Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jonathan S. Fox]

The only difference between a pet and a farm animal is that a farm animal may be a prey animal that can eventually be killed in a humane fashion in order to provide food. Animal rights activists, such as PETA, would regard that as unethical. But this view, that humans have no place eating other animals, seems inconsistent with the ecosystem we live in. The animal world is full of hunting and death, and we are a predator in that cycle. It is valid to argue that we should divorce ourselves from our biologically-appointed place in the circle of life, but it seems to me that this constitutes an undue ethical burden. Even so, just because we accept killing animals for food, that does not deprive them of their status as living, sentient beings, with a right to live comfortably and free from being tortured or terrorized.

The reason people are less likely to respect farm animals and wild animals is the same as the reason people are more likely to drop bombs on people from other countries. We give little thought to real suffering and unhappiness that is distant to us. So while we are capable of witnessing the sentience and validity of our pets, we conveniently dismiss other animals because it is easy to do so.

That's not universal, of course. There are a lot of people who take the welfare of farm animals and wild animals seriously. In fact, philosophically, the view I'm sharing is probably the most commonly held view on animal ethics in the world. But just like compassion for people living in other countries, it's a belief we're quick to abandon in favor of more practical considerations, like getting our next tasty meal a bit cheaper.

[Kay12]

An example of human psychology.

1. "Susan had a heart attack. She is being treated at the hospital, but the doctor said that it doesn't look too good."

2. "Flooding in India has become severe again. About a million people have lost their homes, and thousands will die of starvation, dehydration and disease during the next weeks."


The difference between the examples is that 1 is about Susan, a human. 2 is about "a million" and "thousands". They're numbers. No one cares about numbers.

[Servant Corps]

I care about numbers.

[Kay12]

I didn't mean "caring" in the sense no one feels bad when numbers lose their homes and get killed. Especially when it's about cruise missiles, because that's one fear I simply can't avoid identifying with. However, humans must abide by certain limitations. Our brain hasn't got enough power to pump in all the emotions included in thousands of deaths we only hear about - suffering doesn't scale linearly. If a thousand people die in a distant place and a single friend of mine died, the pain I felt for each dead person out there would be dwarfed by the sadness caused by the close friend. Furthermore, human brain hasn't even got the capacity to view every human we see and interact with as "full" humans. If I recall correctly this limitation is called "monkey sphere" or something like that, based on the similar phenomenon found in monkeys. Long story short: Lots of people you know nothing about die away from you may provoke sympathy and desire to help, but is unlikely to cause serious distress. Seeing people die is much more stressing, but depends a lot about the circumstances as well (accident vs violence and such). Seeing a stranger have a fatal heart attack on the street may even be ignored by many otherwise considerate people. But if it's not a stranger, but a close friend, a "true" human, the reaction will be much more severe.

[klingon13524]

So how would you say the L+ and C+ laws align with the constitution? Death squads don't give people trials or attorneys, so they would be against what our founding fathers wanted for this country.

[Servant Corps]

So how would you say the L+ and C+ laws align with the constitution? Death squads don't give people trials or attorneys, so they would be against what our founding fathers wanted for this country.

First of all, the founding fathers play no role whatsoever in LCS, and it doesn't really matter what they really want as they're all dead.

Second of all, I suspect that the death squads are technically illegal. If death squads are generally tolerated, then if you surrender to the police, you just get killed, since there is clear and convincing evidence that, yes, you were loitering. That's not the case: you stay one month in prison, and if you don't break, you get sent to trial where you stay in the Court House for another month, and hey, if the courts convict you, the judge might be merciful on you and send you to reeducation. Since the Death Squads don't give you an option to surrender, I have to suspect that they are in violation of the law and are just violent vigilantes, though I doubt they'd be arrested and executed for such crimes (then again, maybe a nearby cop finds out they were illegally loitering when laying their ambush and then promptly arrested them...who knows?).

[MetalSlimeHunt]

I see the Death Squads as a legal division of the Police Department, an extreme extrapolation of assuming accused criminals to automatically be guilty and a drain on society. The Arch-Conservative logic in this is that the police have the rights to just kill you if you've broken the law, as the death penalty already applies to every crime in the book. They're the most extreme and immoral of all police types.

The way I see it, Police Negotiators are law enforcement who sympathize with suspects and want what's best for them, as is fitting in an Elite Liberal society. They don't want to hurt the suspects, they want to heal them of whatever caused them to resort to breaking the law in the first place, and so argue instead of carrying guns. If they weren't police, the LCS would probably mark them as Liberal.
 
Below that are the standard Police Officers, who are basically normal people trying to make sure the law is enforced to the letter. They don't particularly hate or sympathize with suspects, they just care about what is legal and what is not. If they weren't police, the LCS would probably mark them as Moderate.

Below that are the Police Gang Units. The name says it all, they're normal police that have fallen into a cynical and conservative view of the world and the lawbreakers in it, becoming like the very gangs they're trying to fight. The only real difference now is that this is a gang supported by the law of the land. They don't see criminals as real people with rights and feelings anymore, just lawbreakers to be punished. If the suspects get hurt along the way, who cares? They shouldn't have broken the law, those bastards. The LCS sees them as Conservative, and that's accurate even though they're police.

And below all of that is the Death Squad. A mobile and ever present death penalty for anyone who dares to break the law of the United States of America. They're everything bad about closed minded people and the law rolled up into one insane package and stamped with the national seal of approval. They would probably say things along the lines of: "Fuck the people, they're all just criminals waiting to happen! God would never tolerate such disobedience, and we won't either! Anyone who breaks the law hates America, and anyone who hates America deserves to die!" That's why I like the Death Squad as a game concept. There really are people who make statements like the ones I wrote, and the Death Squad are those people given a badge and a rifle. That is a goddamned scary thought. This also provides an interesting contrast to the Police Officers and Police Gang Units who are still around when the Death Squad is established. They may not be very good people, but at least they're still sane. The LCS sees the Death Squad as Arch-Conservative, and that's really accurate even though they're police.

[Tyg13]

The difference between the examples is that 1 is about Susan, a human. 2 is about "a million" and "thousands". They're numbers. No one cares about numbers.

Yeah, I think that we humans have a hard time empathizing with things that don't affect us in general. No one ever really stops and thinks about how many people die in tragic events because hearing about them is just so commonplace nowadays. I mean, your friend dies, that's tragic. But someone else's friend dies, well that's unfortunate, but it doesn't really matter to you. Just like, say hundreds of people die as a result of flooding. That sure sucks, but unless you know someone who dies, does it really matter to you? It sucks, but that's how our brains work (at least, that's how mine does, maybe I'm just some weird sociopath)

On a similar note, I think we humans have difficulty visualizing numbers. 1,000 people dead, 10,000 people dead, we don't really understand how huge of a difference that is. And I think that's because the human brain wasn't made to have to conceptualize these kinds of large numbers. For a very long time, numbers were always rather small. Towns were small in population, prices were small definitely, and the most death anyone really heard about rarely approached the hundreds. Now hearing about large numbers is commonplace, and to deal with these large numbers the brain no longer can accurately visualize them. Essentially, they just become meaningless numbers, hardly representing anything. I have no idea how to deal with this or even if it can be dealt with, but it seems to be a problem. Freaks me out, at least.

[stabbymcstabstab]

i agree with you Tyg the brain just thinks its numbers not people so why would you care? i see in the news 200 people die in africa form a mass genocide i feel a little sad i read of some one i don't know in the paper i feel some what depressed because i see there picture and read about them thats how the brain works.
I think about death squads should give a quick trail on the spot then kill the liberal so a liberal with high law, persuasion, and charisma will let them get away with some what none lethal injuries based on the crime or if there like the CEO or a judge in that case because of all the corruption be set free for the the rise of america

[Kay12]

Actually, I just played Civ V, reached modern era and got the following quote that's unnervingly similar to what I said.

"A single death is a tragedy. A million deaths is statistics."

[stabbymcstabstab]

yeah, i get every onve on a while playing modren warfare

[Midnight Devil]

Yeah, that's a Stalin quote. Pretty damn famous as well.




Anyone needs me, I'm going to go lurk for another 18 months or so.

[Kay12]

Yeah, that's a Stalin quote. Pretty damn famous as well.

Wikiquote says it's misattributed to Stalin, and the correct origin is Kurt Tucholsky.

[Midnight Devil]

Damn. Suppose that I'll make it 24 months or so then, so it's all forgotten.

[Kay12]

No need, there's so many misquotations around that it's not a huge blunder to actually "fall" for one.