I guess an inward vs an outward focus.. the old "I'm Ok/You're OK" dichotomy. Some are "I'm OK/You're not OK" and some are "I'm not OK/You're OK." It's the "I'm not OK/You're Not OK" folks you really have to watch out for.
See, I've heard of that nward vs outward idea, but when I heard of it, the way it was presented was as a female only trait, and I didn't even recall it until now to realize how bullshit that is. Anyone can have any of those four dichotomies you listed.
I can't remember if it was this forum, or somewhere else I used to frequent, but one of the posters had as their signature something close to this: "Sometimes, every man is tempted to raise the black flag and start slitting throats." It's the same thing as what you're saying. I also respect Zero Esc's perspective, where this instinct could easily be turned inward. I've experienced both ends of this at various times in my life, so I do understand both at an emotional (not just logical) level. You both have my sympathies.
There are different levels of desire to do something. Making it more difficult will eliminate the cases of that thing done in the spur of the moment, and also the ones where the 'doer' is not willing or doesn't know how to overcome whichever difficulties you've put in place.
I'm always flabbergasted when people say things like this. I get that this makes sense to you but… man… I just… I mean, really?
It's more even outside the law for me. If you're fucked up enough to murder somebody else, obviously things like "laws" mean nothing to you in the first place. You're just that broken already. So layering even more laws on top of it seems like a "why do you expect them to abide by this, when they're clearly screwed up to begin with?" That's why I don't see the use for more than simple laws. But I may be in the minority here. I dunno.
Yes.
Actually, there's already laws in place that say somone who is "mentally defective" is placed in a database and not allowed to buy a gun.
You're not alone, but neither is Espy. There are more people every day who think that government should not only tell you what you can and can't do, but also make laws to try to make it not only illegal but impossible for you to do certain things. I think the main difference comes from what you see as the role of the government - is it there as a solution of first resort, or last? Is it a nanny, or a policeman?
It could be a case of removing temptation rather than "oh they didn't obey that law but surely they'll obey this law". For instance if someone made you (hypothetical "you" not you you) so angry that you pulled out a gun and shot and then immediately realised what you did and were horrified, it's already too late and you've killed someone.
There's a difference between requiring a food preparation service to meet cleanliness standards and telling you what you can and can't do to with your own body "for your own good."
I'll concede you another grey area - transplantation of potentially harmful species. Although, despite best efforts, we've still got killer bees and fire ants.
It's pretty easy to find it, just Google for "maggot cheese." Then there's those puffer fish, or cassava root, or anything containing massive amounts of caffeine.
And if it's for society's good, because emergency rooms can only handle so many injuries at a given time, and if seatbelts reduce injury severity, then that means hospital services won't be as taxed?
The way I see it, the government has a role in making sure your seatbelt isn't made out of piano wire, but they shouldn't be enforcing wearing it. "Society's good" is can be a slippery slope, again, depending on who's defining what's good for society. Some people think banning gay marriage and abortion are good for society.
That shit sends me to the Spirit World way too fast.
It wasn't actually a harmful species, it was just potentially deadly to the person eating it.
There are risk compensation problems, however. Increased use of seatbelts has shown people drive at higher speeds or follow more closely than when not wearing seatbelts. Seatbelts decrease the rate of fatal injuries in car crashes, but increase the overall rate of injuries, possibly meaning that seatbelts mean the hospitals are more taxed.[DOUBLEPOST=1401465850,1401465639][/DOUBLEPOST]Not that I'm saying don't wear your seatbelt. Wear your seatbelt.
if he was poor and black and there was a bong in the background of the videos, a SWAT team would have blown off the door and killed his dog
Um, abolish all the laws because people will break them no matter what, duh.
But is that just correlation or causation? I'm not saying there's no relation, but some places people tend to be more friendly.
World poverty is at all-time low, actually.
