What do you think gives you the right to play someone?
Completely a question. No hidden meaning. Just curious as to what makes people do it. Is it Because its easy? can be fun?
41-45, F
Top | Newest First | Oldest First
Keepitsimple · 51-55, F
SatyrService · M
for me, it has to be about [b]consent[/b].
[i]when you climb into a boxing ring[/i], You [b]consent[/b] to letting someone else possibly will hurt you, by climbing in, you consent to that
[i]when you sit at a poker table[/i], you are [b]consenting,[/b] to let another possibly win your wallet.
[i]When I encounter a person,[/i] that has chosen to be a "Badfellow" a person who takes advantage of others, to lie and cheat and steal and con. I take that as [b]consent[/b], that they may be on the receiving end of that same behavior.
[i]THEY have chosen[/i] to step in the ring, to sit at the gaming table.
thus I feel no compunction, to treat them fairly, they get what they deserve, and Well, I am occasionally happy to oblige.
[i]when you climb into a boxing ring[/i], You [b]consent[/b] to letting someone else possibly will hurt you, by climbing in, you consent to that
[i]when you sit at a poker table[/i], you are [b]consenting,[/b] to let another possibly win your wallet.
[i]When I encounter a person,[/i] that has chosen to be a "Badfellow" a person who takes advantage of others, to lie and cheat and steal and con. I take that as [b]consent[/b], that they may be on the receiving end of that same behavior.
[i]THEY have chosen[/i] to step in the ring, to sit at the gaming table.
thus I feel no compunction, to treat them fairly, they get what they deserve, and Well, I am occasionally happy to oblige.
View 6 more replies »
BalmyNites · F
@SatyrService I'm sorry, but I cannot agree with that, as like it or not, police officers have the right in common law to stop/search under PACE, these requirements enhanced by the more recent factors of terrorism, TA (2,000). The government has a duty of care to protect the public, even whereby a certain minority may disagree.
BalmyNites · F
@SatyrService One example for you: the police/security services receive intelligence that there is to be a car bomb attack outside Westminster Parliament on a specific day/date. There is no way of knowing WHO will be driving the vehicle, nor indeed, which vehicle it is going to be. Therefore, there MUST be the right to stop & search ALL vehicles & pedestrians in that vicinity - regardless of WHO & whether they might object. This is a Utilitarian decision - 'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people'
SatyrService · M
@BalmyNites thank you for your thoughtful reply,
I agree there are often extenuating circumstances, a traffic checkpoint like you describe, is at least going to apply to [b]all[/b] passing thru.
But threats are often exaggerated, here in the states, flimsy excuses are often used for traffic stops. "your tail light is flickering, or "there is dirt on your car tag". when the real reason is something else, a political bumper sticker, or conformation to some perceived Criminal Class.
Consent, at that point [i]will not help you[/i], but it is important, that people know that force, not right, is what pertains. you can ask, at a traffic stop
"Am I free to go?" if not, then you are under arrest, and certain rights and procedures take over.
[b]'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people'
[/b] is a good point of consideration, and practically useful,
but it does open the door to
abuse as well. Similar stances have resulted in Injustice.
I do not think it right, that the rights of an innocent one, should be overridden by the needs of many.
and of course [i]no criminal would consent[/i], to being arrested, hence my suggestion, that [i]choosing to be a criminal type[/i], accepts the risk of being caught, and suffering the consequences.
Coercion, the opposite of Consent, has been used to make innocent person commit crimes. I feel this allows that they be seen as Not= guilty
@BalmyNites would you use the above argument, the credible Bomb threat scenario as a justification for torture?,
I agree there are often extenuating circumstances, a traffic checkpoint like you describe, is at least going to apply to [b]all[/b] passing thru.
But threats are often exaggerated, here in the states, flimsy excuses are often used for traffic stops. "your tail light is flickering, or "there is dirt on your car tag". when the real reason is something else, a political bumper sticker, or conformation to some perceived Criminal Class.
Consent, at that point [i]will not help you[/i], but it is important, that people know that force, not right, is what pertains. you can ask, at a traffic stop
"Am I free to go?" if not, then you are under arrest, and certain rights and procedures take over.
[b]'the greatest amount of good for the greatest number of people'
[/b] is a good point of consideration, and practically useful,
but it does open the door to
abuse as well. Similar stances have resulted in Injustice.
I do not think it right, that the rights of an innocent one, should be overridden by the needs of many.
and of course [i]no criminal would consent[/i], to being arrested, hence my suggestion, that [i]choosing to be a criminal type[/i], accepts the risk of being caught, and suffering the consequences.
Coercion, the opposite of Consent, has been used to make innocent person commit crimes. I feel this allows that they be seen as Not= guilty
@BalmyNites would you use the above argument, the credible Bomb threat scenario as a justification for torture?,
BalmyNites · F
Moonbeamsglow · 41-45, F
@BalmyNites i agree. Just seems like people dont have heart anymore
EugenieLaBorgia · F
Some people go to great lengths in convincing others of their charlatan identities. It is a most damaging pursuit!
SW-User
Nothing. I never would.
Unless they fucked with me.
And still I won’t play. I’ll go right at them directly.
Unless they fucked with me.
And still I won’t play. I’ll go right at them directly.