definitions such as "well being" and "thrive". How do we define a person's well being? Is it simply nutritional level and ability to procreate? A self assessment? (which people lie on all the time) And how do you define humanity thriving?

We already know what makes humans thrive. And we know that fear, hate, and ignorance are not among them. That is what makes people ban things like violent video games (and drugs, and homosexuality, and interracial marriage, and jazz music, and pornography, and hijabs, and so on. None of these things are anywhere near as dangerous as the people who seek to ban them).

Define "what makes humans thrive", since right there all I see is "What makes Hatta happy".

Again, if you don't want something banned then you gotta speak out and say so. If the only people speaking are those who want something banned then it makes sense to ban it.

[o.pwuaioc]

I, personally, don't subscribe to a concept of universal morality.

That's moving into a different area altogether. For the record, I too am a relativist. But a limited one.

So either you're staying that drug users actually constitute a majority of people in this country but don't get to vote because of convictions or that they don't get to vote but are still a minority and thus their voting would lose out in the end anyway.

I'm not "staying" either. I'm actually think that illicit drug users (as opposed to non-illicit drug users like people who take meds or drink coffee or alcohol) are a minority, but that if they all had a voice, they would comprise a small part of a majority who thinks that drug laws ought to be reformed. When the then governor of the most populous state admits it's time for marijuana legalization, there's obviously a no small number of people agreeing.

[Hatta]

Do what thou wilt, huh? Does that include hassling other people? Is a net increase in person hassling acceptable to you, if it means avoiding being hasseled yourself?

Yes. However, most of the time me hassling someone else will cause them to hassle me in return, so I don't engage in it.

Ah, so you have no problem with any and all kinds of atrocities, rape, murder, torture, etc., as long as you stand to benefit from it. Do I understand that correctly?

What if other people feel that it is acceptable for them to hassle you in order to avoid their own hasselment? Your philosophy, if adopted by others, may result in you being hasseled more often. Do you still advocate this philosophy? How can you do so consistently?

Indeed it might. Which would lead to me engaging in advocacy to get myself hassled less. No one is going to be 100% happy no matter what your philosophy is.

So you believe your philosophy is correct and beneficial, but it requires you to manipulate others and get them to disbelieve in your own philosophy (and therefore act against their own interests) in order to further yours. Just making sure I understand.

I think it's pretty clear that there is a universal morality. Human well-being is a measurable quantity. We can experimentally determine what makes humanity thrive. That is what is good.

No, there is no universal morality. You're using some very vague definitions such as "well being" and "thrive". How do we define a person's well being? Is it simply nutritional level and ability to procreate? A self assessment? (which people lie on all the time) And how do you define humanity thriving?

You can't tell when a human being is happy and healthy? Do you possess a complete lack of empathy? That would explain a lot actually.

We already know what makes humans thrive. And we know that fear, hate, and ignorance are not among them. That is what makes people ban things like violent video games (and drugs, and homosexuality, and interracial marriage, and jazz music, and pornography, and hijabs, and so on. None of these things are anywhere near as dangerous as the people who seek to ban them).

Define "what makes humans thrive", since right there all I see is "What makes Hatta happy".

That was not a list of things that make humans thrive. That was a list of things that have been banned for no reason besides moral panic. I was trying to show how we've banned things in the past based on emotion, and then realized that it was wrong to do so. We should consider that before we ban things in the future.

But since you asked, food, water, and shelter are a good start. Strong social bonds are important, as is feeling that you make an appreciated contribution to society. We have an intuitive understanding of all this as humans (well most of us do), but we can also demonstrate this empirically by measuring things like cortisol levels.

Again, if you don't want something banned then you gotta speak out and say so. If the only people speaking are those who want something banned then it makes sense to ban it.

This is a wildly unsupported notion you have. Complaining is not a productive activity. Therefore if you run things based on the wishes of the complainers instead of the producers, you will have a less productive society. On the contrary, if you know a certain portion of your society is composed of vocal bigots who are always trying to ban things because they're ignorant and fearful it makes sense to require actual evidence that something is harmful before you ban it.

Also, I am speaking out. If you haven't noticed I speak out at every opportunity. If you want me to shut up about the War on Drug Users, write to your congressperson and get it ended.

[MrPopo]

Do what thou wilt, huh? Does that include hassling other people? Is a net increase in person hassling acceptable to you, if it means avoiding being hasseled yourself?

Yes. However, most of the time me hassling someone else will cause them to hassle me in return, so I don't engage in it.

Ah, so you have no problem with any and all kinds of atrocities, rape, murder, torture, etc., as long as you stand to benefit from it. Do I understand that correctly?

What makes them atrocities aside from social norms?

What if other people feel that it is acceptable for them to hassle you in order to avoid their own hasselment? Your philosophy, if adopted by others, may result in you being hasseled more often. Do you still advocate this philosophy? How can you do so consistently?

Indeed it might. Which would lead to me engaging in advocacy to get myself hassled less. No one is going to be 100% happy no matter what your philosophy is.

So you believe your philosophy is correct and beneficial, but it requires you to manipulate others and get them to disbelieve in your own philosophy (and therefore act against their own interests) in order to further yours. Just making sure I understand.

I believe my philosphy is correct and beneficial to me. I'm attempting to maximize my rewards.

I think it's pretty clear that there is a universal morality. Human well-being is a measurable quantity. We can experimentally determine what makes humanity thrive. That is what is good.

No, there is no universal morality. You're using some very vague definitions such as "well being" and "thrive". How do we define a person's well being? Is it simply nutritional level and ability to procreate? A self assessment? (which people lie on all the time) And how do you define humanity thriving?

You can't tell when a human being is happy and healthy? Do you possess a complete lack of empathy? That would explain a lot actually.

I'm looking for hard numbers. An objective ability to say that person X is better off than person Y because of factors A, B, and C in the specified quantities. But no, I don't have empathy for random people. I can emphathize with close friends but random strangers? I find their horribly disfiguring injuries to be fascinating in the same way that people find a limestone cave fascinating.

We already know what makes humans thrive. And we know that fear, hate, and ignorance are not among them. That is what makes people ban things like violent video games (and drugs, and homosexuality, and interracial marriage, and jazz music, and pornography, and hijabs, and so on. None of these things are anywhere near as dangerous as the people who seek to ban them).

Define "what makes humans thrive", since right there all I see is "What makes Hatta happy".

That was not a list of things that make humans thrive. That was a list of things that have been banned for no reason besides moral panic. I was trying to show how we've banned things in the past based on emotion, and then realized that it was wrong to do so. We should consider that before we ban things in the future.

I think "wrong" isn't the right word here. It implies a static morality. We've done a long list of things throughout human history that we now find reprehensible. And in all likelyhood our descendants will look back at us and wonder how we could be so horrible. We decide at one point we don't like something, then we decide later that we're ok with it. This is a natural evolution of social norms.

But since you asked, food, water, and shelter are a good start. Strong social bonds are important, as is feeling that you make an appreciated contribution to society. We have an intuitive understanding of all this as humans (well most of us do), but we can also demonstrate this empirically by measuring things like cortisol levels.

Good. I like empericism. It lets us get into the real meat and potatoes, which is how we handle the fact that not everyone reacts to something in the same way. For example, let's say we have three people. Let's say they all start at some base level of happiness, call it 0. Now we're trying to decide if dancing should be allowed or not. If we allow dancing then person 1 will gain 20 happiness but persons 2 & 3 will lose 100 happiness. If we disallow dancing then person 1 will lose 200 happiness but persons 2 & 3 will gain 100 happiness. Which way do we go?

Again, if you don't want something banned then you gotta speak out and say so. If the only people speaking are those who want something banned then it makes sense to ban it.

This is a wildly unsupported notion you have. Complaining is not a productive activity. Therefore if you run things based on the wishes of the complainers instead of the producers, you will have a less productive society. On the contrary, if you know a certain portion of your society is composed of vocal bigots who are always trying to ban things because they're ignorant and fearful it makes sense to require actual evidence that something is harmful before you ban it.

I'm not sure how you arrived at your conclusion. I'm not talking about complaining. I'm talking about two sides who have differing points of view and only one can win out. If one side doesn't think their point of view is worth taking the time to speak out on then it only makes sense to me to go to the other side. You know who else were vocal bigots in their day? Abolitionists. All of them were trying to destroy the southern way of life. Excluding people's opinions based on how crazy you think they are is quite anti-democratic. If they really are crazy then the majority won't agree with them. Our current non-voting felon stance is already close to that, but at least it is justifiable; if they are unwilling to live by our contract then they have no right to shape it.

Also, I am speaking out. If you haven't noticed I speak out at every opportunity. If you want me to shut up about the War on Drug Users, write to your congressperson and get it ended.

I don't care that you speak out on it; it's something that's important to you and it's good that you're participating in the process, regardless of whether or not I agree on your stance. What gets me riled up is when you act like it's the only logical course of action; that the anti-drug stance is based solely on people trying to keep you down because they feed on your suffering.