Game 009 [Action] - Breaking the Rules?

[neverplaysfair]

[ Joshua's back to his usual size. However, he was quite certain that he wasn't out for anywhere near long enough for this many people to show up. ]

... Is this normal?

Comments

[neverplaysfair]

I think it would be much more important if we were actually in America. Additionally, you're wrong.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

Wrong? My dear sir, I am never wrong, especially when it comes to important matters like this. Right, ladies and gentlemen?



Still, let me hear you out. What makes you think that?

[neverplaysfair]

Normalcy isn't a positive influence. It's a method of mass suppression of individuality.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

Isn't it expressions of said individuality that lead to many of the crimes rampant in the world, though?

[neverplaysfair]

That just proves your ignorance.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

No, that just proves I'm right.

[neverplaysfair]

Crimes are a result of suppression, built up over the years until an individual is forced to rebel or lose themself.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

And what of crimes commited spontaneously, at the moment? Or those who commit crimes because they want to? Are you going to say that's a result of suppression, too?

[neverplaysfair]

Why would you want to commit a crime? To go against that which doesn't allow you your freedom in the first place. Alternatively, the person could be inherently... "misguided", but no amount of normalcy would fix or break that.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

You assume that all freedoms are the same everywhere -- they're really not. What's wrong in one state could be perfectly fine in another.

Not to mention, inherent misguidance is caused by the lack of that person being taught normalcy.

[neverplaysfair]

I'm not making any such assumption. If something is wrong in one place and fine elsewhere, this means that there is a group that deems it wrong, and another which deems it fine. Which one is right? Both can claim your "normalcy", but any individual from one would have great difficulty in the other. They may learn the new rules, but just because they learn them doesn't mean they will be comfortable with them, or follow them.

You are arbitrating a strict set of guidelines upon people which will inevitably clash with some of their individualities and result in either suppression of the self or rebellion.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

Both rebellion and suppression are harmful, you realize. Rebellion will only lead to a self-descructive downward spiral that leads to complete desolation, and while suppresion is bad, it is but necessary to keep normalcy and order for all involved in society today.

[neverplaysfair]

Neither rebellion nor suppression would occur if you stopped enforcing your "normalcy" upon people.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

But then where would people know when to draw the line? Normalcy is important for things like that.

[neverplaysfair]

What lines need to be drawn? Hee hee.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

That is what normalcy is -- the line the clearly defines what is both right and wrong.

[neverplaysfair]

Ah, but why must there be lines?

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

To set what sorts of standards that people must abide by, of course.

[neverplaysfair]

Why must there be "standards" created to limit people?

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

They are not there to limit people. It is for their own good.

[neverplaysfair]

Whether or not they are there for the purpose of limiting people, that is what they do.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

And yet it is for their own proiection. If everyone did what they wanted, as you so think everyone should, everyone would destroy each other.

[neverplaysfair]

Those who would destroy others would be overwhelmed by those who protect others. If it were otherwise, then the society would deserve their destruction.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

And what if the destroyers overwhelmed said protectors? EIther way, society as a whole would cease to exist.

[neverplaysfair]

If the destroyers overwhelmed the protectors, they would deserve their destruction. If there were no protectors, they would deserve their destruction. If the protectors triumphed over the destroyers, the society would continue, better than it would have been otherwise. Then, they would still exist.