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]

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.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

And if there are still dissenters among those?

The point is, there needs to be normalcy so that things like this wouldn't happen in the first place?

[neverplaysfair]

There will always be dissent. Better to have it out in the open and discussed than bottled up until it explodes in revolution.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

At least there's something we can finally agree on.

[neverplaysfair]

But enforcing your normalcy upon people creates a fear of speaking up against it.

[howtoliveurlife.livejournal.com]

So then they should talk about what they want in their normalcy and come to a compromise.