...Doing bad deeds makes you a bad person.

Well, does it? Personally, no, it does not. In my eyes, there is no such thing as a "bad" person or "bad" deeds.

Any deed done once, is easier done the second time.

Dying isn't.

oh get off my back Oli!

oh get off my back Oli!
:confused:

lol just kidding, you always foil me.

I don't agree with that at all! But before we can even have this discussion, we need to define what is meant by bad?

lol just kidding, you always foil me.
I was worried there for a while.

I don't agree with that at all! But before we can even have this discussion, we need to define what is meant by bad?
yeah.
So BoH, murder isn't bad?
Stealing your beer isn't bad?

Well, does it? Personally, no, it does not. In my eyes, there is no such thing as a "bad" person or "bad" deeds.
.... you mean Michael Jackson lied?
:bawl:

Well, does it? Personally, no, it does not. In my eyes, there is no such thing as a "bad" person or "bad" deeds.
We are defined by what we do. Do bad things over and over and you become a bad person.

You say you don't believe there is such a thing as bad? What about murder? Is that bad? As Nietzche said, it's always easier to do something the second time. I'm sure John Wayne Gacy had a lot tougher time killing his first young man than his 13th. Do you think, by the time he viewed raping and murdering young men as a routine night out that he might have become a bad man?

Well, does it? Personally, no, it does not. In my eyes, there is no such thing as a "bad" person or "bad" deeds.

Anyone who thinks as you do and even has to ask that question needs to spend some serious time getting in touch with reality!:bugeye:

Try doing any of the things that society considers seriously bad deeds and you'll get a lesson in reality VERY quickly!!!!

(And maybe they'll give you access to a computer in prison and you can come back and tell us all of the things you've learned. How about it?)

I once met a very "bad" person who would bully people around the area which I lived. He then tried it with me and I did something to him to make him realize that it wasn't nice to be bad to others. From that day on he never again bullied anyone that I knew about and left the area after a few years. What I did would be considered "bad" as well but sometimes you must fight fire with fire in order to stop further problems from happening.

Well, does it? Personally, no, it does not. In my eyes, there is no such thing as a "bad" person or "bad" deeds.

Kicking an old lady is a bad deed.

Well, does it? Personally, no, it does not. In my eyes, there is no such thing as a "bad" person or "bad" deeds.

huh?! Prisons are full of bad people who have done bad deeds. There are bad parents doing bad deeds every day.
And how the heck is "bad" different than bad.

We are defined by what we do. Do bad things over and over and you become a bad person.

You say you don't believe there is such a thing as bad? What about murder? Is that bad? As Nietzche said, it's always easier to do something the second time. I'm sure John Wayne Gacy had a lot tougher time killing his first young man than his 13th. Do you think, by the time he viewed raping and murdering young men as a routine night out that he might have become a bad man?

He was not a bad man, because there is no such thing as "bad" men.

Anyone who thinks as you do and even has to ask that question needs to spend some serious time getting in touch with reality!:bugeye:

Try doing any of the things that society considers seriously bad deeds and you'll get a lesson in reality VERY quickly!!!!

(And maybe they'll give you access to a computer in prison and you can come back and tell us all of the things you've learned. How about it?)

Just because it's against the law it's not "right?" Is that what you're saying?

The more I think about this the more my mind can't seem to grasp it. I think you're a bad person if you do "bad" things just because... You aren't doing it to help or save anyone or yourself, plus you have to know what you're doing is bad and not care. Because someone who does something that I would consider bad, but if they don't consider it bad or think they are helping others by doing it I don't think I could actually call them a bad person. Like if I thought a law was unjust and I fought against the majority to change that injustice that make's me a bad person in society's eyes, but would that truly make me a bad person? Not to those I was trying to help, I mean to them I would be a hero or martyr. The ultimate "good" person. Right? Or did I get confused somewhere along the way because that's highly probable.

I agree that "Good" and "Bad" are largely and simply different angles of Perspective.

However, there is such a thing as constructive and destructive. Anyone who's been in a real fight knows about that "sick" little feedback you get when you deliver that wonderfully connected punch. The feeling of your opponent getting weaker and you getting stronger. It's the same feeling one get's when kicking over someone's sand castle as a child. It's quite alluring, like some kind of invisible drug.

Conversely, the positive feedback people get when they build that sand castle, the perfect lawn, or a mission that feeds and entire village in Africa. It can also be quite alluring, a feeling of accomplishment, of personal achivement.

Both get easier to do once the first act has been done.

Some might say I have just described good and evil, but I have not. For the kid that makes a sandcastle and will not allow anyone within 10 feet of it, is asking for a beatdown. The missionary that beats the shit out of the people he just provided food because they do not follow the path he wants, is asking for rebellion. And...that old fuck with the "keep off the grass" sign, is asking for gasoline to be "accidentally" poured all over it by a chain smoking litterer.

He was not a bad man, because there is no such thing as "bad" men.

You've said that more than once - let's see you prove it.

And by the way, are you even bothering to read and trying to understand what others are saying here or do you want to do nothing more than keep repeating yourself?

I'm definitely reading what everyone has to say, as of now this topic and the peoples opinions(not just in this thread, I've asked other people too and even wrote a speech on it) is the most interesting thing in my life. Can you define bad or evil? Personal definition or from a dictionary, we can use whatever you like.

How can there not be such a thing as a bad person?

If you hurt others and know it's wrong and don't care, how are you not a bad person?

I'm definitely reading what everyone has to say, as of now this topic and the peoples opinions(not just in this thread, I've asked other people too and even wrote a speech on it) is the most interesting thing in my life. Can you define bad or evil? Personal definition or from a dictionary, we can use whatever you like.

There are many, many definitions and variations.

One of the most common is simply doing harm to another person or his/her property simply because you can or want to.

For example, would you say it was a "good" act to break into someone's house and steal their TV just because you wanted it?

There are many, many definitions and variations.

One of the most common is simply doing harm to another person or his/her property simply because you can or want to.

For example, would you say it was a "good" act to break into someone's house and steal their TV just because you wanted it?

Hmm, I guess if you define it that way there's no room to argue. I thought you were going to use one more similar to *goes to find definition* this.



Bad

17 dictionary results for: bad
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
bad1 [bad] Pronunciation Key adjective, worse, worst; (Slang) bad·der, bad·dest for 36; noun; adverb
–adjective
1. not good in any manner or degree.
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible: There is no such thing as a bad boy.

number 2, please

Hmm, I guess if you define it that way there's no room to argue. I thought you were going to use one more similar to *goes to find definition* this.



Bad

17 dictionary results for: bad
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
bad1 [bad] Pronunciation Key adjective, worse, worst; (Slang) bad·der, bad·dest for 36; noun; adverb
–adjective
1. not good in any manner or degree.
2. having a wicked or evil character; morally reprehensible: There is no such thing as a bad boy.

number 2, please

Sorry, don't understand your question. Because in #2 the first part is in direct contradiction to the part in italics. Both statements cannot be true; and taking #1 together with the first half of #2 clearly shows that the last half of #2 is obviously false.

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10)

My stance is people can be bad, but no one can help who they are, so the bad people are ultimately no worse than the good people, the good people are just lucky, and in a way that makes them more annoying.

My stance is people can be bad, but no one can help who they are, so the bad people are ultimately no worse than the good people, the good people are just lucky, and in a way that makes them more annoying.Of course you can help who you are. You have free will, and you know right from wrong. When you choose to do that which you know to be wrong, you are bad.

Even my dog knows right from wrong. When it's gotten into the garbage or chewed up something it shouldn't have while we were out, it will greet us with it's ears down, very submissively, slinking around until we discover what it's done.

Well, does it? Personally, no, it does not. In my eyes, there is no such thing as a "bad" person or "bad" deeds.

Bad people are people who do bad things and arent sorry for doing them. You say there is no such thing as a bad deed? How're these:

Commiting murder
Having an extramarital affair
Stealing
Lying
Raping

Among others... so there is nothing wrong with those things? :bugeye: :confused:

Of course you can help who you are. You have free will, and you know right from wrong. When you choose to do that which you know to be wrong, you are bad.
You might know right from wrong, but happen to be the kind of person that wants to do the wrong thing. That makes someone bad, but my point is it's not really their fault that they are bad, that's just unlucky. That's what they turned out to be, others were lucky enough to turn out to be good.
They didn't really make themself from scratch, they were born with certain dispositions, and these were shaped by their experiences in life, and they are just the result of these factors.
Yeah sure now they can make decisions, but they're always making those decisions from the position of being what they are, which is something they had no control over.

You might know right from wrong, but happen to be the kind of person that wants to do the wrong thing. That makes someone bad, but my point is it's not really their fault that they are bad, that's just unlucky. That's what they turned out to be, others were lucky enough to turn out to be good.
They didn't really make themself from scratch, they were born with certain dispositions, and these were shaped by their experiences in life, and they are just the result of these factors.
Yeah sure now they can make decisions, but they're always making those decisions from the position of being what they are, which is something they had no control over.
Disposition or no, you can choose to do right. Do it often enough, and it becomes a habit, part of your disposition. Give in to temptation, to your "bad disposition", and you become a bad person.

Bad people are people who do bad things and arent sorry for doing them. You say there is no such thing as a bad deed? How're these:

Commiting murder
Having an extramarital affair
Stealing
Lying
Raping

Among others... so there is nothing wrong with those things? :bugeye: :confused:

Ohh, I just realized what everyone was saying, they were referring to the second half of my post about bad deeds. Here's my answer. To you, sure, it may be bad, but to someone else, it might be perfectly normal/OK/just. How are you supposed to decide which one to use? So, I say you cannot, and that there is no objective morality and that there are no bad deeds.

Ohh, I just realized what everyone was saying, they were referring to the second half of my post about bad deeds. Here's my answer. To you, sure, it may be bad, but to someone else, it might be perfectly normal/OK/just. How are you supposed to decide which one to use? So, I say you cannot, and that there is no objective morality and that there are no bad deeds.

You are not allowed to make that choice for yourself - society has already made it for you. (And continually add to the list of what it considers to be bad things.)

Now... if you want to go live on a deserted island all by yourself and never have any contact with other people, sure - it's whatever you want it to be.

But that's the ONLY way you can have it like that!

Edit: You are aware, aren't you, of what a psycopath is - right?

You are not allowed to make that choice for yourself - society has already made it for you. (And continually add to the list of what it considers to be bad things.)

Now... if you want to go live on a deserted island all by yourself and never have any contact with other people, sure - it's whatever you want it to be.

But that's the ONLY way you can have it like that!

Edit: You are aware, aren't you, of what a psycopath is - right?

Oh, I'll obey the laws, that's for sure. But not following the laws definitely doesn't make you a bad person, as been stated before. I'm simply asking if doing these bad deeds make you a bad person, the debate of whether bad deeds exist or whether "evil" exists is an entirely different topic. Just because society thinks something is bad doesn't mean it's actually bad, a little thinking about it will make this clear to you. Fifty years from now, I can almost assure you that societies view of what's right and wrong will change from now, so even though society says both is correct, which one is really correct?

To your edit, although I've been called that on multiple occasions, I'm not actually aware of the definition of the word.

Oh, I'll obey the laws, that's for sure. But not following the laws definitely doesn't make you a bad person, as been stated before. I'm simply asking if doing these bad deeds make you a bad person, the debate of whether bad deeds exist or whether "evil" exists is an entirely different topic. Just because society thinks something is bad doesn't mean it's actually bad, a little thinking about it will make this clear to you. Fifty years from now, I can almost assure you that societies view of what's right and wrong will change from now, so even though society says both is correct, which one is really correct?

You're hitting all around the main point but still missing it.:)

Someone who does bad deeds - as defined by the people living in the same society as they do - MAKES them a bad person by definition. As I said, go live completely alone with no human contact and you will not be judged as EITHER good or bad.

To your edit, although I've been called that on multiple occasions, I'm not actually aware of the definition of the word.

Simply put, it means someone with such a serious mental defect that they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. Such people become locked up to protect everyone from them. And I'm sure you don't qualify as one.;)

"As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:" (Romans 3:10)

Wow, really! Seems there so many righteous people all over and even on this forum
I am sure since you quoted the Bible that there will many who say they don’t believe the Bible and then begin to argue why they are so right, thus proving my statement.

I notice many people say a person once bad always bad…. I was always taught, it was the “act” not the “person” that is bad. Good people do bad things. There will be those who argue.

Hypothetically then what is a person spent the majority (40 years or more) of their life helping others, working with the poor, feeding the hungry and giving of their time, energy and a great deal of money to other causes to make the world a better place? Would they still be considered a good person if it was learned when they were young that had brutally raped and killed a child?

Someone said it was a person’s action’s that defined who they are; others say that once a person does bad it is easier to always be bad. How can anyone argue that John Wayne Gacey was evil because he killed 13 children and then accept President Bush for a war that he instigated that killed thousands of children? Does this make Bush a bad man, if not then why is John Wayne Gacey a bad man? A murdered child is a murdered child.... Both bad acts in my book.

You're hitting all around the main point but still missing it.:)

Someone who does bad deeds - as defined by the people living in the same society as they do - MAKES them a bad person by definition. As I said, go live completely alone with no human contact and you will not be judged as EITHER good or bad.



Simply put, it means someone with such a serious mental defect that they cannot tell the difference between right and wrong. Such people become locked up to protect everyone from them. And I'm sure you don't qualify as one.;)

Oh, I know I can be judged to be good or bad, but this is a thread about whether a person can BE bad. Do we understand each other?

Oh, I know I can be judged to be good or bad, but this is a thread about whether a person can BE bad. Do we understand each other?

Can a person BE bad? You tell me.

What about:

Charles Manson
Hitler
Pol Pot
Ted Bundy
Jeff Dalimer
Son of Sam (Berkowitz)
The Uni-bomber
The woman who killed her baby in the microwave recently
The woman who drowned her kids in the car in the lake (Susan-something)
The guy in Canada on the bus who killed a guy he didn't even know and cut off his head

And about a million others...

Were/are any of them bad?

Can a person BE bad? You tell me.

What about:

Charles Manson
Hitler
Pol Pot
Ted Bundy
Jeff Dalimer
Son of Sam (Berkowitz)
The Uni-bomber
The woman who killed her baby in the microwave recently
The woman who drowned her kids in the car in the lake (Susan-something)
The guy in Canada on the bus who killed a guy he didn't even know and cut off his head

And about a million others...

Were/are any of them bad?

They definitely weren't beneficial to society. Someone else might hail all of these people as heroes, and you know that. I don't know how one can pick which persons judgment of good to use, so I choose none.

if an action harms another person, emotionally or physically, then the action is bad.

basically what you are saying is, if there exists anywhere a single person that doesnt think a particular action is wrong, then its not wrong. Thats one of the silliest arguments Ive ever heard... Dont you have any respect for human life? Why on earth would it be OK to kill someone? would you be Ok with it if someone killed you? (Obviously you'd be dead, but I'm talking hypothetically of course)

I notice many people say a person once bad always bad…. I was always taught, it was the “act” not the “person” that is bad. Good people do bad things. There will be those who argue.A good person can certainly do a bad thing, but if you keep doing bad things, eventually you become a bad person who, perhaps, occasionally does a good thing.

Someone said it was a person’s action’s that defined who they are; others say that once a person does bad it is easier to always be bad. How can anyone argue that John Wayne Gacey was evil because he killed 13 children and then accept President Bush for a war that he instigated that killed thousands of children? Does this make Bush a bad man, if not then why is John Wayne Gacey a bad man? A murdered child is a murdered child.... Both bad acts in my book.
SAM, yourself, and various left wing bloggers excepted; most people do not consider war the equivalent of mass murder. And, of course, Sadamn started the war back in 1991.

"Bad" and "good" are entirely subjective.

They definitely weren't beneficial to society. Someone else might hail all of these people as heroes, and you know that. I don't know how one can pick which persons judgment of good to use, so I choose none.

Oh, please! You ARE old enough to know no one could possibly see most of them as heros. The woman who drowned her kids? The one who killed her baby in a microwave? Just exactly WHO could consider them heros??????

Please think about that - and then PLEASE answer me.

The person doesn't have to actually exist, but the possibility that the person could exist does have to exist. What Norsefire is saying is basically what I'm thinking, Good and Bad are entirely subjective, so who's definition do we use? Is there really truth in numbers?

A good person can make a mistake, certainly.

I draw a line between a mistake and a "bad deed".

It's like the difference between, say, hurting someone's feelings because you were angry or hysterical, and raping someone.

Everyone always does what they think is right/good and/or what they have to do.
No 1 wakes up 1 morning & decides to be a bad person. Something(s) makes me them different from me. Something makes them think differently from me. But they do what their thinking tells them should be done.
I never decided to be a nice person any more than I decided to be intelligent or heterosexual or compassionate or a coffee drinker. It's simply the way I am & always have been. I have no choice but to do what I think is right. I always do good according to my thinking. Fortunately that usually (not always) coincides with what the majority says is good.

madanthonywayne - SAM, yourself, and various left wing bloggers excepted; most people do not consider war the equivalent of mass murder. And, of course, Sadamn started the war back in 1991.

Unjustified war is certainly the equivalent of mass murder.

Saddam was the tool of the USA as long as he was considered useful then suddenly he wasn't considered useful or having an excuse to invade the area was more important.

Saddam asked the US ambassador to Iraq how the US would feel if he invaded Kuwait to take it back. The US ambassador asked Bush Senior & was told to give an ambiguous answer to make Saddam think it was OK but which could later be shown as not saying OK. So they attacked Kuwait & the rest hopefully doesn't need to be explained.

of course the answer to this if your talking in apsolutes has to be no.

If we take quite a likly senario, someone is suffering from O2 deprivation and they acidently kill one of the ambo's trying to get an oxygen mask on them because they were flailing around with a knife

Oviously they are not responcable for there actions because it was out of there control and so they are not evil

now even a premeditated "evil" act doesnt nessarly mean the person is evil. Killing is wrong but if your being systomatically torturered and you kill your captor?

That's why we have words like murder. It would be better to say murder is wrong or bad or evil.

Everyone always does what they think is right/good and/or what they have to do.
No 1 wakes up 1 morning & decides to be a bad person.

My, my! Those have to be two of the most naive statements I've ever seen anyone make.:bugeye:

So all of the guys that went into schools and killed kids and teachers - after planning it for days and weeks - had not decided to do something they knew was bad??????????

Or the hit-man that wires up a bomb in a car didn't know that was a criminal/bad act??????

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:bugeye:

According to YOUR silly view, there are NO criminals in the world and everyone is simply doing what they think is OK. Or that they HAVE to do - as if they have NO choice!!!!

Which world do you live on? It sure isn't the planet Earth.

umm read only
not that i nessarly disagree with you but "illegal" doesnt nessarly mean "bad" or vise versa

umm read only
not that i nessarly disagree with you but "illegal" doesnt nessarly mean "bad" or vise versa

Oh, come on, Asguard - of course it does!! "Good" and "bad" are defined by the laws (legal/illegal stuff) of the society we live in - you already knew that.;)

For example, the Incas (and others) thought human sacrifice was good thing - we've decided it's a bad thing. And you knew that, too.:)

ok then, let me ask you a question

is being gay bad?

now i know some people will answer that hell yes but im specifically asking YOU to do an ethical assessment of wether homosexuality breaches the principles of principle based ethics to the point that its bad

because until very recently it was Illegal.

law and ethics are two different things
is it ethical (ie good) to let a person suffer in pain when they clearly want to die?
its currently illegal to help them die

did abortion using RU486 go from being "bad" the day before the law was passed to "good" the day after?

ok then, let me ask you a question

is being gay bad?

now i know some people will answer that hell yes but im specifically asking YOU to do an ethical assessment of wether homosexuality breaches the principles of principle based ethics to the point that its bad

because until very recently it was Illegal.

law and ethics are two different things
is it ethical (ie good) to let a person suffer in pain when they clearly want to die?
its currently illegal to help them die

did abortion using RU486 go from being "bad" the day before the law was passed to "good" the day after?

Wake up, Asguard - I think you're typing in your sleep.;)

THOUSANDS of things went from being good (or neutral) in the very moment before a piece of paper was signed into law making them illegal/bad. And vice-versa.

i must be asleep, i thought you were AGAINST goverment control

Laws are a set of things demed nessary to promote social cohesion
Ethics and morals are a code either indervidual or as a collective about what is concidered "good" or "bad"

most laws dont even deal with good and bad, for instance its no more "good" to travel on the left hand side of the road than the right but ONE side needs to be picked to alow safe travel so its the law that we have to drive on the left

ethics however do deal in good and bad (or ethical and unethical), it maybe legal to sterilise a 14 year old child because there parents dont want her to get pregnant but it is unethical. Actually in this case its illegal as well but *shrug*

i must be asleep, i thought you were AGAINST goverment control

Laws are a set of things demed nessary to promote social cohesion
Ethics and morals are a code either indervidual or as a collective about what is concidered "good" or "bad"

most laws dont even deal with good and bad, for instance its no more "good" to travel on the left hand side of the road than the right but ONE side needs to be picked to alow safe travel so its the law that we have to drive on the left

ethics however do deal in good and bad (or ethical and unethical), it maybe legal to sterilise a 14 year old child because there parents dont want her to get pregnant but it is unethical. Actually in this case its illegal as well but *shrug*

How did you manage to conclude that I FAVOR more government control from what I said?? I didn't even come close to indicating either like or dislike - I simply stated how things work.:confused:

And contrary to what you just said about laws, there are more of them that deal with civil/moral issues than there are with things like which side of the road to drive on. And even laws like you mentioned can be considered defining good and bad things because their purpose is to promote public safety. And NOT controlling public safety would certainly be a bad thing (drive on either side that you like, ignore stop signs and signals, etc.)

Besids all that most laws governing human behavior/interactions are generally based on some moral or ethical principle, anyway. (Murder, robbery, child abuse, blackmail, etc., etc.)

true but you cant just point to a law and say "there its bad because the law says so"
that doesnt take into account bad laws

for instance the laws against homosexuality were unethical as were the laws alowing slavery and the laws alowing the Nazi's to kill jews but they were all LEGAL laws.

in one of the papers i had to read on the law it asked what is wrong with A.V Dicy's view of the rule of law. now for us the correct answer was ment to be that the law is expencive and there for discriminates through access but i also found an artical critizing him because "just because the law is aplied equally doesnt make it an equal law" or a just law

your right some laws are about morality but its more about keeping sociaty cohesive than "good and evil"

and i dont mean to say that public safty laws are bad laws either but they dont determine GOOD vs EVIL, they just determine what is nessary to a) keep the public safe and b) keep the public together

Saddam asked the US ambassador to Iraq how the US would feel if he invaded Kuwait to take it back. The US ambassador asked Bush Senior & was told to give an ambiguous answer to make Saddam think it was OK but which could later be shown as not saying OK. So they attacked Kuwait & the rest hopefully doesn't need to be explained.I remember hearing a story to that effect, but I only heard it once and assumed it was false. Do you have a source for that?

true but you cant just point to a law and say "there its bad because the law says so"
that doesnt take into account bad laws

for instance the laws against homosexuality were unethical as were the laws alowing slavery and the laws alowing the Nazi's to kill jews but they were all LEGAL laws.

in one of the papers i had to read on the law it asked what is wrong with A.V Dicy's view of the rule of law. now for us the correct answer was ment to be that the law is expencive and there for discriminates through access but i also found an artical critizing him because "just because the law is aplied equally doesnt make it an equal law" or a just law

your right some laws are about morality but its more about keeping sociaty cohesive than "good and evil"

and i dont mean to say that public safty laws are bad laws either but they dont determine GOOD vs EVIL, they just determine what is nessary to a) keep the public safe and b) keep the public together

I agree with this post 100% of whatever I read of it. I'm still undecided of what I think of anarchy, so I guess right now I don't think all laws are bad, but MANY are clearly wrong. Who says keeping society is actually a "good" thing? Who says anything stated in anyone's post generally stated as good or bad is truly good or bad? What I am asking is, Who determines what is right and wrong?

BOH i didnt mean to suggest that i am anti law, i was just trying to point out that the law isnt nessarly the best way to regulate ETHICS (right and wrong). im all in favor of laws which goven public safty like road laws and broud laws for things we all as a sociaty agree are wrong like rape and murder but the legislators and the legal system gets in trouble when it tries to regulate ethics in a micro-sence. for instance how do you regulate concent in a statitory way?

well if we look at sexual concent its dam near impossable, do we go with an age of concent? if so WHAT age? are there exceptions in this age for people around the same age or people with more power over the person?
do we go with some kind of licence? how do you get the licence? cognitive tests? does this take into account power differences?

ect

medical concent is handled a little better in that it has a MAXIUM age where concent is assumed to be able to be given (ignoring situations of incapacitation) which is 16, however below that it doesnt say that concent ISNT present only that the person needs to be able to prove that they can give that concent and understand the conquences ect.

then we could look at laws on ethansia, well its currently illegal in all australian juristictions but it goes on, unprocuted because in general the DPP knows they cant convict unless there are other cirumstances

then we have abortion which i found out is TECHNICALLY illegal in all australian juristictions except the ACT. However this law is unenforced because again there would be no conviction, further more the goverment actually gives advice on HOW to get abortions

Humans in general have a real problem with grey and the law even more so

I agree with this post 100% of whatever I read of it. I'm still undecided of what I think of anarchy, so I guess right now I don't think all laws are bad, but MANY are clearly wrong. Who says keeping society is actually a "good" thing? Who says anything stated in anyone's post generally stated as good or bad is truly good or bad? What I am asking is, Who determines what is right and wrong?

You're just blowing in the wind and talking nonsense. Give yourself another 10 years and you'll be fully embarrased by more than half the things you've written here.;)

For example, anarchy is highly STUPID and downright DANGEROUS! Only very young people believe otherwise. Know why? Because adults completely understand that it would be dog-eat-dog and people would kill anyone they chose to take what they want. There would be NO technology! That means NO computers, NO cars, NO video games. NO TV, NO movies - absolutely NONE of what those silly little kids enjoy the most!!!! Even food would be in VERY short supply and most people - kids first - would die of starvation.

Now think about all that for 10 minutes and then come back and tell us if you still think anarchy might even remotely be what you want...

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/American_Empire/BushI_Iraq_LFE.html
http://www.answers.com/topic/gulf-crisis
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/April_Glaspie
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=us_iraq_80s_807
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11376.htm