Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

A black man [person] arrives at the hospital with a bullet wound in his abdomen. he will die if not operated. all the doctors are racists [don't want to treat him]. by your reasoning, they have the right not to treat this man, effectivelly killing him. [..]

(Note, edited to address the general case, since the answer is the same)

Yes, the doctor's have the right not to treat the man.  To say otherwise is to say that the man has the right to demand treatment.  If something is to be a right than it means it is something that can be legitimately enforced.  This would mean the man would be within his rights, that if denied treatment, to hold a gun to the doctor's head and demand treatment.  In effect this act is an assertion by the man that he owns the doctor. 

 

I think i missed the day at law scool when they discussed holding someone at gun point as a legitimate way to exercise rights...

Actually, the doctors cant refuse. We are talking both civil liability and prison here. Roth, dude, really i get the whole "get off my property" thing but the law doesnt work that way.

Edit; The irony here is that if the guy pulled a gun he would actually give the doctors a legitimate reason not to treat him. Most doctors ive met would do so even if the patient pulled a gun on them however. You can say a lot of things about MDs but most are pretty tough guys/girls and they do take their hippocratic oath quite seriously... Theres a lot of very extreme stories coming out of ERs. Tv has nothing on the real thing.

I'm male and I play female characters all the time in RPGs and MMOs. I figure if I'm gonna be playing these games for hours on end I'd much rather be staring at the backside of a female toon than a male toon.

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

No, Jim Crow laws are illegitimate for the same reason a law forbidding restaurants to require jacket, or a law forbidding discrimination, are illegitimate.  They both usurp the rights of the owner.  They both seek to transfer control of something that is already owned by someone, to someone else.  This is actual oppression.

 Your rationale would give a bussiness owner the prerogative of refusing service to anyone they might dislike, or to otherwise limit the use of their facilities.

Yes, that is correct.

Yet you fail to see how that is in any way wrong?

Of course not, because it's not "wrong".  It may be that I dislike someone's reason for refusing service, but that is my preference.  Me simply not liking what he does with his property doesn't really entitle me to stick a gun in his face and tell him to stop does it?

Guess Rosa Parks was just infringing a companys rights when she refused to go to the back of the bus.

Rosa Parks is somewhat tricky since there were city ordinances (laws) that codified the "proper" treatment of blacks on buses.  So in that aspect Rosa Parks actions would be heroic, since she was acting in defiance of an actual unjust law.

On the other hand, if the bus line just had some crazy backwards bigotted passenger policy, she agreed to the conditions when she boarded the bus.   Refusing to abide and then refusing to leave is trespass.

This is what Jim Crow laws were meant to accomplish.

No.  If everyone already wanted to exclude people there would be no reason to have a law requiring it.  The point of Jim Crow laws was to prevent, by force, any change in the social order that the people in power preferred.  They made discrimination mandatory so as to prevent non-discriminating businesses from competing with the discriminators.

Jim Crow was brought about by the Status Quo to preserve itself. Yes, i will agree that they were meant to discourage competition, but the bottom line is they protected entitlement by the bussiness base to their practices. If you want to go into economics this was protectivism at its worse-

I can't decipher whether we agree on this point or not...

Once you make a public offer of your services (such as an "open" sign) you have an obligation not to refuse service without legitimate reasons.

But the point is any reason is legitimate since it is my service that is being offered.

No, its not. Running out of stock or a delivery area not being cost effective for you to pursue are legitimate reasons. Whatever goes on inside your head its not. 

Why not?  Who gets to decide what are the legitimate ways to dispose of my own things?  Who decides what I am allowed to think?

Your view that ownership rights are more important than basic human civility is shared by no country or society in the world, except perhaps by islamic regimes which enforce Dhimmi status upon religious minorities and foreigners.

Yes ownership rights are more important than human civility.  Without ownership rights their can be no real human civility.  A religious regime enforcing a status upon minorites is in fact denying the ownership rights of its people, so your example is really the opposite of what you intended.  Dhimmi status is just like Jim Crow.

Civilty is not based on property and it predates it in the historical sense. Respect for human dignity should be the foundation of social interaction. No property is involved in this forums and yet we would be expected to be civil. We dont own our accounts but we are entitled to our identities as those are intrinsic.

Property makes civility possible.  Of course property is involved in this forum.  MMORPG.com owns the forums, and at least leases the physical resources on which it is run.  We all participate here because the owners' choose to allow us to.  As for identities I would say that the idea of property and ownership does not even apply since an identity is not a thing.  

Everyone has the right to demand any services they can pay for as long as it is within law and reason.

No they don't.  What if it is not for sale?  Do you have the right to demand that I bend over, so long as you can pay?  No, because this isn't for sale, no matter how much you want to pay.  An exchange of service for payment requires to willing participants, or else it is not really an exchange.

If its not for sale then its not being offered. I had already implied an offer being made. Youre actually in breach of contract if you refuse to provide me with a service that you have advertised, which is the reason ads contain small print. This is aside from the discrimination issue.

How can there be a contract until the parties have come to an agreement?

As a lawyer i cant legally refuse service to someone on the grounds that theyre libertarians for instance...

I hate that for you, but you should be able to refuse service to whoever you damn well please.

Lawyers would be in a difficult position if they had to like their clients. There are plenty of legitimate reasons i can refuse to counsel anyone. My disaproval of them is not one.

 Finally, you seem to have a very outdated view of the law. If you see law as force then youre missing the point that humans can only be free when living in free societies. Freedom is not such if youre alone, and in order to be free amongst others there must be laws. Good laws free people, bad laws opress them. The law uses force only to prevent violence or to ammend it. Yes, fraud is violence. There is a difference in between individuals forcing their will on others and the courts administering justice.

All law is force.  Modern positive law is simply the decrees of the rulers, enforced by the police power of the state.  Modern "democratic" law is no different than the decrees of Pharaoh or Caesar.

Of course an isolated individual is totally free because there is no one to object.  The concept of property and ownership make no sense in a world of an isolated individual.

When others enter the scene is when problems can arise.  Yes, in order for all the individuals to flourish to their chosen extent there must be some kind of rule.  This is what would be called an ethic.  Any conflict that may occur between the people is ultimately a conflict over the use of scarce resources (physical things).  Thus the job of an ethic is to assign the control of resources to people, so an individual can know what he is allowed to do at any given moment, in order to avoid conflict.  This is what property is for.

There is no difference between individuals forcing their will on others and the courts administering "justice", if the law of the court is simply the decree of the current gang running the show.

Originally posted by Caleveira

Originally posted by rothbard

Originally posted by Toquio3

A black man [person] arrives at the hospital with a bullet wound in his abdomen. he will die if not operated. all the doctors are racists [don't want to treat him]. by your reasoning, they have the right not to treat this man, effectivelly killing him. [..]

(Note, edited to address the general case, since the answer is the same)

Yes, the doctor's have the right not to treat the man.  To say otherwise is to say that the man has the right to demand treatment.  If something is to be a right than it means it is something that can be legitimately enforced.  This would mean the man would be within his rights, that if denied treatment, to hold a gun to the doctor's head and demand treatment.  In effect this act is an assertion by the man that he owns the doctor. 

 

 

I think i missed the day at law scool when they discussed holding someone at gun point as a legitimate way to exercise rights...

Then me thinks you didn't really think about it very hard.  I admit to slight hyperbole, but only for impact.  The gun is ultimately always there.  It's just that we have people in special costumes that are the anointed monopolists of force.  Break the king's "law".  The police, if the law is mean anything, must enforce it.  This is done by force.  Thus, the gun.

Actually, the doctors cant refuse. We are talking both civil liability and prison here. Roth, dude, really i get the whole "get off my property" thing but the law doesnt work that way.

Obviously I know this.  But I reject that the "law" is legitimate to begin with.

Edit; The irony here is that if the guy pulled a gun he would actually give the doctors a legitimate reason not to treat him. Most doctors ive met would do so even if the patient pulled a gun on them however. You can say a lot of things about MDs but most are pretty tough guys/girls and they do take their hippocratic oath quite seriously... Theres a lot of very extreme stories coming out of ERs. Tv has nothing on the real thing

The fact that this is still going on is pathetic. IMO

Originally posted by Ibluerate

If anyone has seen the movie "Surrogates", that was funny.

Yea the fat hairy guy who was the hot blond, I LOL'd.

Anyway two reasons I play a chick toon

1. Despite dev's statement, chick toons are always shorter and slighter. In all pvp smaller is harder to see, harder to target and harder to hit. My tiny chick toons almost always elude player aggro.

2. If your gonna watch a ass running across your screen all day want it to be a hairy dudes, or a hot chicks ass?

@ Rothbard; Man, you seem to be set in your ways so im not writing with the purpose of changing your mind about this, but rather hope we may get to some middle ground on this discussion.

If you lived upstrem of a river and owned all the land around it, there would be nothing preventing you from building a dam and selling your neighbors the water. Ofc if there is no police, theres nothing preventing them from marching down on your property and putting your head in a pike. If you dont have enough resources to defend yourself youll have to submit. And theres always the chance whoever lives upstream from you will pull the same shenanigan. People will always look out for themselves and let the rest be damned, for this reason ethic systems will never work on their own. Read up on hippy communes, it wasnt all the guys there who got to sleep with the pretty girls and do nothing but drugs all day. Most got to do the gruntwork and had to compete for the ugly girls affections.

Someone needs to step in, and rather than it being the strongest guy, democracy allows you to choose who will be in power. Power is useless without force, and the only way a court system can enforce its rulings is through a police arm. Thats the reason you can sign a contract and expect others to back it up. And btw an offer is a contract, all it requires is someone to accept it. Thats the reason you can sue a company if what they offer you has a different price than advertised. Regulation takes many forms; people providing you with food are supposed to do so with hygiene (you can sue if their negligence makes you sick) and so on...

Ofc another thing about regulations is that they manage to keep things civil. Your credit card cant decide overnight to double your interest rate (i know it seems that way but its tricky) and most service providers are expected to conform to certain rules so you dont have to take them to court over every little thing. This is where we get to discrimination. Youre free to deny entry to whoever you want to your home but not to your bussiness. Why? Because it keeps things fair. Imagine your son got shot and the MDs where bigoted against whatever your kind is. Imagine they refuse treatment. No ethics or moral system is going to stop you from holding them to gunpoint and forcing them to save your childs life. So we now have laws against discrimination to prevent just that from happening, a doctor better have a good reason (like triage) to refuse treating you in an emergency. And you dont have to be humilliated either at the dry cleaners or the grocery store. Or an MMO.

Its the same thing, this MMO has taken it upon themselves to decide who gets to play and how for whatever arbitrary reason. You seem to agree with their prerogative but really what about everyone elses right? Even if they boycott the game theres no guarantee it it will make a difference and asking people to wait for change doesnt take into account the fact that none of us really have that much to live. Think it through mate, theirs is a bussiness not a thing of principle which you can do non profit. There is such a thing as a social contract and you cant be made to sign away certain rights.

IMO, I don't mind dudes playing chicks in games. If thats how you wanna go about it, feel free to do so. What kind of annoys me, is dudes playing girls pretending to be girls.I don't mean to be homophobic or anything, but it just weirds me out.    

 internet win? country win? political win? So many wins which one is the best...HMMMM..........

 I could give two fucks less if a male or a female is on the other end of the computer... they're still a person. You should not treat someone different just because of their sex... even if their avatar is representative of a male OR a female.

I don't care if the person on the other end is playing an appropriate RACE or COLOR either...  How many goddamned Tauren Females do you know? Undead Males? High Elf Females? Are people who are asian, black, white supposed to use the appropriate skin tone that they REALLY are in REAL LIFE... just to convey it into a GAME?

I'm sorry, but if people are cruising for a piece of virtual ass... being turned on and manipulated by a cartoon image with text... you really need to rethink your social skills and seek help and guidance from a counselor.

By the way, I know a few women who don't mind playing "male" toons... just so they don't get hit on.

Sadly, I was playing DFO as the Fighter (which is female) and got into a group where a person was trying to hit on the Mage (little girl) and get him/her to confirm his suspicion that he/she was indeed a female. He then asked if I was a female. I laughed and said "lol No I'm a guy". He then told me that was creepy that I was playing a girl. I told him pretty much the same thing as above, it doesn't matter if its a male or female on the other end, they're a person... treat them equally. He agreed... and I told him "Besides, maybe I'm really a girl... saying I'm a guy just so I don't get hit on..." LMFAO, then he started PM'ing me making "idle chat" as I laughed my ass off.

Besides... if guys didn't use female avatars... neither would females. They'd have more spam to deal with on a daily basis than all the goldfarmers in WoW, Aion, and Runescape combined. Now there'd be the one or two that would thrive off of the drama they could create with that kind of power... but for the most part the mature women would be too busy /ignore people than to actually play the game.

Originally posted by MMO_Doubter

China is a communist country. There is no right to privacy there.

The fact that it is a communist country is not what determines if there are or are not, privacy laws.  At its core, communism is an econominc philosophy.  It has no bearing on things like privacy issues or other such matters.  The lack of privacy laws and other such "democratic" beliefs comes from their leaders and their beliefs, not the economic philosophy.  America could very well become a communist country and in my opinion it should.  But democratic communism is what you'd end up with here, not totalitarian communism, which is what you have there.

It's not China who is banning it, it's one company and only one game. I'm sure there's "services" where you need to identify yourself too in the West, not that big of a deal and frankly who cares what China does, they have tons of weird policies.

They check every single character by web cam??  They must not have many customers.  Imagine if wow tried to do that.  It would take them 10 years to check every toon.

Originally posted by fangoram

IMO, I don't mind dudes playing chicks in games. If thats how you wanna go about it, feel free to do so. What kind of annoys me, is dudes playing girls pretending to be girls.I don't mean to be homophobic or anything, but it just weirds me out.    

This. I honestly don't care if you play a hermaphrodite, just don't act like you're really a girl if you're not. It's insulting and when people find out, they tend to get upset. Especially if you are acting like the opposite sex just to get free loot, gold, etc.

Originally posted by CymTyr

 

This. I honestly don't care if you play a hermaphrodite, just don't act like you're really a girl if you're not. It's insulting and when people find out, they tend to get upset. Especially if you are acting like the opposite sex just to get free loot, gold, etc.

How is this different from a real girl doing that. It's not any different.

If guys fall for that, they have another lesson learned, that girls are able to manipulate them.

Originally posted by pepsibottle

Originally posted by CymTyr

 

This. I honestly don't care if you play a hermaphrodite, just don't act like you're really a girl if you're not. It's insulting and when people find out, they tend to get upset. Especially if you are acting like the opposite sex just to get free loot, gold, etc.

 

How is this different from a real girl doing that. It's not any different.

If guys fall for that, they have another lesson learned, that girls are able to manipulate them.

Because they've learned the only way they can get women to like them and pay attention to them is to give them free stuff, and treat them extra special. Or maybe they are EXPECTING something in return...? If people treat women like whores, then they deserve to get a "Oh by the way, thanks for all the free stuff, but I'm a guy LOLOLOLOLOL"

But here's food for thought... how would a person "really know" even if a person confessed it? If I was a woman (maybe I am who knows) I'd happily take their stuff, and then just to add massive amounts of butthurt, say that I was a guy and laugh in his face, take a screenshot and post it in the forums.

The webcam thing is way too much to ask imo, but I have experiemented with concepts where I am trying to discourage gender-bending characters to support better social aspects, among other things like in-game dating (it's a social game - don't bite my head off). What I would do for this specific concept is give you one character, and it's gender is dependant on the info you put in your account info. You can lie on it, but there is no stopping it - at least it means people will buy 2 copies and handle both via cash-shop... and that was kinda the marketing angle for it to begin with, heh (evil).

As for this, it doesn't seem like they are trying to "fix the social issues" of a game as much as keep more information on the people playing. I'm not one to jump communists for  whatever they choose to do, but no other government spies on thier own people more than countries like Cuba, China, etc.

Originally posted by Lansid

But here's food for thought... how would a person "really know" even if a person confessed it? If I was a woman (maybe I am who knows) I'd happily take their stuff, and then just to add massive amounts of butthurt, say that I was a guy and laugh in his face, take a screenshot and post it in the forums.

It would probably be a lot worse, I can imagine guys handing over RL money etc. Wasn't there a guy posting here that he had other guys who paid his subscription money and his games, thinking he was a girl.

You know what's interesting, why are females using this exploitation technique and not males. Males only learned this trick from females, males never did this at first. Why...it's not that guys couldn't pull this off if they wanted to, MMO show they can, they could make females pay for them and buy them stuff....why don't they do this. I think it shows how bad some girls treat guys and how some guys are wussies and let it happen.

Of all the stuff to worry about, this is too funny. Thanks for the comedy.

People are playing trolls, cows, midgets, cats, and whatever else that are in games. I mean really, people need to get their heads examined if playing an opposite gender bothers them.

I think there must be a logical reason,Shanda is huge ,they are the giant over their,and yet they choose only ONE game to enforce this?I think that shows there is something in the make up of the game and IDK maybe some possible law suits from it,so they are covering their ass.