College Internet Regulations

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xenonight2

Maybe you shouldn't be breaking the law and stealing?

Just a thought.

---

Alright, not going to bother arguing with you, just going to state two things.

1. Most of the stuff wouldn't be illegally obtained. A lot of stuff on Youtube isn't copyrighted, I never said it's going to be for stealing music videos and such. You can ASSUME whatever you want, but don't lecture me based upon your assumptions.

2. I went to Honda Civic tour.
It had four bands there.
Kadawatha, New Found Glory, Tegan and Sara, Paramore.
The last three in that list ALL made specific remarks about people obtaining their music illegally.
What was that remark that they all said?
"Thank you guys too, for helping the music industry grow and gain exposure".


Now if I wanted to download music off of Youtube;

Simply put, I am not going to pay for EVERY bit of music I want. I don't have $5000 to spend on songs off of iTunes. Nor do most people. I can go on YOUTUBE and LISTEN to the song for FREE. Now, why should there be limitations on that? If the band put their music up THEMSELVES for FREE on Youtube, and I can simply access Youtube from my phone on WiFi around campus, what difference does it make if I simply play the song without the video by downloading it to my iPod itself in mp3 format?


Also, whoever had the first reply:

I wasn't talking about what they CAN do, I was talking about what they WILL do.
No college is going to monitor every website you go to. Why? You have thousands of kids using the internet, each one probably accessing thousands of web-pages (especially with Facebook) and hundreds of unique URLs each day. Good luck monitoring all of that content.

Also, they can monitor downloads and probably do, but for what file sizes? If I download a 2kb file, they obviously aren't going to care. I have downloaded about 16GB in legally purchased games off of Steam, and they didn't care. I just want to know, are they watching or is that not enough to concern them, and how do they judge when to take action. Basically, if I download a ton of files from Youtube that are funny videos, but their filename is 34985.flv, it's unfeasible for them to take action because they'd have to trace each one back to the specific video page, which would take time, and see if there is copyrighted content. Plus, could they even see WHAT i am downloading off that page with that filename? They'd have to see the name of all .flv files on the page, etc.



I know torrents aren't allowed, illegal at least, and are tracked heavily.




Also:

Yes, I do download music illegally, videos to.
I pay for ALL of my games however. I also pay for some music that I really enjoy after obtaining illegally.
I do volunteer community service and pay a lot to attend college.
I am going into a field that is mainly there to help people. Not denying the salary is good, but I am going into research so a lot of my own money will be used up for that.
I follow the law normally. I don't speed and I drive safely.
I am extremely courteous. I help others with homework, help people with anything they need when I see them.

Why did I just mention all that?
Because if someone has a problem with me downloading music illegally just to see if I like it when it's already hosted for free on the internet, especially after all the good that I do and am going to do in the future, then they have a strange ethics system. Boo hoo for them, I am going to enjoy my music while I study medical law tonight. ;) Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

1. Most of the stuff wouldn't be illegally obtained. A lot of stuff on Youtube isn't copyrighted, I never said it's going to be for stealing music videos and such. You can ASSUME whatever you want, but don't lecture me based upon your assumptions.

---

In your first post: "my intent is to get music and videos off of Youtube using Firefox plugins (legal and possibly copyrighted content)." No need to assume, you said it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

2. I went to Honda Civic tour.
It had four bands there.
Kadawatha, New Found Glory, Tegan and Sara, Paramore.
The last three in that list ALL made specific remarks about people obtaining their music illegally.
What was that remark that they all said?
"Thank you guys too, for helping the music industry grow and gain exposure".

---

Irrelevant authority.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Yes, I do download music illegally, videos to.
I pay for ALL of my games however. I also pay for some music that I really enjoy after obtaining illegally.
I do volunteer community service and pay a lot to attend college.
I am going into a field that is mainly there to help people. Not denying the salary is good, but I am going into research so a lot of my own money will be used up for that.
I follow the law normally. I don't speed and I drive safely.
I am extremely courteous. I help others with homework, help people with anything they need when I see them.

Why did I just mention all that?
Because if someone has a problem with me downloading music illegally just to see if I like it when it's already hosted for free on the internet, especially after all the good that I do and am going to do in the future, then they have a strange ethics system. Boo hoo for them, I am going to enjoy my music while I study medical law tonight. ;) Cheers.

---

It still doesn't justify it. And about using your money for research: grants, yo.

Lol I hardly lectured you. I made a pithy two line post and you kind of went overboard defending yrself.

Kind of makes you look insecure, no offense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Alright, not going to bother arguing with you, just going to state two things.

1. Most of the stuff wouldn't be illegally obtained. A lot of stuff on Youtube isn't copyrighted, I never said it's going to be for stealing music videos and such. You can ASSUME whatever you want, but don't lecture me based upon your assumptions.

2. I went to Honda Civic tour.
It had four bands there.
Kadawatha, New Found Glory, Tegan and Sara, Paramore.
The last three in that list ALL made specific remarks about people obtaining their music illegally.
What was that remark that they all said?
"Thank you guys too, for helping the music industry grow and gain exposure".


Now if I wanted to download music off of Youtube;

Simply put, I am not going to pay for EVERY bit of music I want. I don't have $5000 to spend on songs off of iTunes. Nor do most people. I can go on YOUTUBE and LISTEN to the song for FREE. Now, why should there be limitations on that? If the band put their music up THEMSELVES for FREE on Youtube, and I can simply access Youtube from my phone on WiFi around campus, what difference does it make if I simply play the song without the video by downloading it to my iPod itself in mp3 format?


Also, whoever had the first reply:

I wasn't talking about what they CAN do, I was talking about what they WILL do.
No college is going to monitor every website you go to. Why? You have thousands of kids using the internet, each one probably accessing thousands of web-pages (especially with Facebook) and hundreds of unique URLs each day. Good luck monitoring all of that content.

Also, they can monitor downloads and probably do, but for what file sizes? If I download a 2kb file, they obviously aren't going to care. I have downloaded about 16GB in legally purchased games off of Steam, and they didn't care. I just want to know, are they watching or is that not enough to concern them, and how do they judge when to take action. Basically, if I download a ton of files from Youtube that are funny videos, but their filename is 34985.flv, it's unfeasible for them to take action because they'd have to trace each one back to the specific video page, which would take time, and see if there is copyrighted content. Plus, could they even see WHAT i am downloading off that page with that filename? They'd have to see the name of all .flv files on the page, etc.



I know torrents aren't allowed, illegal at least, and are tracked heavily.




Also:

Yes, I do download music illegally, videos to.
I pay for ALL of my games however. I also pay for some music that I really enjoy after obtaining illegally.
I do volunteer community service and pay a lot to attend college.
I am going into a field that is mainly there to help people. Not denying the salary is good, but I am going into research so a lot of my own money will be used up for that.
I follow the law normally. I don't speed and I drive safely.
I am extremely courteous. I help others with homework, help people with anything they need when I see them.

Why did I just mention all that?
Because if someone has a problem with me downloading music illegally just to see if I like it when it's already hosted for free on the internet, especially after all the good that I do and am going to do in the future, then they have a strange ethics system. Boo hoo for them, I am going to enjoy my music while I study medical law tonight. ;) Cheers.

---

633 word argument

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrwafflez

alright, not going to bother arguing with you, just going to state two things.

---

huge shitstorm incoming!

Cloud and Xeno sound like my parents

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Paladuck

Cloud and Xeno sound like my parents

:)

---

:D

Am I your mom or dad?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Alright, not going to bother arguing with you, just going to state two things.

1. Most of the stuff wouldn't be illegally obtained. A lot of stuff on Youtube isn't copyrighted, I never said it's going to be for stealing music videos and such. You can ASSUME whatever you want, but don't lecture me based upon your assumptions.

2. I went to Honda Civic tour.
It had four bands there.
Kadawatha, New Found Glory, Tegan and Sara, Paramore.
The last three in that list ALL made specific remarks about people obtaining their music illegally.
What was that remark that they all said?
"Thank you guys too, for helping the music industry grow and gain exposure".

---

Okay, that's two things, fair eno-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Now if I wanted to download music off of Youtube;

---

Oh dear lord.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Simply put, I am not going to pay for EVERY bit of music I want. I don't have $5000 to spend on songs off of iTunes. Nor do most people. I can go on YOUTUBE and LISTEN to the song for FREE. Now, why should there be limitations on that? If the band put their music up THEMSELVES for FREE on Youtube, and I can simply access Youtube from my phone on WiFi around campus, what difference does it make if I simply play the song without the video by downloading it to my iPod itself in mp3 format?

---

Look, it was just a-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Also, whoever had the first reply:

I wasn't talking about what they CAN do, I was talking about what they WILL do.
No college is going to monitor every website you go to. Why? You have thousands of kids using the internet, each one probably accessing thousands of web-pages (especially with Facebook) and hundreds of unique URLs each day. Good luck monitoring all of that content.

Also, they can monitor downloads and probably do, but for what file sizes? If I download a 2kb file, they obviously aren't going to care. I have downloaded about 16GB in legally purchased games off of Steam, and they didn't care. I just want to know, are they watching or is that not enough to concern them, and how do they judge when to take action. Basically, if I download a ton of files from Youtube that are funny videos, but their filename is 34985.flv, it's unfeasible for them to take action because they'd have to trace each one back to the specific video page, which would take time, and see if there is copyrighted content. Plus, could they even see WHAT i am downloading off that page with that filename? They'd have to see the name of all .flv files on the page, etc.

---

Okay, surely it's kind of hypocritical that you are now agrui-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

I know torrents aren't allowed, illegal at least, and are tracked heavily.

---

Yes, bu-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Also:

---

Bu-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Yes, I do download music illegally, videos to.
I pay for ALL of my games however. I also pay for some music that I really enjoy after obtaining illegally.
I do volunteer community service and pay a lot to attend college.
I am going into a field that is mainly there to help people. Not denying the salary is good, but I am going into research so a lot of my own money will be used up for that.
I follow the law normally. I don't speed and I drive safely.
I am extremely courteous. I help others with homework, help people with anything they need when I see them.

---

Listen to m-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Why did I just mention all that?

---

I'm wondering too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Because if someone has a problem with me downloading music illegally just to see if I like it when it's already hosted for free on the internet, especially after all the good that I do and am going to do in the future, then they have a strange ethics system. Boo hoo for them, I am going to enjoy my music while I study medical law tonight. ;) Cheers.

---

Fuh.

Holy shit, you are the most insecure person I have ever seen on this forum.
Xeno gave you a suggestion, you write your entire life story.

You are trying to defend yourself while its not even needed.

You people do realize that my original post had six edits, right?

That's why it went on after the two points.


Also, yes, my true character. I type 100 WPM and thus I type a lot, so I am more than willing to lecture idiots. My bad, didn't realize responding to someone's opinion, written in a short couple of sentences, with an excellent justification totaling around 650 words wasn't allowed in modern society.

Not my fault I am more educated and thus I have more to say on the subject.


Also, the argument part was mainly meaning I am not going to sit here and argue post after post, the two points thing was the original post before it got edited and edited. In hindsight I probably should have just removed that during my second edit, didn't realize people would have a shitstorm over it.


Anyways, I don't want to argue. I stated my points, and I could easily use this time to write up arguments to the rebuttals, but I am not going to. He stated his point, I have a right to state mine. That's not an argument, that's trading opinions. Arguing would be if I kept attacking his points and tried to convince him I am right time after time.

If you tell me your favorite color is blue, and I quote you and say "Not wanting to argue, but the best color is red". That's not an argument, that's me SAYING my opinion compared to yours, with no intent of arguing. I never said anything saying he should see things as I do, although I did get a little angrier at the end for completely negligence of common sense, but I was never trying to persuade him, simply show him MY thought process. Did it take a lot of words to show a thought process, yes, it did.


I also find it hilarious that Arri joins in, as he has a history of being butthurt by me so he likes to find any opportunity to be angry at me ;) Love you too.




Oh noes he types a lot, call the cyber police. Anyone want an essay on a specific topic? How about Starbursts, and why they are superior to Skittles? I could easily crank out an essay ranging from 500-1000 words within, oh say, ten minutes.




Now, does anyone here actually have an answer that isn't completely irrelevant to the question that was asked? What is the legality of downloading content off of Youtube? I have already stated my curiosity, and if it turns out to be illegal I will refrain from doing it.




I also fail to see how it makes me look insecure. Perhaps it makes me look like I type a lot to express my points because I am educated and able to type at a speed that does not prohibit me from getting work done on the side. You guys just like to make it seem like I am insecure, when in reality I am very secure. My points are justified, and if you don't want to believe them that's fine. I just find it hilarious to see all the low self-esteem people who obviously torrent things themselves posting in here just for the sake of attacking one person to feel better about themselves.

Oh, you don't know psychology, my bad.





Now, answer the question so I can write my essay about Skittles and Starbursts and then invite Norrin and that other guy (has the military-ish avatar) in here for some actual educated debating about two great candies.






Lol.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kain222

Okay, that's two things, fair eno-



Oh dear lord.



Look, it was just a-




Okay, surely it's kind of hypocritical that you are now agrui-





Yes, bu-






Bu-



Listen to m-


I'm wondering too.



Fuh.

---

Lulz were had.

i'm so gay

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

You people do realize that my original post had six edits, right?

That's why it went on after the two points.


Also, yes, my true character. I type 100 WPM and thus I type a lot, so I am more than willing to lecture idiots. My bad, didn't realize responding to someone's opinion, written in a short couple of sentences, with an excellent justification totaling around 650 words wasn't allowed in modern society.

Not my fault I am more educated and thus I have more to say on the subject.

---

That sounds pretty defensive right there. Especially saying that your education has something to do with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

If you tell me your favorite color is blue, and I quote you and say "Not wanting to argue, but the best color is red". That's not an argument, that's me SAYING my opinion compared to yours, with no intent of arguing. I never said anything saying he should see things as I do, although I did get a little angrier at the end for completely negligence of common sense, but I was never trying to persuade him, simply show him MY thought process. Did it take a lot of words to show a thought process, yes, it did.

---

Actually your example is an argument. Stating your opinion would be, "My favorite color is red." The "best" part, and even the "not wanting to argue," turn it into a debate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

I also find it hilarious that Arri joins in, as he has a history of being butthurt by me so he likes to find any opportunity to be angry at me ;) Love you too.

---

Arri =/= male. Lols.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Oh noes he types a lot, call the cyber police. Anyone want an essay on a specific topic? How about Starbursts, and why they are superior to Skittles? I could easily crank out an essay ranging from 500-1000 words within, oh say, ten minutes.

---

I prefer Skittles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Now, does anyone here actually have an answer that isn't completely irrelevant to the question that was asked? What is the legality of downloading content off of Youtube? I have already stated my curiosity, and if it turns out to be illegal I will refrain from doing it.

---

Downloading copyrighted materials is illegal.

Let's take things down a notch here...

It's highly unlikely that your college is monitoring everything everyone does on the internet. They are most likely monitoring ports that are associated with torrenting, peer-2-peer and other forms of file sharing, hence why you can download massive Steam games with no issue. If they see you downloading a huge chunk of data via one of the ports, they may investigate further, they may not.

To test this, download Linux distros or other large, open source files via torrents. If they call you up on it then it's likely they're not actively monitoring what it is you download, just that you download with something commonly mistaken for being illegal.

Grabbing things from YouTube is probably very hard to track. When you watch a YouTube video, it is temporarily stored on your hard drive anyway. Downloading it again via an .FLV grabber shouldn't be a problem.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Murxidon

Let's take things down a notch here...

It's highly unlikely that your college is monitoring everything everyone does on the internet. They are most likely monitoring ports that are associated with torrenting, peer-2-peer and other forms of file sharing, hence why you can download massive Steam games with no issue. If they see you downloading a huge chunk of data via one of the ports, they may investigate further, they may not.

To test this, download Linux distros or other large, open source files via torrents. If they call you up on it then it's likely they're not actively monitoring what it is you download, just that you download with something commonly mistaken for being illegal.

Grabbing things from YouTube is probably very hard to track. When you watch a YouTube video, it is temporarily stored on your hard drive anyway. Downloading it again via an .FLV grabber shouldn't be a problem.

---

Thank you very much good sir. :)

MrWafflez I like you a lot don't blow all your credibility over this.

dichotomy

10dichotomies

Just remember;
Lots of places don't have Minecraft blocked.

You don't need anything else.

At first they'll be like: YOU! You downloaded illegal stuff, we're ban hammering you now!

http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/3...5024824108.jpg

Then you'll go: But but, why!?

http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/2...2570967018.jpg

And then they'll go:

http://img836.imageshack.us/img836/7835/465489465.jpg

Regards, Uncle Dolan.

Protip: I wouldn't risk downloading anything illegal on Campus internet. Just to be sure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

Third, really? It may seem like a weird ethics system, but isn't it in all reality a more reasonable one? If a doctor saves the lives of 100 people that would have died otherwise, but then kills one in a fit of rage, should he receive the same punishment for that act as any other man?

---

Didn't read the rest because I couldn't get by this incredible stupid line....Yes he/she should doctors save people because it is their job and they swore and oath. If he/she goes off and kills someone that in one way shape or form breaks the laws of the nation he/she resides or his oath (i.e assisted suicide) he should and would be put behind bars like any other criminal.

Just because "your a nice guy" doesn't mean you should get a "get out of jail free card"

I mean really do you honestly believe that...and no it is not a reasonable one, the reasonable action is to not kill someone and if you do you get the same punishment as others who did the same crime simple is as simple does.

scorpio


p.s The assisted suicide i believe would actually be classified as negligent homicide or manslaughter depending upon the method or if the doctor is the one who did the final act or just set it up for the patient to do it. Either way the doctor should receive the full punishment as any other individual would.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratscorpio

Didn't read the rest because I couldn't get by this incredible stupid line....Yes he/she should doctors save people because it is their job and they swore and oath. If he/she goes off and kills someone that in one way shape or form breaks the laws of the nation he/she resides or his oath (i.e assisted suicide) he should and would be put behind bars like any other criminal.

Just because "your a nice guy" doesn't mean you should get a "get out of jail free card"

I mean really do you honestly believe that...and no it is not a reasonable one, the reasonable action is to not kill someone and if you do you get the same punishment as others who did the same crime simple is as simple does.

scorpio


p.s The assisted suicide i believe would actually be classified as negligent homicide or manslaughter depending upon the method or if the doctor is the one who did the final act or just set it up for the patient to do it. Either way the doctor should receive the full punishment as any other individual would.

---

You honestly believe that if a doctor, who has saved the lives of HUNDREDS of people, catches his wife in bed with another guy and in a sudden fit of rage goes too far and shoots him, should be subject to the same sentence that a drug dealer who has done no good for society and has hooked HUNDREDS of teens on cocaine and meth, and finds himself in the same situation and commits the same crime would get?


Really?



To be honest, that is shocking to me..



That's like saying it doesn't matter what you do with your life, whether you cure cancer or sleep on the streets doing cocaine, you're still on the same level in theory.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

If a doctor saves the lives of 100 people that would have died otherwise, but then kills one in a fit of rage, should he receive the same punishment for that act as any other man?

---

Yes. His sentence would most likely be less severe, but there's no way he should escape punishment.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

That's a problem we're facing currently anyways, as overpopulation becomes a problem and so do issues with money and healthcare, we have to face the issue about prolonging the lives of the elderly just for the sake of it being ethically wrong to let them die.

I for one thing we need some boundaries to where we stop treating someone. The millions and millions of dollars spent to pay for prescription drugs to keep the elderly alive in their homes where they do nothing all day but watch TV and talk on the phone, it's a little ridiculous, don't you agree?

I know when I am that old, I don't want to have my life prolonged just for the sake of being able to. If I became incapable of performing daily household chores, and I can hardly hear or see, I do not want to be a burden on anyone or use up government resources.

---

Overpopulation isn't a problem, yet. But that's a wholly different topic. People have the choice to live or die.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

If I give $100,000 to charities, should I not be able to take $10,000 in illegally obtained content without people getting mad? That's my view, I don't know what you guys believe, but I believe in a system where if my net outcome in life, defined by arbitrarily created numbers to represent good and bad deeds, is still strongly positive, then I have done good for the world, and thus why should I be punished by my actions that are minuscule compared to the amount of good.

Not saying you should give $100,000 and take back $90,000, since then it wouldn't be minuscule. However if you only take back $2,000, what is the overall harm compared to the overall benefit?

I would honestly love to here other peoples' opinions on the way ethics should be.

Also, just a quick last note after that huge off-topic yet incredibly interesting subject, my system is less about doing bad now and good in the future. It's that I am doing good throughout, and have been doing good throughout, thus I can throw in a tiny amount of bad here and there. Not like I am distributing the content to thousands of other people, as I keep the uploading rates down (which is bad in it's own way, the irony), I just take music for free to see if I like it, if I do I might keep it, if I like it a lot (Paramore, Metric, etc.) I buy the albums. Not to mention, if I like it a lot, I also go and buy merchandise and concert tickets.

---

Consequentialism

vs

Deontological ethics

You clearly believe in the former.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Cloud13

Yes. His sentence would most likely be less severe, but there's no way he should escape punishment.



Overpopulation isn't a problem, yet. But that's a wholly different topic. People have the choice to live or die.



Consequentialism

vs

Deontological ethics

You clearly believe in the former.

---

Oh you don't have to link me to the different types of ethical believes, I know all about them. I just don't believe any one suits my beliefs in their entirety, so I choose not to classify myself.

Also, I understand overpopulation isn't a problem yet, but it will be, and the other listed problem about the cost of medical supplies under federally funded programs is a problem (varying in magnitude depending upon how you see it).



Also, no no no, NEVER should he get off completely.
I just believe his sentence should be less.
I believe WHO committed the crime and WHO the crime was committed on should be considered in court cases in addition to WHY he did it and WHAT he did.

In a case based on a decision that was made when one was being driven by emotions, the actions need to be dealt with differently, that is already done. However, if that reduces the sentence from 10 years to 7 years, I believe that depending upon who committed the crime, it should potentially be lowered even a couple years more.


If you have one of the best doctors in the world who made a decision clearly based upon an outburst of anger, and who truly isn't a real threat to society and is almost completely clear of an psychological condition that would make us believe he would ever do it again or ever be a danger, then why keep him locked up for those 7 years? Why not give him a sentence of 3 years?


Three years in prison is still a long time..





Or in a case where the normal sentence is 2 weeks in jail, why not give him 1 weeks of house arrest when not at the hospital instead of his second week. Etc.


Nothing extremely major, and no getting off entirely.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrWafflez

You honestly believe that if a doctor, who has saved the lives of HUNDREDS of people, catches his wife in bed with another guy and in a sudden fit of rage goes too far and shoots him, should be subject to the same sentence that a drug dealer who has done no good for society and has hooked HUNDREDS of teens on cocaine and meth, and finds himself in the same situation and commits the same crime would get?


Really?



To be honest, that is shocking to me..



That's like saying it doesn't matter what you do with your life, whether you cure cancer or sleep on the streets doing cocaine, you're still on the same level in theory.

---

Your are right the doctor is a better person obviously but the law is the law being a better person doesn't mean you can do as you please.

In the case of the law and punishment due to breaking the law you are equal, sure you might get a few less years but you'll still be put away, and no donating 100 grand does not entitle you to steal 10grand worth of stuff. Did that 10 grand of stuff come from the charity you donated to? How did it in any shape of form help those you stole from? Helping others does not entitle you to hurt others weather it be financial or physical or phycological.

Think about what the world would be like...no it would not be a happier place, that kind of system would cause more suffering than happiness. Also if you donated 100 grand you would get a decent cut back from taxes enabling you to purchase that 10 grand of stuff you would of other wise stole, and if you had 100 grand lying around to be able to just give it away why would you steal stuff?

Your method is shocking to me to be honest because you are basically saying I should be able to do what ever I want as long as I am nice to at least one person or do nice thing for a couple of years...just because you gave does not make it right to take.

If the doctor came home caught his wife cheating and killed the man he deserves the punishment regardless of previous actions, if someone cures cancer awesome! But they should not be allowed to do as they please just because of that accomplishment.

Just saying I am glad the worlds ethics do not work as you would like to be honest.
(at least in most countries)

scorpio

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gratscorpio

Your are right the doctor is a better person obviously but the law is the law being a better person doesn't mean you can do as you please.

In the case of the law and punishment due to breaking the law you are equal, sure you might get a few less years but you'll still be put away, and no donating 100 grand does not entitle you to steal 10grand worth of stuff. Did that 10 grand of stuff come from the charity you donated to? How did it in any shape of form help those you stole from? Helping others does not entitle you to hurt others weather it be financial or physical or phycological.

Think about what the world would be like...no it would not be a happier place, that kind of system would cause more suffering than happiness. Also if you donated 100 grand you would get a decent cut back from taxes enabling you to purchase that 10 grand of stuff you would of other wise stole, and if you had 100 grand lying around to be able to just give it away why would you steal stuff?

Your method is shocking to me to be honest because you are basically saying I should be able to do what ever I want as long as I am nice to at least one person or do nice thing for a couple of years...just because you gave does not make it right to take.

If the doctor came home caught his wife cheating and killed the man he deserves the punishment regardless of previous actions, if someone cures cancer awesome! But they should not be allowed to do as they please just because of that accomplishment.

Just saying I am glad the worlds ethics do not work as you would like to be honest.
(at least in most countries)

scorpio

---

Never say that statement.
I specifically said the good must significantly outweigh the bad.

Also, you look too much at WHY. It doesn't matter WHY you stole it if it's so small.


Maybe you forgot your wallet, so you steal a pack of gum from a store.




Alright, so now you stole. Let's say you get caught. In reality, the person who caught you, the owner, would act differently:

For a rich doctor, he would say sorry I forgot my wallet and wanted this pack of gum for when I go back to the hospital.

The guy would either;

1. Say it's fine, take the gum back, and nothing else would happen.
2. Give him the gum free.
3. Say he would trust him to come back and pay for it later when he has his wallet.


For a random homeless person, he would say sorry.

The guy would either;

1. Yell at him angrily and tell him to put the gum back and get out.
2. Yell at him angrily and threaten to call the cops if he doesn't get out.
3. Take the gum back and tell him to get out.



That's my theory in practice. The doctor does SO much good to society, that such a TINY act can be forgiven and alternate choices are there. For someone who does no good to society, he doesn't get those privileges of trust and gifts.



Like I said, you guys are taking this an extreme, which is an interesting concept, but not my view or theory. I don't believe they should get off the hook, and you already said a few less years might be given. THAT'S my concept on ethics of law.




Not that the guy should get off the hook, but that he should be given alternative punishments and options, and should receive less strict disciplinary acts. Fair enough, right?