Time for Another Alignment Thread!

Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri Schindler
Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by starvation
and dehydration, because (according to him) she once said that "she wouldn't
want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state). Had she left a living
will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on witness
testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she would not want
to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life support
equipment.

The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.

This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other. Which
alignment should prevail, and why? How would you differentiate a Lawful Good
character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a Lawful Good
character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an (in this
case) injust law being applied?

There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...

--

Matthias (matthias_mls@yahoo.com)

"Scientists tend to do philosophy about as well as you'd expect philosophers to
do science, the difference being that at least the philosophers usually *know*
when they're out of their depth."
-Jeff Heikkinen
979 answers Last reply
More about time alignment thread
  1. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    >
    > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.

    No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
    (alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
    or do you believe that the state/government properly
    has the authority to legislate such things for you?

    Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
    husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
    he is or not.

    -Bluto
  2. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:27:44 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
    >well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
    >to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
    >
    >This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.

    Frankly I don't think either Law or Good is clearly on one side or the
    other. Therefore I believe your question is based on an invalid
    premise.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, David Johnston hastily scrawled:
    >On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 00:27:44 GMT, Matthias <matthias_mls@yahoo.com>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be removed. As
    >>well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution" in one
    >>to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
    >>
    >>This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
    >
    >Frankly I don't think either Law or Good is clearly on one side or the
    >other. Therefore I believe your question is based on an invalid
    >premise.

    Hey! Those words were stolen directly from my thoughts! Return them
    at once!


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  4. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rupert Boleyn wrote:
    > Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >> Hey! Those words were stolen directly from my thoughts! Return
    them
    >> at once!
    >
    > You wouldn't know that if they were truely stolen, so clearly only a
    > copy was made. Therefore it's a matter of civil (copyright) law, and
    > not a criminal case.

    Apparently, these thoughts are community property and shared by many.
    I'm one of this community, as well.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Senator Blutarsky wrote:

    > Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
    > husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
    > he is or not.

    The fact that in the last two months he's been offered:

    1) One million dollars to annul the marriage and leave it in the hands
    of her parents.
    2) Ten million dollars to do the same.

    and he's turned down both suggest that he's not lying. There is the
    matter of her life insurance policy (and the fact that he only gets that
    when she's dead, and if he were to annul the marriage he'd forfeit his
    right to it) to call his motives into question, but the fact that he's
    turned down so much money convinces me that it's not about that.

    Mind you, CAT scans have revealed that her cerebral cortex has
    completely degenerated, and her skull is now filled entirely with spinal
    fluid except for her brain stem, so it's really no longer an issue of
    whether she's suffering or not -- Terri isn't there anymore. (There
    have been a few doctors who said that she's got something like 35% of
    her brain left and a recovery is possible, but the doctors saying that
    have, coincidentally I'm sure, all been in the employ of her parents.)
    --
    Stephenls
    Geek
    "You do your arguments no favor by insulting those you ought persuade."
    -Greg Stolze, Rites of the Dragon
  6. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Matthias" wrote
    > Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri
    Schindler
    > Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by
    starvation
    > and dehydration, because (according to him) she once said that "she
    wouldn't
    > want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state). Had she left a
    living
    > will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on
    witness
    > testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she would not
    want
    > to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life
    support
    > equipment.
    >
    > The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be
    removed. As
    > well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her "execution"
    in one
    > to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
    >
    > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
    Which
    > alignment should prevail, and why? How would you differentiate a Lawful
    Good
    > character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a Lawful
    Good
    > character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an (in
    this
    > case) injust law being applied?

    What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule of law?
    In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as Good or
    Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the other wants
    to try and save their daughter.
    All in all an awful situation for both.
    As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.

    > There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...


    John
  7. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:

    > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
    other.

    Here's a thought. Don't start an open ended thread with your own bias.


    there are a couple of options. a) she did say that and does feel that
    way in which case letting her die is not only the right thing to do but
    hte legal thing to do. b) she didn't say that and her husband is just
    making it up in which case it's evil on hisd part, but nobody else can
    know for sure. Still lawful, and for the vast majority still good
    because they are acting on his information. c) leave the poor woman
    alone. You're an inch away from trolling. And keep your shitty
    pro-life sentiment to yourself.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rexx Magnus wrote:

    > Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere
    to the
    > law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

    Do you even play the same game as everyone else?

    The fact that thay're lawful means that they believe in order and
    should behave in a structured way. It doesn't mean they should follow
    the law. This is alignment 101.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Anivair wrote:
    > Matthias wrote:
    >
    > > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
    > other.
    >
    > You're an inch away from trolling.

    Looked like a first down to me.

    --
    Jay Knioum
    The Mad Afro
  10. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:42:16 GMT, John Phillips scrawled:

    > What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule of
    > law? In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as Good
    > or Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the
    > other wants to try and save their daughter.
    > All in all an awful situation for both.
    > As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.

    Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere to the
    law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

    --
    http://www.rexx.co.uk

    To email me, visit the site.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In message <423E43D9.CB424ED4@comcast.net>, Senator Blutarsky
    <monarchy@comcast.net> writes
    >Matthias wrote:
    >>
    >> This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the other.
    >
    >No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
    >(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
    >or do you believe that the state/government properly
    >has the authority to legislate such things for you?
    >
    >Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
    >husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
    >he is or not.

    You can oppose the government and still be lawful. You can accept the
    right of a government's legislative authority, but also recognise that
    such legislation isn't automatically lawful just because it was
    originated by the government.

    --
    Ian R Malcomson
    "Once the game is over, the king and the pawn go back in the same box"
  12. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    madafro@sbcglobal.net wrote:
    > Anivair wrote:
    > > Matthias wrote:
    > >
    > > > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
    > > other.
    > >
    > > You're an inch away from trolling.
    >
    > Looked like a first down to me.

    I think he was genuine but misguided. But I'll defer to you since you
    seem to have the flag and whistle.
  13. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 13:16:01 GMT, Anivair scrawled:


    > The fact that thay're lawful means that they believe in order and
    > should behave in a structured way. It doesn't mean they should follow
    > the law. This is alignment 101.
    >
    >

    Ah, ok. I learn something new every day.

    --
    http://www.rexx.co.uk

    To email me, visit the site.
  14. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
    persistant, vegitative state?
  15. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1111434848.587087.110370@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
    > If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
    > should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.

    If a dog starved to death on it's own, and happened to fall in your yard,
    you would not be arrested. If a person has been brain dead for years, I
    have to say that the "life" of that person has already ended. A christian
    would say that their soul had already departed.

    Modern medical advances allow the appearance of life to breathe hope into
    the families of people who otherwise would have croaked a long time ago.

    I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
    to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
    single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
    It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
    for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
    what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  16. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
    news:1111445273.185474.209920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
    > persistant, vegitative state?

    Dogs have husbands? I guess that depends how ugly she is... ;)

    "On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog..."

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  17. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Ian R Malcomson wrote:
    >
    > In message <423E43D9.CB424ED4@comcast.net>, Senator Blutarsky
    > <monarchy@comcast.net> writes
    > >
    > >No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
    > >(alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
    > >or do you believe that the state/government properly
    > >has the authority to legislate such things for you?
    >
    > You can oppose the government and still be lawful.

    Yes, you can. Nevertheless, the belief that such a
    decision is *properly* vested in the state/government
    rather than the individual is most definitely Lawful in
    flavor.

    > You can accept the
    > right of a government's legislative authority, but also recognise that
    > such legislation isn't automatically lawful just because it was
    > originated by the government.

    Correct. For example, the Bill of Rights was
    "originated by the government," yet is undeniably
    Chaotic in flavor.

    -Bluto
  18. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >
    > Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
    > >
    > >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
    > >pain/suffering.
    >
    > What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.

    The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
    it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.

    -Bluto
  19. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Alien mind control rays made copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com> write:
    > If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
    > should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.

    dogs are worth more XP.

    --
    \^\ // drow@bin.sh (CARRIER LOST) <http://www.bin.sh/>
    \ // - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    // \ X-Windows: Putting new limits on productivity.
    // \_\ -- Dude from DPAK
  20. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "drow" <drow@bin.sh> wrote in message
    news:423f55bc$0$24336$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse.net...
    > Alien mind control rays made copeab@yahoo.com <copeab@yahoo.com> write:
    > > If you starved a dog to death, you would be arrested. Explain why you
    > > should legally be able to treat a human being worse than a dog.
    >
    > dogs are worth more XP.

    LOL!! Now *THAT* was funny...

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  21. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
    >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
    >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
    >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
    >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
    >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

    Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
    money even after the settlement a long time ago.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    news:423f1d80.373731870@news.telusplanet.net...
    > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    > <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't
    want
    > >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
    > >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
    > >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the
    bill
    > >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get
    done
    > >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite
    simple.
    >
    > Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
    > money even after the settlement a long time ago.

    *SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
    SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
    PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all wrong.
    If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  23. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rexx Magnus wrote:
    > Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere to the
    > law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

    Dear idiot newbie; please to be RTFMing, TYVM.

    --
    tussock

    Aspie at work, sorry in advance.
  24. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:06:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    >news:423f1d80.373731870@news.telusplanet.net...
    >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 19:56:13 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    >> <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    >>
    >> >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't
    >want
    >> >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
    >> >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
    >> >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the
    >bill
    >> >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get
    >done
    >> >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite
    >simple.
    >>
    >> Also quite incorrect. Years of hospital care mean that guy ran out of
    >> money even after the settlement a long time ago.
    >
    >*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
    >SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
    >PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all wrong.
    >If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.

    He can't because it isn't his money.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Rexx Magnus wrote:
    > On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:42:16 GMT, John Phillips scrawled:
    >
    > > What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule
    of
    > > law? In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as
    Good
    > > or Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the
    > > other wants to try and save their daughter.
    > > All in all an awful situation for both.
    > > As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.
    >
    > Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere
    to the
    > law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.

    Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
    follow the law? That's like saying Good people should do good things.

    <sarcasm mode off>

    Brandon
  26. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
    >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >>
    >> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
    >> >
    >> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
    >> >pain/suffering.
    >>
    >> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
    >
    >The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
    >it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.

    Terri Schiavo is not a dog.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  27. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
    >
    >I honestly don't know why this is such a big deal. If the guy doesn't want
    >to deal with it any longer, just tell the hospital he will never pay a
    >single red cent past what he already has, and say, now, you deal with it.
    >It won't be but two weeks until the hospital says they won't foot the bill
    >for this extraordinary treatment. If this guy *REALLY* wanted to get done
    >what he wanted, he would simply refuse to pay any bills. It's quite simple.

    Once again, you expose your cluelessness to the public.

    There is nothing "extraordinary" about Terri's treatment. It's just a
    feeding tube. Doctors and hospitals don't get to make all their
    decisions based on whether they're getting paid or not.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  28. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <5tSdnQ13Gb7Q8qLfRVn-gw@comcast.com>,
    Jeff Goslin <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:
    ><chris.spol@gmail.com> wrote in message
    >news:1111445273.185474.209920@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    >> Because a dog cannot tell its husband it would rather be dead than in a
    >> persistant, vegitative state?
    >
    >Dogs have husbands? I guess that depends how ugly she is... ;)
    >
    >"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog..."

    Unless you post a photo on your website.
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  29. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
    > On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:06:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    > >*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
    > >SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
    > >PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all
    wrong.
    > >If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.
    >
    > He can't because it isn't his money.

    Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew my
    wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the fact
    that her body was still there. "You guys have fun, I'll be over here,
    putting my life back together." Honestly, let her family do whatever they
    want, and simply stop taking part. If they can afford to treat a zucchini
    like a human being, more power to em.

    --
    Jeff Goslin - MCSD - www.goslin.info
    It's not a god complex when you're always right
  30. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    In article <423fb5ea@clear.net.nz>, tussock <scrub@clear.net.nz> wrote:
    > Morphine looks the least stressful option, AFAICT; whatever's left
    >of the body, brain, and mind will have a nice gentle death. It is how
    >they kill off the old folk and final-stage cancer patients.

    Who is this "they" of whom you speak? I was under the impression that the
    Netherlands was one of the few countries in the world to allow euthanasia.
    Someone in Ottawa recently committed suicide, after notifying all the papers,
    in protest against Canada's lack of assisted suicide (for later, when he'd be
    unable to do it himself).
    --
    "Yo' ideas need to be thinked befo' they are say'd" - Ian Lamb, age 3.5
    http://www.cs.queensu.ca/~dalamb/ qucis->cs to reply (it's a long story...)
  31. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1111506375.911567.211790@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    > Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
    > follow the law? That's like saying Good people should do good things.
    > <sarcasm mode off>

    It never ceases to amaze, how consistently Cope misunderstands the terms
    of art.

    -Michael
  32. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Ed Chauvin IV" wrote
    > Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
    > >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
    > >> >
    > >> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end
    its
    > >> >pain/suffering.
    > >>
    > >> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
    > >
    > >The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
    > >it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.
    >
    > Terri Schiavo is not a dog.

    There would be no question about this if it was a brain dead dog being kept
    alive via a feeding tube.


    John
  33. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On 22 Mar 2005 07:46:15 -0800, "copeab@yahoo.com" <copeab@yahoo.com>
    wrote:

    >
    >Rexx Magnus wrote:
    >> On Mon, 21 Mar 2005 01:42:16 GMT, John Phillips scrawled:
    >>
    >> > What makes you think Lawful people would have to adhere to the rule
    >of
    >> > law? In this case both the husband and parents could be argued as
    >Good
    >> > or Neutral. One wants to end her suffering (per her wishes) and the
    >> > other wants to try and save their daughter.
    >> > All in all an awful situation for both.
    >> > As for Congress, one could put up an argument for any Alignment.
    >>
    >> Urr. The fact that they're lawful indicates that they should adhere
    >to the
    >> law. If they don't - they shift towards neutral/chaotic.
    >
    >Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
    >follow the law?

    No, Lawful people should follow _a_ law. But it can be Church law
    just as easily as local civil law. For that matter it can be a rigid
    set of restrictions on your behaviour that you made up for yourself
    that conflicts with the laws of both god and man. A ritualistic
    serial killer or a tyrannical spousal abuser could be Lawful.
  34. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >
    > Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
    > >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    > >>
    > >> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
    > >> >
    > >> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
    > >> >pain/suffering.
    > >>
    > >> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
    > >
    > >The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
    > >it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.
    >
    > Terri Schiavo is not a dog.

    Right. So why are people comparing her to one?

    -Bluto
  35. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:29:37 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    <autockr@comcast.net> wrote:

    >"David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    >news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
    >> On Tue, 22 Mar 2005 00:06:12 -0500, "Jeff Goslin"
    >> >*SOMEONE* is paying for it. Government grants, the family, raised money,
    >> >SOMEONE is paying for it. Stop the payments, and the hospital will have
    >> >PLENTY to say about what happens. I think he's going about this all
    >wrong.
    >> >If he really wants to get it done, just stop the flow of money.
    >>
    >> He can't because it isn't his money.
    >
    >Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then.

    I'm sure you don't.
  36. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    > news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
    >
    >>He can't because it isn't his money.
    >
    > Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew my
    > wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the fact
    > that her body was still there.

    Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

    -Will
  37. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Will Green <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXo.com> wrote in
    news:GF50e.16783$YG3.6846@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com:

    > Jeff Goslin wrote:
    >> "David Johnston" <rgorman@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
    >> news:423f613e.391076399@news.telusplanet.net...
    >>
    >>>He can't because it isn't his money.
    >>
    >> Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I
    >> knew my wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone,
    >> despite the fact that her body was still there.
    >
    > Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

    Her cerebral cortex has liquified. There's just cerebral spinal fluid
    there. That's basically everything that makes her a person, gone.
  38. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    "Will Green" <will_j_green@yXaXhXoXo.com> wrote in message
    news:GF50e.16783$YG3.6846@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com...
    > Jeff Goslin wrote:
    > > Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew
    my
    > > wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the
    fact
    > > that her body was still there.
    >
    > Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

    She most certainly is, in all the ways that matter. The hardware that
    remains to her is not capable of containing human consciousness.

    -Michael
  39. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Michael Scott Brown wrote:
    > <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:1111592928.965522.147930@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > So, how does "Law" implying an obedience to authority (SRD) not
    imply
    > > an obedience to laws laid down by that authority?
    >
    > Which authority, Cope?

    The SRD doesn't specify.

    Regardless, if a Lawful person is obedient to some specific authority,
    then they would logically obey laws passed down by that authority.

    > What about the other alignment axis, Cope?

    Irrelevant. This is a Law/Chaos discussion. Good and Evil have nothing
    to do with it.
  40. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Symbol wrote:

    > Would a Lawful Good Paladin obey the
    > law of an Chaotic invading despot or would he discard those laws as
    > illegitimate and obey the edics and traditions of his order instead
    (which
    > may or may not have *any* influence over civilian law)?

    Let me answer this more directly:

    The paladin should be living by the laws of his order, regardless of
    who the secular authority is and what their decrees are. He obeys
    secular laws only when they do not conflict with the laws of his order.

    This is really very simply; why are you unable to understand it?

    Brandon
  41. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
    >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >> Mere moments before death, Senator Blutarsky hastily scrawled:
    >> >Ed Chauvin IV wrote:
    >> >> Mere moments before death, John Phillips hastily scrawled:
    >> >> >
    >> >> >One can legally give a lethal dose of drugs to a dog to humanly end its
    >> >> >pain/suffering.
    >> >>
    >> >> What pain? What suffering? Without a brain, neither is possible.
    >> >
    >> >The dog need not be brainless for one to legally give
    >> >it a lethal dose of drugs, Ed.
    >>
    >> Terri Schiavo is not a dog.
    >
    >Right. So why are people comparing her to one?

    That's what I'm trying to figure out.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  42. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Symbol hastily scrawled:
    >
    >As usual you are completely out of your depth. The woman is brain dead.
    >She doesn't feel pain, discomfort, embarrasment or anything else. No
    >method is any more humane than the other. The criteria for method of death
    >should therefore not depend on your assine criteria but on more practical
    >ones like *respect* for the patient and consideration for the relatives
    >(splattering their mushy brains all over the wall is out).

    I agree totally. It would be incomprehensibly inappropriate to shoot
    Terri Schiavo's parents.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  43. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
    >
    >Honestly I don't see what the problem is, then. PERSONALLY, if I knew my
    >wife to be brain dead, I would accept that she was gone, despite the fact
    >that her body was still there. "You guys have fun, I'll be over here,
    >putting my life back together." Honestly, let her family do whatever they
    >want, and simply stop taking part. If they can afford to treat a zucchini
    >like a human being, more power to em.

    I honestly hope no woman ever fools herself into believing that you're
    an actual thinking, feeling human being.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  44. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Will Green hastily scrawled:
    >
    >Uh...you guys do realize that she isn't actually brain dead, right?

    Prove it.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  45. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Mere moments before death, Jeff Goslin hastily scrawled:
    >
    >Honestly, I'm a prick like that. Once my wife is brain dead, it's not like
    >she's going to know if she's suffering or anything. I'll honor her final
    >wishes, but if she's continuing in a vegetative state, and nobody will pull
    >the plug despite her wishes, I'll step aside until it's time to carry out
    >her final wishes(she does NOT want to be cremated, as I understand it).
    >Once she's DEAD dead, I'll carry out my obligations.
    >
    >Brain dead = Dead as far as I am concerned.

    These statements contradict each other. If she's dead, it's time to
    carry out her final wishes. If those wishes were for her body to not
    be kept alive through extraordinary means, it's time to pull the plug.
    Walking away means you're either uncaring, afraid or stupid.


    Ed Chauvin IV

    --
    DISCLAIMER : WARNING: RULE # 196 is X-rated in that to calculate L,
    use X = [(C2/10)^2], and RULE # 193 which is NOT meant to be read by
    kids, since RULE # 187 EXPLAINS homosexuality mathematically, using
    modifier G @ 11.

    "I always feel left out when someone *else* gets killfiled."
    --Terry Austin
  46. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Matthias wrote:
    > Unless you've been living in a hole somewhere, you know about Terri
    Schindler
    > Schiavo, her husband, and his quest to have her be put to death by
    starvation
    > and dehydration,

    That's a strawman. The man doesn't want to have his wife starve and
    dehydrate so much as put her out of that miserable condition. She'll
    starve and dehydrate because the *State* would rather have a woman in
    that condition dehydrate than put a lethal injection in her to kill her
    quickly and with little pain. It's pretty amazing when the government,
    in all it's "wisdom", would kill convicted criminals relatively
    painlessly while allowing a woman who's done nothing wrong suffer for
    six or seven days as she dehydrates.

    >because (according to him) she once said that "she wouldn't
    > want to live this way" (to be in a vegetative state).

    He'd know better than any of us. I know *I* personally would rather
    die than "live" in that condition (and it's only artificial life
    because without serious medical attention, she'd have died 15 years
    ago).

    > Had she left a living
    > will, there would be no question; however the judge is acting only on
    witness
    > testimony that she once remarked while watching a movie that she
    would not want
    > to be kept alive if her life was being artificially extended by life
    support
    > equipment.
    >

    It's not hard to believe she would say something like that. Nearly
    everyone I know would rather be dead than in her condition. Just
    because medical science can keep a person alive doesn't mean they
    should. That's why terminal cancer patients (like my father and
    grandmother years ago) sign DNR orders and refuse to be put on such
    equipment. They even decided that they wouldn't spend the last few
    months of their lives in a hospital, but rather at home under hospice
    care. Both died at home on their own terms.

    > The judge adjudicating the case has ordered that her feeding tube be
    removed. As
    > well, Congress has gotten involved by attempting to have her
    "execution" in one
    > to two weeks stayed until the case is reviewed by a higher court.
    >

    Well, removing her tube is a form of execution. It's far harsher than
    convicts on death row get (many are innocent, yes, but that's another
    topic entirely). If the State determines to pull her tube out, I can't
    see why they wouldn't make her passing easier for her by giving her a
    lethal injection. The blood is already on their hands.

    > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
    other.

    Like most cases. Heck, Law is often evil in it's heart.

    >Which
    > alignment should prevail, and why?

    Good obviously, because law is evil and has only as much legitimacy as
    the thugs who "enforce" it say it does.

    > How would you differentiate a Lawful Good
    > character who would choose to adhere to the rule of law, from a
    Lawful Good
    > character who would choose to do "the right thing" in the face of an
    (in this
    > case) injust law being applied?
    >
    > There are times when being neutral has its advantages ...
    >

    Considering how D&D alignments have little to do with real life (it's
    just a game), of course neutrality (based on the D&D model) has its
    advantages. In the D&D universe, Good/Evil and Law/Chaos are absolutes
    which exist. There are purely evil creatures as well as purely good
    ones. I've never seen a case like that in the real world.
  47. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    <copeab@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:1111506375.911567.211790@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
    > Silly person, why should anyone think that Lawful people would tend to
    > follow the law? That's like saying Good people should do good things.
    >
    > <sarcasm mode off>

    That is no more silly than someone with the Honesty Disadvantage in GURPS
    freely telling lies. It is a term of art.

    --
    ^v^v^Malachias Invictus^v^v^

    It matters not how strait the gate,
    How charged with punishment the scroll,
    I am the Master of my fate:
    I am the Captain of my soul.

    from _Invictus_, by William Ernest Henley
  48. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Senator Blutarsky wrote:
    > Matthias wrote:
    > >
    > > This is just such a case where Law is one side and Good is on the
    other.
    >
    > No, it's a case of Law vs. Chaos: do you respect the
    > (alleged) right of the individual to die with dignity
    > or do you believe that the state/government properly
    > has the authority to legislate such things for you?
    >

    Call me Chaos because the government has no proper authority to tell
    people how to live or how to die. It's "authority" comes less from
    rule of Law than rule of force. You see, people follow bullshit laws
    like this because the state has cops with guns who force them to.

    > Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
    > husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
    > he is or not.
    >

    I'd say Evil comes into it when one considers how the woman is going to
    die. Removing her tube is a form of execution. Period. The fact that
    the State would rather have her dehydrate over the course of a week and
    face that type of prolonged suffering than giving her a lethal dose of
    chemicals to give her a quick and painless death is a form of evil on
    the part of the State. I can empathize with her parents when they
    talk about how their daughter is going to suffer by dehydrating over
    the course of several days. If the State would actually allow
    euthanasia in this case it might be a little easier for her parents to
    accept.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.dnd (More info?)

    Stephenls wrote:
    > Senator Blutarsky wrote:
    >
    > > Good and Evil don't come into it unless Schiavo's
    > > husband is lying, and nobody (except him) knows whether
    > > he is or not.
    >
    > The fact that in the last two months he's been offered:
    >
    > 1) One million dollars to annul the marriage and leave it in the
    hands
    > of her parents.
    > 2) Ten million dollars to do the same.
    >
    > and he's turned down both suggest that he's not lying. There is the
    > matter of her life insurance policy (and the fact that he only gets
    that
    > when she's dead, and if he were to annul the marriage he'd forfeit
    his
    > right to it) to call his motives into question, but the fact that
    he's
    > turned down so much money convinces me that it's not about that.
    >
    > Mind you, CAT scans have revealed that her cerebral cortex has
    > completely degenerated, and her skull is now filled entirely with
    spinal
    > fluid except for her brain stem, so it's really no longer an issue of

    > whether she's suffering or not -- Terri isn't there anymore.

    For the most part, yes. But I'm sure she feels pain and watching
    Nightline a couple days ago and hearing the tape of her moaning in
    response to her parents, she does respond to stimuli. Putting her
    through dehydration over the course of a week is a particularly brutal
    way to kill somebody, which is essentially what the State will be doing
    should they pull the tube out once and for all. It makes no sense
    either because the State puts convicted criminals (many are innocent
    but some aren't) to death in a pretty painless way.

    >(There
    > have been a few doctors who said that she's got something like 35% of

    > her brain left and a recovery is possible, but the doctors saying
    that
    > have, coincidentally I'm sure, all been in the employ of her
    parents.)
    >

    Maybe, maybe not. There are doctors out there who will say anything.
    Heck, psychiatry, which bills itself as a "branch" of medical science
    is mostly nonsense. Real doctors look down on psychiatrists because
    unlike most of medicine, they "diagnose disorders" based on subjective
    value judgements rather than empirical evidence and objective reasoning
    developed from that.
Ask a new question

Read More

Video Games