Work stories from hell >:K

[bobby 55]

So now I'm retarded and a psycho.... well fuck you. If you are failing to see my point fine. Who gives a flying fuck.

[chris the cynic]

Law against murder/theft/rape/mugging/physical violence/psychical violence/lie in court is a good law, how can you justify murder/steal/rape/attack/mugging/bulling/framing as 'not hurting anyone'?

Theft is often dismissed as not hurting anyone because it simply deals with property*. Most common justification for shoplifting I've heard is that it doesn't hurt anyone. After all, Walmart/Target/[name of store] isn't a person. (The people who have to pay higher prices due to revenue lost to shoplifting are not considered.)

Bullying is commonly justified by saying that it doesn't hurt anyone because there is no physical violence and thus no one is harmed. (So the reasoning goes.) That claim is also commonly made by those who are emotionally abusive in relationships as well.

One thing not on your list that should be is traffic laws. People run red lights, speed, and drive in breakdown lanes seeing these things as victimless crimes that don't hurt anyone. Most of the time they are. But often enough, especially if we are at these things on a national scale, people die. That includes people other than the ones breaking the traffic laws.

Lying, even in court, is not always about framing people. The fact that false testimony may result in the wrong person being convicted does not mean that that is the intent, nor does it mean that the one doing the lying even considered the possibility it might be the result.

*Even burglary can be dismissed by the burglar as not hurting anyone if they assume that the money needed to repair and replace will not burden on the person being robbed.

And my point still is that like 17 years old person is not a LOT different from 18.

No, there is not a lot of difference. And if an 18 year old, or a 21 year old, or what not finds out that when they want to break the law their mother will approve and indeed help out I would label that as problematic too. That said, the older the child is the more likely it is that the result will not have that much of an impact on the child's development. Assuming healthy development, there should come a time when the child can evaluate laws on their own without parental help.

Also the reasoning is important. "It is ok to break the law because I will have fun if I do so," is different from, "It is ok to break the law because it is an oppressive law that goes against the basic tenants of justice." We don't know what reasoning preceded this. It is possible that the children in question have been lectured extensively, to the point of internalizing, about how some crimes that appear to be victimless are not while others are and they should therefore make very sure ahead to time that the crimes they commit are indeed victimless. It is probably more likely that they were not.

Making such laws is pointless, law like under 16 no brutal games - ok, but how will a 17,5 years old person feel when his parent get fine for brining him a stoopid game. Common sense is a unique thing today.

Common sense would say don't do something illegal with a huge fine attached to get a "stoopid game". It's a stupid game. It is not worth it. If you feel that the law represents an affront to all that is good and right in the world then fight to have it repealed, but don't risk a huge fine for nothing more than a stupid game. This is a case of poor risk management of the part of the parent.

I think that the mother should get a fine, not because of the game but because she is an idiot. If there is a ten thousand dollar fine for doing something and there's very little of value in doing it then don't do it. The only exception being if doing it is part of some larger scheme (like intentionally getting caught in order to bring media attention to the absurdly large fine.) Absent huge symbolic value the entire venture is ill advised.

I have seen the results of this kind of fucking with a child's brain, it does not turn out well. It turns out far worse than the parents expect.

Then what about the countries in which there is no such laws? Parents get worse and worse because they want to government to do everything for them.

What about such countries? Why even bring them up? Fucking with your child's brain is a bad idea regardless of country or the laws of the country.

There are certainly times and places to set an example of disobeying laws for children. A lot of good can come from that. The problem is that this isn't a good law to choose. The law is not the most intelligent one ever, it certainly can be argued that it should repealed or revised, but the rationale for breaking it is, absent some larger workings we are unaware of, problematic.

Will this turn the kids into heroin addicts? Probably not. Nor are they likely to become axe murderers. Or adz murderers. That doesn't make it a good thing. I favor treating children with the same respect you would give to an adult and speaking to them as if they are as intelligent as an adult, but it is important to realize that they are not in fact adults. Some are more mature than most adults, some are less mature. All are still developing. Some of that development is biological, some is psychological. Standing in front of two of them, who theoretically view you as an authority figure, and lying to someone so you can knowingly break the law on their behalf at their request is not something that should be done lightly. Doing it for a video game is doing it lightly.

[chris the cynic]

So long as we're going to be making tenuous analogies, teaching someone that it is ok to acquire something through illegal means by illegally acquiring it for them is far closer to encouraging theft (a means of illegal means of acquisition) than encouraging someone to defend their neighbors and selves from a genocidal regime (which only seldom involves illegal acquisition and when it does tends to involve it as a means rather than and end.)

If the mother wanted to make sure that her kids would be ready to oppose the next Hitler or Stalin then this particular illegal act was not the best way to go about doing it.

[Rex]

Theft hurts, bullying to but not physically - you take something that is not your's or insult someone(but.. I think bullying without beating is nothing big..). Well but still, it cost money to repair the broken/replace the stolen things, and money comes from insurance, and many companies give a better offer if you don't have problems for X years so it's still take money/time. Playing a game don't hurt anyone.

One thing not on your list that should be is traffic laws. People run red lights, speed, and drive in breakdown lanes seeing these things as victimless crimes that don't hurt anyone. Most of the time they are. But often enough, especially if we are at these things on a national scale, people die. That includes people other than the ones breaking the traffic laws.

There is a possibility that they got hurt, there is no way on earth you can kill someone by having a cd rated 18+ if you are 17.

So now I'm retarded and a psycho.... well fuck you. If you are failing to see my point fine. Who gives a flying fuck.

Well fuck you to, comparing a mother buying game for children to a mother who take a van and help them steal plasma tv is the worst fucking shit I heard. How the fuck you compare buying something and then using it illegaly to stealing something.
Knock it off.

It is probably more likely that they were not.

You get someone to buy you alc, you want to get high, you get someone to buy you a game, where is victim in any of those, I kept stating that I consider law stupid if it interfere with what you want to do(ofc I don't aprove stupid childish ideas neither). Even cheating on test don't hurt anyone, giving bribe don't hurt anyone but it is not FAIR to other, when you have increased chances compared to them.

[gamer0004]

So long as we're going to be making tenuous analogies, teaching someone that it is ok to acquire something through illegal means by illegally acquiring it for them is far closer to encouraging theft (a means of illegal means of acquisition) than encouraging someone to defend their neighbors and selves from a genocidal regime (which only seldom involves illegal acquisition and when it does tends to involve it as a means rather than and end.)

If the mother wanted to make sure that her kids would be ready to oppose the next Hitler or Stalin then this particular illegal act was not the best way to go about doing it.

Like I said, this probably didn't teach her children anything. But I'm sorry, but it is positively retarded to obey the law just because it is the law. It is extremely important to think for yourself, and if this mother is convinced her children won't go on a killing rampage because of playing GTA she should buy it.

And yes I'm in the Netherlands. Soft drugs policy FTW. It is the best way to ensure people won't try anything bad (i.e. shit that kills you).

[bobby 55]

So now I'm retarded and a psycho.... well fuck you. If you are failing to see my point fine. Who gives a flying fuck.

Well fuck you to, comparing a mother buying game for children to a mother who take a van and help them steal plasma tv is the worst fucking shit I heard. How the fuck you compare buying something and then using it illegaly to stealing something.
Knock it off.

The point I have been trying to make is not the buying of the game, rather that they get what they want regardless of what trouble it may cause others. Mummy gets pinged with a ten k fine they'll be too busy playing the bloody game to help her out. Grammatolatry gets pinged for selling them the game, do you think they will give a shit?

[Rex]

It was that fking mommy who willingly gave them cd.

And yes I'm in the Netherlands. Soft drugs policy FTW. It is the best way to ensure people won't try anything bad (i.e. shit that kills you).

According to some geniuses here, weed is worst drug that kills, addict, and is very very bad.
According to some other geniuses, panzerfaust is a reloadable weapon.

[Trestkon]

Gram, is it actually illegal for minors to *play* 18 rated games in NZ?

[kdawg88]

I honestly don't know if it's illegal to view/interact with restricted games/movies. I would imagine it is, but I've never heard of kids getting in trouble for playing restricted games/watching restricted movies.

My brother used to work at a video store, and boy did he have some stories. There was this funny guy who would come in and buy lollipops frequently (at the video store of all places), and they went up 10c one day, and he got pretty angry at the staff.

[Grammatolatry]

Gram, is it actually illegal for minors to *play* 18 rated games in NZ?

No, it's not illegal to play them, but it is illegal for minors to get a-hold of them via me. The only reason I was pissed was because if it was reported I, personally, would in all likelihood be blamed, given a $10,000 fine (and/or 5 years in jail), lose my job, and have my boss given a fine of $25,000.

They really care here.

And, I mean, why on earth didn't the mother just leave her kids in the car?! That way it would like slightly believable that she wanted to play it, and not them. Either way, my ass is covered: I stressed it was illegal, and she 'promised' it was for her. Rule-breaking just really annoys me.

Also, I'd like to kick those kids just for the sheer joy of it. Rotten little snobs.

[DDL]

Like I said, this probably didn't teach her children anything. But I'm sorry, but it is positively retarded to obey the law just because it is the law. It is extremely important to think for yourself, and if this mother is convinced her children won't go on a killing rampage because of playing GTA she should buy it.

I think there are several arguments going on simultaneously, here (and they don't really overlap): CtC is not saying anything about the retardedness (or lack thereof) of this law, the law itself is largely irrelevant to the argument, other than

A) it can be easily circumvented (i.e. by getting older peeps to buy the game)
B) this can be done subtly, or ...less subtly.

The law could really be about anything, it matters not. The fact is the mother is demonstrating to her kids in fairly unarguable tones that you can sidestep this law by simply getting an older person to buy for you, that indeed doing so is absolutely fine, and (just in case the message hadn't got across) then goes on to actually do so right in front of them, for them.

Yes, it's a stupid law, but that's not the point, here. This is bad parenting.

As noted, it's not actually illegal for the kids to play the game, simply for them to buy it (or for them to get someone to buy it for them). If the mother had decided that -yes, her kids wanted to play the game, and yes, she judged them responsible enough to handle it without problems, then she could've bought the game herself, and then let the kids play it (ideally as a reward for good behaviour, under the constraint that the onus is on them to handle it responsibly). It's exactly the same situation in the end, but with much less in-your-face OLOL I BRAKES TEH LAW N00BZ demonstration.

[chris the cynic]

DDL, I don't think they're listening.

As evidence I give you gamer0004 saying that if a mother is convinced her children won't go on a killing rampage because of a given criminal action she should carry out that criminal action. And literally nothing else in the equation. No weighing of possible positive and negative consequences beyond "killing rampage."

Since when does not killing rampage == everything is ok? Why the fuck is a killing rampage even being considered here? Is that the new defense? Well I know what I did was illegal, potentially financially disastrous, and put Gramma's job at risk, but my kids aren't going to go on a killing rampage as a result so who gives a damn if she's going to be unemployed?

I don't follow. I don't think I will ever follow. I hope that I never become like gamer0004 where I'm willing to risk sending someone else to jail for five years/hit them with a 10,000 dollar fine to get a videogame believe it is all ok because my children will not go on a "killing rampage" as a result.

[gamer0004]

Why would Gramma's job be in danger? It's her (the seller's) responsibility, not the mother's responsibility, and she did well to make sure she wouldn't be in trouble (the actions of the mother had no effect on Gramma's job). I really don't get it.
As for the financial trouble, that's the mother's responsibility. If she is willing to take the chance, why not? So as far as I see it, the only problem here is that it is illegal. As I said, it is illegal for stupid reasons so I think it is perfectly fine to break the law.

[chris the cynic]

gamer0004, responsibility seldom belongs to only one person.

If I tell you to break the law and then, because I requested you to, you break the law that is my responsibility as well as yours. You would not have broken the law had I not instigated it. I should, could, and quite possibly would be punished for getting you to break the law. You would be punished as well, because in such a case we are both responsible.

What you are describing is not responsibility but irresponsibility. It is a way to place the consequences of one's actions on others rather than one's self.

The mother tried to make Gramma break the law in a way that could have lost Gramma her job, gotten Gramma fined 10,000 dollars, and/or gotten Gramma sent to jail for five years. That is what the mother tried to do. As such it is her responsibility. She is responsible for her actions and her actions are clear. Gramma's actions need not even be considered when evaluating the mother's responsibility.

-

There's another important point here too. What you said was, "if this mother is convinced her children won't go on a killing rampage because of playing GTA she should buy it," and then, "As for the financial trouble, that's the mother's responsibility." I don't see that responsibility come up in your "if [something that has nothing to do with finances] she should buy it." How is it that something is her responsibility yet it isn't even a consideration in determining whether or not she should do it?

-

A final point worth making is that breaking the law in front of children does not teach them to think for themselves. I have known two children raised in much the same way you advocate for my entire life. (I have also known many others for shorter time periods.) They are both adults now. (They're sisters, by the way.)

One acts exactly the way her parents trained her to act. She breaks rules and laws whenever it suits her and has, to my knowledge, never even stopped to consider that she should think for herself instead of following mommy and daddy's example. (Her mother and, I'm pretty sure, her father are not exactly happy with the results of their examples. She does at least some things they would never have considered, but are logical extensions of the methods they gave her to evaluate right and wrong.)

The other rebelled against her parents' ways. She now follows every rule and every law as closely as possible and tries to force everyone to do the same. She never stops to ask whether the law/rule is good or bad, or whether the results are good or bad. Mommy and daddy were willing to break rules, so she refuses to break any rules. No thought required.

Those descriptions should seem somewhat familiar to you. The patterns of "My parents did this so I will do this," and "My parents did this so I won't do this," without stopping to think for one's self are two of the four most common patterns children follow with respect to their parents. Those two personify them.

-
--
-

This was thought up in the time it takes to get from class in the city across the river to home using foot power. As such it is somewhat rough around the edges. And, indeed, everywhere else.

Chris the Cynic's things to consider before breaking a law:

1 Why does the law exist and what does it do?

A good place to start is why the law was written. Determine both what it is meant to accomplish and what it actually does accomplish. Why does it take the form it takes?

If the law is as it is because people didn't know yeast existed when they wrote what ingredients could be in beer that is very different than if exists because we as a people think that child labor is abhorrent. Both of these differ strongly from a law designed to keep one race/religion/gender/whatnot in "their place".

If the point of the law was to prevent foreclosures and it instead causes them, that's worth noting as well.


2 What does your conscience tell you?

Do you have a moral imperative to obey the law? If yes, then don't break it.
Do you have a moral imperative to disobey the law? If yes, turn to The Guide to Breaking Laws.

This should be fairly straightforward. If the law is telling you to help the Gestapo find the Jewish family hiding in your house so that they might be sent to a death camp hopefully your conscience is telling you very forcefully to disobey. If the law is telling you not to murder children, hopefully your conscience is telling you, very forcefully, to obey.

Most of the time you will not be faced with a moral imperative. If the law is telling you to go 45 miles per hour or less on a road where you know you can do 47 safely, your conscience shouldn't be telling you anything forcefully, much less very forcefully. Absent a moral imperative, move on.


3 What are the consequences?

First off, what are the consequences for you? What do you hope to gain, what do you stand to loose, how does this compare to what you might gain or lose by obeying the law?

Second, what are the consequences for others? Ask the same questions about what they stand to gain or lose that you did about yourself.

Third, what, if any, are the systemic consequences.

Be sure to include secondary impacts in all of these things. If you pick a lock in front of someone you're not just unlocking the thing and showing them that you think it is ok to pick locks in certain situations, you're also showing them how to pick a lock. (So, if you don't want them to know how, see about making it so they don't have a good view. Though that kind of thing should be covered in The Guide to Breaking Laws.)

Make sure to consider (very strongly, repeatedly and from multiple angles) that the consequences might not be what you want and expect them to be. You may think that by breaking a given law you can get national media attention for the injustice of the law in question leading to its repeal when in fact your breaking of the law will cause people to rally their support behind the law, or even cause nothing at all to happen other than you being punished.


4 Is it worth it?

Jumping off the bridge is illegal, you've tested the depth of the water, you've measured the height of the bridge. You know it is safe. You've considered the impact on the greater good. (That impact being: not much.) You've evaluated the odds of being caught, you've considered the fine, you know the likelihood that you will be seen by impressionable young people who might not be quite as diligent in their bridge jumping safety checks as you are.

Step back for a moment, and rationally consider whether it is worth it. (Bear in mind that pretty much all mentally healthy human beings overestimate their chances of success and underestimate their chances of getting caught.)

-

A hypothetical example.

The country of Hypotheticalia (or, if you want to be completely accurate, the Federation of Hypotheticalian Republics, or FHR for short) has decreed that no games or videos shall be sold on Thursdays. Every Thursday the Video and Game stores shut their doors. Websites that sell such things are prohibited from making sales (if they make sales anyway they are hit with a huge fine and their site is blocked by all internet service providers in FHR for a period of no less than one week) stores that sell games and videos along with other products close down their game sections every Thursday. If someone at the register sells a game that day anyway the penalty is a ludicrously large fine (10,000 FHR Drachmas) and/or an overly long stay in jail (Slightly less than five lunar years.) This law was enacted for the hell of it.

Now we run down the things to consider.



1 The law was created on a whim. It was written because it could be. It is, fairly clearly, stupid.

What it is meant to acomplish is probably to show that the FHR Parliament have the power to change the nation's shopping habits on a whim. There are several things that it actually accomplishes:

It shuts down a certain type of commerce one day a week, thus redistributing the commerce that would be done that day to the remaining six days. Some sales might be lost, but most would just be shifted to different days. More personally, you really want to get this game today, and it's thursday.

People who work at game/video stores have less opportunity to make money because there is one less day a week that they can work.

Smaller game/video stores have an easier time competing because they get roughly the same income with a notable drop in overhead. Larger game/video stores are less concerned about overhead and probably not all that happy that their competitors are having an easier time, but they do get some savings out of it.

Stores that have games and videos as only part of their inventory are pissed the fuck off. They still open on Thursdays, they just have a part of their store that they rope off, which means that they're not saving on overhead and they're not making sales. One day out of the week a section of their store is empty and floor space is money people! Plus, because they're operating on Thursdays there's always the chance that someone will grab a game in spite of the rope and try to buy it, which opens them to the possibility of fines and means they have to deal with unruly customers getting pissed off at them because of a law they had nothing to do with. Mother fucker!



2 Barring a rather unique religion your conscience probably isn't shouting at you over this one. Buying a game on a Thursday will not prevent human rights abuses, not buying a game on Thursday will not save kittens.

There are possible exceptions. If you believe that small stores are an affront to capitalism that need to be crushed, you may indeed want to disobey this law as a matter of principle simply because it makes things easier for them. Similarly if you have something against stores that have more than one product you might want to obey this law, again on principle, because it gives an advantage of sorts to (one segment of) their competitors. I'm not sure how likely either of those positions is.



3 You stand to gain a game. One that you, presumably, want. The law (and remember, this is a hypothetical law designed to be stupid) has no punishment for buying a game on Thursday, only for selling one. You stand to lose nothing.

You did not bring your kids along, and thus do not have to consider the French speeding problem. Parenting is left out of this example, largely because there are some vastly different ideas about parenting going on in this thread and I want the example to be fairly straightforward.

By disobeying the law you are forced to go to a store that is not simply a video/game store. It might be that you would have done that anyway, or it might be that if you had to wait until Friday, when more stores would be open, you would have chosen a different store. If it is second then one store is gaining and another losing if you disobey the law. Depending on how you feel about these stores this may or may not impact your decision.

If you get your game that means that the person at the register was nice to you. They weren't supposed to sell you the game, but they did you a favor. (Or you bribed them, but let's steer clear of that complication.) By doing that favor they risk a 10,000 FHRD fine and a slt5ly prison sentence. Yes, it is their decision to be nice to you that puts them at risk, but that doesn't lessen the fact that if it weren't for your decision to break the law the person who was nice to you would never have been at risk.

Your failure wouldn't significantly put anyone else at risk of much of anything. Nor would they gain anything. Which is pretty much the same as we might expect for not breaking the law in the first place.



4 Is left as an exercise for the reader.

[gamer0004]

I'll just say you're right, since I am not willing to read that long piece of text and you're much better than me at this xD. I still agree with myself though ^^.

(Most important thing being: Gramma actually wasn't doing anything wrong/illegal by selling the game to the mother, so she wasn't actually pushing anyone (other than herself) to break the law).