𝒃𝒓𝒊𝒂𝒏 𝒌𝒊𝒏𝒏𝒆𝒚. (
heterophobe) wrote in
ataraxion2012-08-30 05:37 pm
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
Entry tags:
- alayne stone,
- anders,
- brian kinney,
- damon salvatore,
- dave strider,
- faith lehane,
- garrett hawke,
- godric,
- ianto jones,
- jane margolis,
- john blake,
- leoben conoy,
- libby,
- matthew keller,
- miles edgeworth,
- neal caffrey,
- phoenix wright,
- rickon stark,
- robb stark,
- ros,
- simon silverton,
- sirius black,
- tate langdon,
- wichita,
- ygritte
video » { 004 }
Given all the rah rah rah for morality that I've seen lately, I figure the topic should be broached.
To me, it doesn't makes a difference and that's what's taken me so long to get to it. If kids want to drink, they're going to find a way to get to what they want. Not to mention, I hardly hold the monopoly on alcohol. [ he's getting to his point in a very roundabout way, yes. ] I'd also like to say that there isn't a day that goes by that I don't see at least one person drinking on camera, drunk texting or boasting about their inebriated state in some manner or another. More often than not, they're what I'd consider underage. And I'm not inclined to give much of a shit about where the product is going because I'm not profiting from it specifically in monetary value.
We don't have a set legal system. Each of us are from countries or worlds where the age cap varies or is completely irrelevant.
That being said, my point is: should there be an age restriction on those I knowingly permit into [ hm, no he's not going to say my ] an establishment where drinking and partying could lead to one thing and then another? I've seen an awful lot of preaching about save the children. God forbid we overlook their sweet, virgin eyes. If we're going to be stuck together for an indefinite amount of time, this might as well be addressed to [ huh, okay, what word does he want to use with you assholes? ] keep the peace. Or something like it. So, let's have it.
Don't care, couldn't be made to care or alternatively, open it to discussion. [ he's bored enough to let strangers and friends bicker at him and among each other. ] And if you were hired by myself or my [ other half ] business partner, report.
[ the camera angle lowers like he's done or ready to shut it off, instead he's scratching behind his ear and shifting his jaw to begrudgingly announce: ] Oh, and by the way, for those of you that knew him.. I think it's safe to finally assume that Justin Taylor has gone home. [ or wherever the fuck people who aren't dead but simply gone go, he doesn't say but his condescending and bitter fucking uncomfortable smirk implies. ]
To me, it doesn't makes a difference and that's what's taken me so long to get to it. If kids want to drink, they're going to find a way to get to what they want. Not to mention, I hardly hold the monopoly on alcohol. [ he's getting to his point in a very roundabout way, yes. ] I'd also like to say that there isn't a day that goes by that I don't see at least one person drinking on camera, drunk texting or boasting about their inebriated state in some manner or another. More often than not, they're what I'd consider underage. And I'm not inclined to give much of a shit about where the product is going because I'm not profiting from it specifically in monetary value.
We don't have a set legal system. Each of us are from countries or worlds where the age cap varies or is completely irrelevant.
That being said, my point is: should there be an age restriction on those I knowingly permit into [ hm, no he's not going to say my ] an establishment where drinking and partying could lead to one thing and then another? I've seen an awful lot of preaching about save the children. God forbid we overlook their sweet, virgin eyes. If we're going to be stuck together for an indefinite amount of time, this might as well be addressed to [ huh, okay, what word does he want to use with you assholes? ] keep the peace. Or something like it. So, let's have it.
Don't care, couldn't be made to care or alternatively, open it to discussion. [ he's bored enough to let strangers and friends bicker at him and among each other. ] And if you were hired by myself or my [ other half ] business partner, report.
[ the camera angle lowers like he's done or ready to shut it off, instead he's scratching behind his ear and shifting his jaw to begrudgingly announce: ] Oh, and by the way, for those of you that knew him.. I think it's safe to finally assume that Justin Taylor has gone home. [ or wherever the fuck people who aren't dead but simply gone go, he doesn't say but his condescending and bitter fucking uncomfortable smirk implies. ]
text
I'm assuming you mean sex by "one thing and then another" although maybe you're talking about tearing livestock limb from limb, in which case there are maybe animal rights and property issues involved.
text »
I mean one things leads to another, whatever the fuck it is. On board, it could go either way. Could apply to anything. The truth is, I know less than half the people on this ship. There have been efforts to try and change that, group ones. I was curious if creating a system meant there should be other kinds.
Re: text »
My people generally ruled by group consensus, with each of us having a voice as we chose to use it. I'm not against standards of behavior being set for issues like murder, assault, or rape, although I'd prefer to deal with such things on a case-by-case basis. But I certainly object to a few people assuming the right to decide for all of us.
text »
We have a democracy, and we do apply trials (when issues make it to court) but it can be a lengthy process. Everyone across the states of a certain age is encouraged and expected to vote but of course, not everyone does.
I don't necessarily agree with every single policy or taboo - probably because I classify under several - but I wanted to know how many are accustomed to something similar. For the record, I wouldn't want five people deciding my life or freedom to do whatever I want (within reason) on board either. None of this was intended to be an outright concrete decision.
Re: text »
I didn't usually get involved with political decisions back home, but in retrospect and considering the people who ended up controlling the group, that may have been a mistake. So, for the record, here's my input:
It might be immoral to keep serving alcohol - or any other substance - to someone who's beyond telling what their limit is and could end up needing their stomach pumped. And I can understand there being rules against drinking to excess if you're going to do a job that requires sobriety - it would arguably be immoral, as well as stupid, to get drunk and then operate heavy machinery, or make military decisions, or do anything else that could hurt other people. But other than that, it seems to me that the action taken by the drunk person is what's moral or immoral, not the drinking itself. If you attack someone else while drinking, that's what you should be charged with, not being drunk.
As for sex, as long as it's done with love or with the agreement and for the pleasure of all parties involved, it's a good and holy thing as far as I'm concerned. I'd think it was immoral to force decisions about that on other people.
Making rules based on the age of people aboard this ship seems like it would just be a huge, ugly mess. Not everyone is human, not everyone is the age they appear to be, some people may have consciousnesses transferred into younger or older bodies, and so on. It seems to me it'd be a lot more sensible to just assume that every individual who arrives on the Tranquility is a free agent responsible for themselves and with their own voice and vote in any collective decision.