Debate and Discussion

Is it okay to break rules?
marine at 5:44PM, June 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,425
joined: 1-6-2006
Really, going against anything or disagreements would be punished under penalty of death or exile in my own little world. Is it okay to break rules? Even the little ones? Is it okay to tell a “white lie”? At what point do rules that are wrong need to be disobeyed, lobbied, and changed? The entire idea of protesting a rule/law seems insane. Its a strange catch-22, an impossible cyclical world that keeps repeating.

Most everything I do and say breaks somebodies rule or idea of whats normal. Even in the most basic social situations I make a complete ass of myself and then unlike other people, I don't feel the least sorry about it.

A lot of the growth in the world has come from revolutionaries or people that got so tired of their original country that they just started their own damn country… It seems like such a bizzaro world of conformist ideals, that if you're anything but like everyone else (which, we're preached at since grade school that we're all unique special little snowflakes) that you're wrong and everyone else is right.

Just some thoughts of mine. I was working on a penis story about protesting hippies and it lead me to this thread.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:52PM
Aurora Moon at 6:17PM, June 20, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Yeah, it's a funny world out there.

every indivdial has a lot of ideas that others proably wouldn't agree with.

Take me for instance, I believe that relationships between people in thier teens and adults should be tried on a Case by case basis, instead of just throwing every adult in the slammer and labelled as an sex offender.

Espeically if it happened to be two people who had been together for the longest time. By that I mean like an 18-year-old who's the boyfriend of an 16-year-old girl and they were dating ever snice they were both in thier Very young teens (think 14-16).

In that situation I don't honestly see how such an relationship is so evil. I mean honestly, there's only two years apart between them and they were together for the longest time. Just because the guy turned into an legal adult and is still dating the girl that he loves does not make him an ebophible. (if you're wondering what an ebophible is, it's the legal term for people who has an teenage fetish… much like an pedophile who likes only pre-pubsecent children).

But of course, the laws says so otherwise and there's tons of people who thinks that the laws should stay just the way it is.

I've known so many adults who had dated much older people at that young age and they didn't feel raped or taken avantage of. Take my great-grandma, for instance.. may her soul rest in peace, She was 16 years old when she married my great-grandpa, who was 19 at the time. It was perfectly consental, and they had known each other for so many years… they pratically grew up together, and so thier families were okay with it.

Nowdays…. if my grandma was that age today and happened to do that same thing she did in the past, there would be such a uproar about how the man she loved very much was taking avtanage of her. Even if he wasn't.

Yes, there should be background checks and an through invegesation in such cases, but I don't believe the older person should be made out to be the villian until there's full evidence that he/she has commited villianous acts and is fully conivcted of it.
If it turned out to be consental, and there doesn't seem to be any “grooming” going on….. then there shouldn't be anything people can do to discrimte against them.

But this is just what I believe.
Sorry, I was rambling. I meant to only use the sex offender laws as an small example…

I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
ZeroVX at 4:26AM, June 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 4,109
joined: 5-28-2006
Let me sum it up for you.

If a person breaks a law to hurt someone, that person should be punished.

If a person breaks a law to help someone, they shouldn't be punished.

Seems simple, and yet, it isn't.
“If our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost 100,000 people…..would you really wanna know?”

V for Vendetta, V.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:58PM
Nicotine at 5:38AM, June 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 494
joined: 6-18-2007
There was a situation (I forget when or where; I saw it on TV). Where a guy raped and killed somebody's young daughter, and as they were leading him to the court, her father came out and shot him dead. Do you think this was wrong? Do you think this was right? He was put on probation for 3 years, by the way.

Me? I think he was right. Those who think he was wrong? Isn't it like having sympathy for the devil?

Sometimes I think it's okay to break the rules. I guess I break a lot of “social rules”. I always tell people the truth. No white lies here. Sometimes it hurts peoples feelings. But which would you rather have? A friend that tells you a truth or a friend that allows you to keep thinking what your doing looks good/is right/whatever?
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:16PM
Aurora Moon at 2:33PM, June 21, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
Nicotine
There was a situation (I forget when or where; I saw it on TV). Where a guy raped and killed somebody's young daughter, and as they were leading him to the court, her father came out and shot him dead. Do you think this was wrong? Do you think this was right? He was put on probation for 3 years, by the way.

Me? I think he was right. Those who think he was wrong? Isn't it like having sympathy for the devil?

Sometimes I think it's okay to break the rules. I guess I break a lot of “social rules”. I always tell people the truth. No white lies here. Sometimes it hurts peoples feelings. But which would you rather have? A friend that tells you a truth or a friend that allows you to keep thinking what your doing looks good/is right/whatever?

I don't think the father was right, even though I do understand why he did it. let me explain: Prison is often hell for those types of guys. So by shooting the creep, the father basically gave the criminal the “easy way out”.

In prison, child/teen rapists often get much more brutal treatment by the other prisoner than an thief/murderer.
You see, even the majority of the prisoners has thier own conduct of honor. Sure, they could rob somebody, or even kill somebody for their own reasons that they justified in thier own minds. But to rape an child or very young teenage? Unthinkable! so they go out of thier way to make child molestors' stay worse as possible–daily beatings on a regular basis, giving them STDS/AIDS/whatever by stabbing them with a dirty needle, knife or raping them…. and even toturing them before finally killing them.
and in a lot of cases, the guards often turn thier backs to let the Child/Young Teen rapists get a taste of thier medicine.

Yeah, I understand wanting to personally kill the guy for what he did to the father's family…. but I say he's wrong because there are things worse than death, and such an criminal needs to suffer the things worse than death.
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
maritalbliss at 9:28PM, June 21, 2007
(online)
posts: 1,045
joined: 4-15-2007
Zero, here here!

As for “rules:”

I also think it depends on the “rule.” The purpose of the “rule” and your personal reason for breaking said “rule.” I break rules that I consider fascist on a daily basis, I feel no remorse for this.

If I didn't tell white lies, I would make even more people cry than I do. Sometimes, they are the only socially acceptable alternative…If I can't say somethin' nice, sometimes I don't say nothin'. But, sometimes; I'm honest and then tears ensue.

At what point do rules that are wrong need to be disobeyed, lobbied, and changed?

I think this is a personal choice and depending on how strongly you believe in the cause, you lobby. As for change? Hell if I know.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:53PM
Hawk at 10:24AM, June 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
The real problem is a person with a skewed sense of morality has a much different opinion on when it's appropriate to break a rule and why. That example of the father avenging his daughter is one that speaks to all of us because of our sense of justice, so we may not have as big a problem with it. It sounds like the father's judge and jury felt the same, because three years of probation is getting off easy for murder. And probably rightfully so.

On the other hand, some people feel justified in selling drugs because they're righting some sort of wrong. They're working their way out of a bad situation the world has but them in, but at the same time they're destroying other peoples' lives. “The ends justify the means”, some say… but I think that most criminals have justified the crime in their mind before they committed it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
ZeroVX at 10:33AM, June 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 4,109
joined: 5-28-2006
It's questions like these that make you wish for the good old days, when good and evil were clearly seen.

*sigh* When did the line become so hard to read?

“If our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost 100,000 people…..would you really wanna know?”

V for Vendetta, V.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:58PM
Roguehill at 11:06AM, June 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 211
joined: 1-3-2007
Look, look, look. That dad killing his daughter's murderer? We all know that was what was socially satisfying. Heck, that's why we HAVE the death penalty…at least in some states. The reason it's illegal to do that, though, is because having bunches of people out there who know what it's like to kill someone is bad for society. If that guy gets into another arguement, he may remember how easy it was physically and emotionally to kill a person, and then you have problems on your hands. That's why it's often the thing to do to dehumanize people we are at war with. If you think of them as “Japs” or “Fritz” instead of “Bill” or “Frank”, it separates them from the idea of killing people as they understand it.

Those people who go around breaking laws because “that's the only way change happens” are just attention-starved and should probably have counciling. The only way real change happens is when a bunch of people get together and figure out a better way to do something. The reasons laws have come into existance is because in MOST of the cases an adult and a preteen “falling in love” is just a disaster waiting to happen. Sure, you could decide on a case-by-case basis….but do you have the time and faculties to thoroughly judge every single case? How about just the cases in your county? Yep..you'd better get over taking time to sleep..it's not going to happen.

So, are laws fair in every single situation? Hell no. Are they fair in most? You bet.

We take the good with the bad until someone comes up with something better.

GHOST ZERO
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:09PM
ozoneocean at 11:24AM, June 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Laws being “fair” is relative… I wouldn't want to be accused of stealing in Saudi Arabia , or be a raped girl who went to the police in rural Pakistan for example. I don't personally consider having a hand cut off or being stoned to death very fair aspects of the law… But it's relative, maybe a lot of people in those places think those laws are reasonable?

Anyway… The mad man who shot his daughter's rapist? He should be serving real time in prison. Vigilantism is about the BREAKDOWN of law and order, the total breakdown. Visible examples like that encourage chaos, people will follow it, at least in small ways, especially if revenge is seen as justified. Reminds me of the days when lynching was seen as perfectly ok.
-not to mention lenient sentences for murder like that set legal precedents that will allow may other murderers to walk free and get off lightly, and in their cases they probably won't have the justification of a dead daughter.

It's perfectly ok to break some rules; society has to adapt and change as history moves on or it collapses in on itself. Best if it happens gradually though. Violent change is evil and WRONG for all. The most violent changes are wars and revolutions, as in the Russian revolution or the invasion of Iraq, that sort of change simply brings much more suffering to people who are already in a bad way.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:27PM
skoolmunkee at 12:00PM, June 22, 2007
(online)
posts: 7,058
joined: 1-2-2006
ozoneocean
Vigilantism is about the BREAKDOWN of law and order, the total breakdown.

I once did a sociology paper on vigilantism, I felt really smart about it when I finished. I don't remember a bit of it now. Now I kind of feel like finding it and reading it, but I think I'll be disappointed. lol!

I figure ‘is it okay to break a rule’ is a personal decision. However, a person who has broken a rule SHOULD be prepared for the consequences. What I hate is when someone knowingly breaks a rule of any kind, and then doesn't want to take responsibility for it.
  IT'S OLD BATMAN
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:40PM
Aurora Moon at 2:41PM, June 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
ZeroVX
It's questions like these that make you wish for the good old days, when good and evil were clearly seen.

*sigh* When did the line become so hard to read?

It happened when people finally realized that life isn't like movies or books, where “evil” and “good” people fit a buttload of sterotypes and only acts an certain way.

For example, in the past (think 40's to 50's), half the people believed that child molestors were only dirty-looking men in trenchcoats that lurked around alleyways waiting to kidnap kids as they walked past. As was shown in a lot of movies and stories.

In reality, child molestors don't show themselves in such an obivous way. Even in the past, they went for the most respectable-looking fronts… Priests, Doctors, Teachers and any other jobs where parents/students would be able to trust them.
People back then didn't want to realize that, or believe that child molestors could appear to seem like such respectable, normal people in a way where they felt that they could be trusted.
So of course they felt better to say: “No, only such an evil person could act and dress in a certain way.They'd have tattos, wear leather or all black most of the time…they'd be rude and lurk around alleyways! They can't possibly be priests, doctors, teachers or any other respected proffession. This way I really know what to watch out for when it comes to protecting my children!”

Also keep in mind that back then the only “evil” Were things like Satanists, people who wasn't the same race as you were, people who wasn't the same religion as you… and murderers who kill for no good reason.

Of course people know better now!
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
mystery at 6:14PM, June 22, 2007
(offline)
posts: 39
joined: 9-29-2006
Last year we were discussing this in R.E. the example we were given is that a man runs through the classroom, in one door and out the other, and hides under the window. Another person comes in a minute later with a gun, asking if we'd seen the man we'd previously seen running. Do you tell the truth because truth-telling is the right thing to do, while almost certainly giving the man a death-sentence, or do you lie, even though it's wrong to lie, and save the man's life. You may think the answer is obvious, but there are people who'll disagree.

Another example that springs to mind is prior to WWII places like Auschwitz were being used to kill the mentally retarded. I believe it is wrong to kill someone who does not want to die, but somewhere there were people ordering this who would have felt that it was the right thing to remove these burdens of society and the gene-pool.

Nicotine
There was a situation where a guy raped and killed somebody's young daughter, and as they were leading him to the court, her father came out and shot him dead. Do you think this was wrong?
I think it was wrong. Killing the man doesn't help anybody. The father now has to live with his dead daughter and the man he killed on his conscious. ALSO shooting the man does not change the fact that his daughter is gone.

It is not always easy to decide what's right and wrong, because the consequences of actions can be both. While it is normally okay to leave it up to a person's judgment at the time, problems arise when people disagree on what is appropriate.
Yes, it is okay to break rules, but not everyone's going to agree with what you do.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:09PM
Nicotine at 12:33PM, June 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 494
joined: 6-18-2007
mystery
Last year we were discussing this in R.E. the example we were given is that a man runs through the classroom, in one door and out the other, and hides under the window. Another person comes in a minute later with a gun, asking if we'd seen the man we'd previously seen running. Do you tell the truth because truth-telling is the right thing to do, while almost certainly giving the man a death-sentence, or do you lie, even though it's wrong to lie, and save the man's life. You may think the answer is obvious, but there are people who'll disagree.

If one would tell the location of the hidden man, I think that person deserves to be shot as well. Really. I don't know anyone who is radical enough about giving away someone's location because they don't want to lie. Lying or death - which one is worse?

mystery
I think it was wrong. Killing the man doesn't help anybody. The father now has to live with his dead daughter and the man he killed on his conscious. ALSO shooting the man does not change the fact that his daughter is gone.

No, killing the man does help anybody. But the guy was scum, so who really cares what happens to him anyway. Would I kill someone if I were in that situation? Probably not. But I don't think that guy is waking up everyday thinking “Damn! I killed that poor guy who raped my daughter!”. I don't think his conscious is an issue. And obviously, his daughter is still dead. No one said she was going to come back. I just don't think it matter wether or not his shot the guy.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:16PM
ZeroVX at 12:50PM, June 23, 2007
(online)
posts: 4,109
joined: 5-28-2006
True, the guy was scum, and yeah, killing him might not bother you…

But what if that guy had a family? How would they feel, knowing that someone they loved was dead, even if he did something bad?

I don't like rape. I find it disgusting and immoral. But he shouldn't have died for it. Put through hell, yeah, but not killed.
“If our own government was responsible for the deaths of almost 100,000 people…..would you really wanna know?”

V for Vendetta, V.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:58PM
StaceyMontgomery at 4:02PM, June 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
The problem with the “kill the guy!” thing is that oh so often, we kill the wrong guy.

People are always very quick to say that justice should be swifter, harsher, tougher. But there's a lot to be said for slowing that process down. In fact, people Invented police and courts and such because, mostly, they weren't happy with the way the “kill the guy” theory worked out. it kept turning out really, really badly.

As for breaking the rules - I've broken lots of rules in my life. For instance, I've taken part in civil disobedience at protest rallies. Of course, when you break the rules, you have to be ready for the consequences. Like, there are rules of etiquette and good behavior, and if you break them a lot, people will think you are jerk. After all, those rules generally arise to make it easier for us to all get along together.

But some rules - and some laws - are just plain wrong, and it is the responsibility of people of good conscience to stand up to them.

The rules are here to serve us - we are not here to serve them.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Aurora Moon at 5:04PM, June 23, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,630
joined: 1-7-2006
StaceyMontgomery
The problem with the “kill the guy!” thing is that oh so often, we kill the wrong guy.

People are always very quick to say that justice should be swifter, harsher, tougher. But there's a lot to be said for slowing that process down. In fact, people Invented police and courts and such because, mostly, they weren't happy with the way the “kill the guy” theory worked out. it kept turning out really, really badly.

As for breaking the rules - I've broken lots of rules in my life. For instance, I've taken part in civil disobedience at protest rallies. Of course, when you break the rules, you have to be ready for the consequences. Like, there are rules of etiquette and good behavior, and if you break them a lot, people will think you are jerk. After all, those rules generally arise to make it easier for us to all get along together.

But some rules - and some laws - are just plain wrong, and it is the responsibility of people of good conscience to stand up to them.

The rules are here to serve us - we are not here to serve them.

she certianly has a very good point there. Take that father killing the guy situation. What if the DNA and witness evidence was flimsy and that suspect was just an person who was an unfounate person who was at the wrong place at the wrong time? They'd convict him on cimstentical evidence…. father comes out and shoots the guy.
Then later, the father finds out that the later DNA tests pointed out that he had shot the WRONG GUY, and that the killer/rapist is still out there somewhere.
Then how would that father feel, knowing that he shot an innocent person in cold blood?
I'm on hitatus while I redo one of my webcomics. Be sure to check it out when I'n done! :)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:10AM
vgman at 9:46PM, June 24, 2007
(offline)
posts: 2,167
joined: 10-4-2006
well because 1 im lazy and 2 its way to late to be reading about 2 or 3 (maby as much as 5) pages of writing im just going to respond to the inital question provided by the tital. rules are there to protect not only you but the people around you (or so i have been told thrughout my life) and being as they are you should only break a rule when it conflicts with you're morality. i dont want to start a side debate but you're morality is baced soly on you're perception of the world around you. if you raise a kid to belive that such acts as stealing assault or even murder are acts of worthy of prais and honor then they will do thoghs things thrugh out your life. on the other hand if you raise a child to belive that they should protect there fellow man and lend help wherever they can then they may verry well grow up to be the next saint (insert name here). in essence there is no good there is no evil. there is no right there is no wrong. there is only what you persieve as good or evil and what you persive as right or wrong. so if you where broght up to blelive that acts of thevery and such are ok then you will break the rules without a second thught.
RIP TD :cry2:
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:40PM
TheTopHat at 8:12PM, June 25, 2007
(offline)
posts: 172
joined: 2-22-2007
Most laws sre there because they do make thing better however i am a person who belive that the situation can chage everthing. Some poeple break the law for GOOD resons, however if you break the rule you mush be ready to take the punshment. If bob/frank/donna et need to be killed that badly they it's must be woth going to jail for it.
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:28PM
drae at 5:50PM, July 10, 2007
(offline)
posts: 1
joined: 6-29-2007
Balence. This is a beautiful thing that is often brief and fleeting. This world is always in a struggle between chaos and order. Is it better to blindly follow a system that binds individuals and prevents action, or to take action and deal with the effects. We must ask ourselves this every day of our lives.
A law is set in place to maintain order, but we must have flexibility so actions can be made to better lives. When laws cannot bend acording to a situation, they are broken. Sadly, in such a a large society, it is impossible for us to make a system that does not break in atleast a few places
So, to answer the question, when the time comes, one must ask themself this: Is this action I take for a worthy cause? Is it for myself, in vengance, or is it for society. Is this action because of some ideal I hold, then is this ideal worthy of this action, and is this action worthy of this ideal?
We must understand, if we do not change and adapt, we shall break. Yet, in the same line, if we adapt and change too easily, we will lose our original shape, and this new one could be twisted and distorted. Many actions have been done in the name of justice and rightousness, but they have ended up worse then the sins they acted against. As they say, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:14PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved