|
Wow, this is so sad, I really liked Coca's zerg. Hopefully he'll be able to play in the GSL again.
|
On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post.
First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours.
Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree.
Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument.
TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope.
|
This is way over the top.
Taking out 1 of the last 2 zergs in Code S for a friendly mistake is not cool.
Not like Coca was trying to make big bucks off a match fix.
|
FUCK  I saw this yesterday and was sad as balls because I like Coca...
Well they are both young and I guess time heals all wounds. Hope he comes back... Its just Korea is touchy about matchfixing and for good reason...
|
Man, I just recently voted Coca for Liquibet too.
|
The punishment is too severe.
I dont know what slayers were thinking when they thought it was a good idea to force coca to give up his code S spot.
|
best solution: allow coca to come back after suspension <=== let Savior come back and dominate SC2
|
On November 16 2011 07:50 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post. First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours. Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree. Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument. TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope.
comparing weed to heroine is like saying the coca incident is as bad as saviors.
i agree with your "logic" but the examples are pretty bad.
|
On November 16 2011 07:50 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post. First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours. Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree. Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument. TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope.
You dont get the point. There are things in life you wont do not just because there are bad consequences.
Our whole life and behaviour is not only caused by the consequences we might receive.
|
On November 16 2011 08:13 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 07:50 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post. First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours. Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree. Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument. TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope. comparing weed to heroine is like saying the coca incident is as bad as saviors. i agree with your "logic" but the examples are pretty bad.
Actually it's a very fitting example.
Both are on opposing extreme sides of the same spectrum.
Gtg. Good luck to CoCa and Byun.
|
On November 15 2011 13:35 Clefairy wrote:Mr Chae's official statement:Hello this is Mr Chae. [...] However, even if it is a tournament that does not award GSL Code A seeds, the use of profanities in a broadcast with many viewers and a blatant disregard for competition cannot be ignored by the GSL. [...] Source: http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/community/view.gom?mbid=1&msgid=23901&p=1
Wow, just saw that statemnt. Regarding that, I think Mr. Chae isn't in a position to lecture Coca considering that both things he stated also applies to Idra who was invited and seeded into his tournament, and will be playing there wiithout any problems (though his "disregard for competition" is dropping a series out of frustration, and not to give somebody else an edge).
No disciplinary measures have been made yet and I hope after Coca's "voluntary" exit none will be taken, considering that it will create a precedence case for all future players of the non-Korean scene going over there, where the community is more "laid back" this sort of behaviour is much more tolerated (and thus happens more frequently with many of the players).
|
On November 16 2011 08:16 JustPassingBy wrote:Wow, just saw that statemnt. Regarding that, I think Mr. Chae isn't in a position to lecture Coca considering that both things he stated also applies to Idra who was invited and seeded into his tournament, and will be playing there wiithout any problems (though his "disregard for competition" is dropping a series out of frustration, and not to give somebody else an edge). No disciplinary measures have been made yet and I hope after Coca's "voluntary" exit none will be taken, considering that it will create a precedence case for all future players of the non-Korean scene going over there, where the community is more "laid back" this sort of behaviour is much more tolerated (and thus happens more frequently with many of the players).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundesliga_scandal_(1971)
|
On November 16 2011 08:14 slimbo1 wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 07:50 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post. First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours. Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree. Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument. TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope. You dont get the point. There are things in life you wont do not just because there are bad consequences. Our whole life and behaviour is not only caused by the consequences we might receive.
That's extremely debatable. Some people do think every action is a direct result of the perceived consequences that would follow it.
comparing weed to heroine is like saying the coca incident is as bad as saviors.
i agree with your "logic" but the examples are pretty bad.
I don't think weed and heroin are the same, except by virtue of being illegal substances. I used heroin because weed won't kill you or overdose or anything like that. I was just using a more extreme example.
|
On November 16 2011 08:20 bigbeau wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:14 slimbo1 wrote:On November 16 2011 07:50 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post. First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours. Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree. Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument. TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope. You dont get the point. There are things in life you wont do not just because there are bad consequences. Our whole life and behaviour is not only caused by the consequences we might receive. That's extremely debatable. Some people do think every action is a direct result of the perceived consequences that would follow it. Show nested quote +comparing weed to heroine is like saying the coca incident is as bad as saviors.
i agree with your "logic" but the examples are pretty bad. I don't think weed and heroin are the same, except by virtue of being illegal substances. I used heroin because weed won't kill you or overdose or anything like that. I was just using a more extreme example.
i don't want to nitpick but
If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way.
made me smile 
On November 16 2011 08:16 S_SienZ wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:13 fleeze wrote:On November 16 2011 07:50 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post. First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours. Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree. Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument. TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope. comparing weed to heroine is like saying the coca incident is as bad as saviors. i agree with your "logic" but the examples are pretty bad. Actually it's a very fitting example. Both are on opposing extreme sides of the same spectrum. Gtg. Good luck to CoCa and Byun.
yes exactly, they are on OPPOSING extreme sides.
so should the punishment be.
|
On November 16 2011 08:34 fleeze wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:20 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 08:14 slimbo1 wrote:On November 16 2011 07:50 bigbeau wrote:On November 16 2011 07:28 Gako wrote:On November 16 2011 06:44 bigbeau wrote:
Do you understand what consequences of your actions means? It doesn't apply to this situation. Now, I don't smoke weed, but if you get caught smoking weed, a consequence might be jailtime depending on how much you have. This IS NOT a consequence of smoking weed. A consequence of smoking weed would be lung cancer or something negative like that. The punishment of jailtime is there for a reason, but it is not a consequence of smoking weed. Do you understand how retarded it is to say 'You shouldn't do this because you will go to jail'? No. It should be 'you shouldn't do this because [insert reason the law exists]'. If there are literally NO negative consequences for an action, why is it illegal in the first place?Now, this is where the question arises of does the punishment fit the crime. In Coca's case, FUCK NO it didnt. The consequences of him doing this were non existent and nothing negative happened until Slayers decided to punish him. Did someone get cheated out of a code A spot? No. Did someone get cheated out of money? No. Where were the actual consequences? The only thing you could argue is that people got cheated out of good games, but good god, that's hardly a felony offense. Wether or not I agree with you, your reasoning is undeniably wrong. Ironically, you seem to have no comprehension of what the "consequences of one's actions" means. The definition of consequence is (from the OED): "a result or effect, typically one that is unwelcome or unpleasant." The word consequence also comes from the latin consequentia, which can be translated as "that which comes after or follows." Using your example and assuming the punishment for smoking weed is jail time: You may or may not smoke weed. If you get caught smoking weed. You will get jail time. Obviously, jail time is the consequence of smoking weed. If you did not smoke weed, then you would not have gotten the jail time. My logic is neither flawed, nor does it violate the definition of the word consequence. Finally, wether or not it is "retarded" to say that you shouldn't do X because of Y punishment, this is the foundation upon which society is built. Without society there would be no negative consequences for, say, MURDER, yet there are other reasons murder is very illegal. Please review your logic so as not to make such an idiotic post. First, I explained further in a post about 3 above yours. Second, I'm not saying that punishment should not exist, only that it should prevent more damage than it causes. For example, assuming a law and the punishments are adequately balanced, say marijuana laws again (I really am just arbitrarily using this, I don't care if you are pro-legalization or not), there exists a societal burden that comes from marijuana. If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. Taxes pay for the cancer and overdose treatment and ambulances, other people have to pay when they are hurt or killed by another's actions, and if the drug user dies, the government pays, including losing the taxes and missing societal contribution as a result of your death. Therefore, drugs are illegal. Now, the punishment for drugs exists to persuade anyone from doing them. They are more scared of getting caught than they are willing to do drugs (also more than they worry about the actual consequences of these drugs, but that's another argument). Does this mean that any time someone gets caught with weed or heroin, we should kill them? That would curb drug use, I would think. No, the punishment should be just enough to persuade people not to do it with causing the least harm in and of itself. I would rather have some people doing heroin than a fewer number of people getting killed for doing heroin, and I'm sure most people would agree. Third, here's a list of negative consequences of murder: Grief to their family, increased burden on his family due to a loss of income or whatnot from that person, without society there would be no loss of input from the individual to the government, seeing as there wouldn't be any government, but in a society without punishments, that would still exist. There's also ending a life, which could be seen as a negative consequence from the viewpoint of that person. A guilty conscience over murdering someone could also be a negative consequence. Note how if someone was on a raft and was about to die and killed the other person to eat them, most people would think that was disgusting, but would agree that it was necessary and not hold that person to a moral standard. Or if someone was coming at you with intent to kill, if you kill that person, no one would blame you. Because you're preventing negative effects by creating less negative effects. Of course, at this point, the whole 'for the greater good' thing comes in, and that's a whole different argument. TL;DR Punishments exist to dissuade people from doing things considered negative to society or organizations or whoever is issuing the rules/punishments. Murder is against the law because it has plenty of negative affects on society. Murder would still have negative effects outside of society. Using indirect consequences to mean the same thing as direct consequences is a very slippery slope. You dont get the point. There are things in life you wont do not just because there are bad consequences. Our whole life and behaviour is not only caused by the consequences we might receive. That's extremely debatable. Some people do think every action is a direct result of the perceived consequences that would follow it. comparing weed to heroine is like saying the coca incident is as bad as saviors.
i agree with your "logic" but the examples are pretty bad. I don't think weed and heroin are the same, except by virtue of being illegal substances. I used heroin because weed won't kill you or overdose or anything like that. I was just using a more extreme example. i don't want to nitpick but Show nested quote +If someone gets cancer from marijuana, overdoses, hurts other people or dies from any sort of illicit drug, it affects society in a negative way. made me smile
Hey, I said any sort of illicit drug referring to overdoses and hurting other people
My bad if I changed my mind and thought of more examples that didnt fit marijuana halfway through my sentence :/
My mother warned me of bad people like you! Drug dealers D:
|
On November 15 2011 13:35 Clefairy wrote:Mr Chae's official statement:Hello this is Mr Chae. [...] However, even if it is a tournament that does not award GSL Code A seeds, the use of profanities in a broadcast with many viewers and a blatant disregard for competition cannot be ignored by the GSL. [...] Source: http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/community/view.gom?mbid=1&msgid=23901&p=1
This statement by Mr. Chae sets a bad precent indeed... will GOM now monitor all tournaments to see if anyone in the GSL has violated the ban on profanities or have blatantly disregarded competitiveness? Does this mean Idra will be banned as well or is the start of that policy from now onwards??
Love the quickness of the response by GOM, but I'm a bit more leery of the content therein.
|
On November 16 2011 08:42 amazingoopah wrote:This statement by Mr. Chae sets a bad precent indeed... will GOM now monitor all tournaments to see if anyone in the GSL has violated the ban on profanities or have blatantly disregarded competitiveness? Does this mean Idra will be banned as well or is the start of that policy from now onwards?? Love the quickness of the response by GOM, but I'm a bit more leery of the content therein.
Does Idra actually say fuck you to people he's facing at tourneys? I don't remember him doing that.
|
On November 16 2011 05:48 windsupernova wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 04:01 Dfgj wrote:On November 16 2011 02:42 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 02:33 MrTortoise wrote:On November 16 2011 02:30 Condor Hero wrote:On November 16 2011 02:08 Emma Watson wrote:
Extremely disappointed in Boxer. As the wise mentor of team Slayers you would expect him to be strict, but also to be lenient and forgiving. Handing out such harsh punishment to a kid like Coca....I don't know, I imagined Boxer to be a White-Ra/Gandalf-like person who takes the context of Coca's actions into account and judges accordingly.
Boxer's reaction to this whole thing was equivalent to a overly eager dad who catches his son stealing a candybar and proceeds to beat the shit out of him, so the other parents don't think he is a bad father.
I am a social worker myself and let me tell you this: Kids make mistakes, your job as an adult is make sure that they learn from it by giving them second chances. And lets be clear: Coca's actions were well-intentioned, but he chose the wrong way to go about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what Boxer and other people gave up for progaming to be a legitimate career? Esports was sold on the passion of the players and fans. Nobody gives a shit that Coca is a "kid." He's a progamer on Slayers so he should be counted on to be professional. aww did your parents and teachers give you a hard time? the point is that kids are not able to undesrtand the consequences of their actions - in fact a lot of adults cant either (which is fueling some interesting legal debates). As such punishment that could seriously damage their improvement and progression does nobody any favors. What if one of these kids coul dof been the next boxer ... but did something stupid and met the anger of all othe other people out there that are pissed off at life and want to see someone crucified to make them feel better? Whats with the smugness in your post? Those kids are 17 and 18. And how do you teach people that there are consequences to their actions? By making them live through the consequences. And how this is hampering their improvement? They didn't get kicked out of their teams, only a few unreasonable humans are the ones wanting to see them crucified(see the posts that say the punishment was not enough) If anything it seems you are the one angry at life here lol. Jessica, boxer and gerard are not their parents, they are the team managers, they have to respond to their sponsors and to their fans, if one of the members of their team act in a way to embarass their organizations they have all the right in the world to punish them. Punishment may be harsh, but crucifying? Not really 18 isn't a 'kid' anymore, to add to that. 18 is old enough to be drafted in Korea. Age is not an excuse here. Did you read my post? because thats what I was saying lol
Yeah I was agreeing with you, hence why I said 'to add to that' :o
On November 16 2011 05:51 IPA wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 05:48 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 04:01 Dfgj wrote:On November 16 2011 02:42 windsupernova wrote:On November 16 2011 02:33 MrTortoise wrote:On November 16 2011 02:30 Condor Hero wrote:On November 16 2011 02:08 Emma Watson wrote:
Extremely disappointed in Boxer. As the wise mentor of team Slayers you would expect him to be strict, but also to be lenient and forgiving. Handing out such harsh punishment to a kid like Coca....I don't know, I imagined Boxer to be a White-Ra/Gandalf-like person who takes the context of Coca's actions into account and judges accordingly.
Boxer's reaction to this whole thing was equivalent to a overly eager dad who catches his son stealing a candybar and proceeds to beat the shit out of him, so the other parents don't think he is a bad father.
I am a social worker myself and let me tell you this: Kids make mistakes, your job as an adult is make sure that they learn from it by giving them second chances. And lets be clear: Coca's actions were well-intentioned, but he chose the wrong way to go about it.
What the fuck are you talking about? Do you have any idea what Boxer and other people gave up for progaming to be a legitimate career? Esports was sold on the passion of the players and fans. Nobody gives a shit that Coca is a "kid." He's a progamer on Slayers so he should be counted on to be professional. aww did your parents and teachers give you a hard time? the point is that kids are not able to undesrtand the consequences of their actions - in fact a lot of adults cant either (which is fueling some interesting legal debates). As such punishment that could seriously damage their improvement and progression does nobody any favors. What if one of these kids coul dof been the next boxer ... but did something stupid and met the anger of all othe other people out there that are pissed off at life and want to see someone crucified to make them feel better? Whats with the smugness in your post? Those kids are 17 and 18. And how do you teach people that there are consequences to their actions? By making them live through the consequences. And how this is hampering their improvement? They didn't get kicked out of their teams, only a few unreasonable humans are the ones wanting to see them crucified(see the posts that say the punishment was not enough) If anything it seems you are the one angry at life here lol. Jessica, boxer and gerard are not their parents, they are the team managers, they have to respond to their sponsors and to their fans, if one of the members of their team act in a way to embarass their organizations they have all the right in the world to punish them. Punishment may be harsh, but crucifying? Not really 18 isn't a 'kid' anymore, to add to that. 18 is old enough to be drafted in Korea. Age is not an excuse here. Did you read my post? because thats what I was saying lol I couldn't disagree more. I made countless mistakes at age 18, even into my early 20s. I suppose you guys were ministers by then. It's old enough to take responsibility (which they are doing); it's young enough to make it semi-understandable. Jesus, did you guys ever have fun or get into trouble?
There's a huge difference between 'never had fun' and 'does not cheat in professional sports'. Comparing the two is hilariously fallacious.
|
On November 16 2011 08:47 anrimayu wrote:Show nested quote +On November 16 2011 08:42 amazingoopah wrote:On November 15 2011 13:35 Clefairy wrote:Mr Chae's official statement:Hello this is Mr Chae. [...] However, even if it is a tournament that does not award GSL Code A seeds, the use of profanities in a broadcast with many viewers and a blatant disregard for competition cannot be ignored by the GSL. [...] Source: http://esports.gomtv.com/gsl/community/view.gom?mbid=1&msgid=23901&p=1 This statement by Mr. Chae sets a bad precent indeed... will GOM now monitor all tournaments to see if anyone in the GSL has violated the ban on profanities or have blatantly disregarded competitiveness? Does this mean Idra will be banned as well or is the start of that policy from now onwards?? Love the quickness of the response by GOM, but I'm a bit more leery of the content therein. Does Idra actually say fuck you to people he's facing at tourneys? I don't remember him doing that.
What about the time he gave Huk the finger :D?
|
On November 16 2011 07:52 timmc wrote:
This is way over the top.
Taking out 1 of the last 2 zergs in Code S for a friendly mistake is not cool.
Not like Coca was trying to make big bucks off a match fix.
Wait what? How race has to do with this?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
