It seems to be a legal blunder that is very straight forward, but becomes a heated debate. It begins with the argument should we prosecute a gamer for stealing via the virtual world? Alex Weiss is correct in saying that prosecution for virtual theft is wrong in the scheme of things, because each player reacts differently to behaviors. Even though a person is a “raider” in a game, it doesn’t make them a criminal in the real world. Weiss opens up his article with, “As a reformed online gaming thief, this ruling makes no sense to me.
However, they mostly do over limit, especially in exposing people’s privacy, which harms them much. Electronic media’s freedom, therefore, brings more harm to expose about the privacy of people and show unselected information given to the audiences. The interpretation of someone’s privacy in electronic media, such as internet or television is not suitable with the norm of electronic media. They are not allowed to expose about privacy, such as family case, in order to avoid the social chaos happened among the society and because worsening the condition is a penalty. Basically, they are also not allowed to justify a person or an institution as wrong or right, but they have to be neutral.
For Mate to say that all addictive drug use is caused from neglect issues is not accurate because he does not account for the people who do drugs because they want to. In spite of Mate’s lack of information, his use of hard evidence, and personal anecdotes aides in validating his argument. Scientific examples are
If you would not want the rule to be universalised, you should not be completing the action. For example, if you were to lie, you are condoning lying universally so there will be no truth told by anyone, causing disruptions and disagreements. This is an absolutist stance because there are no exceptions to the rule. The Principle of humanity as an end not as a means is the second imperative. The action a person completes should not use another human to achieve a goal, this is because humans have intrinsic value and we have the innate ability to be rational and
Besides, we don't really mean it: When we try them in criminal court, we do not deem them adults for other purposes, such as voting and drinking. We know they're still minors — they are developmentally less mature and responsible and more impulsive, erratic and vulnerable to negative peer pressure. As people, they are still active works in progress. We just do not like the logical consequences of that reality that they are by nature less culpable than law breaking adults, even when they do very bad things. So we change the rules of the game.
Argumentative These days’ people all over the world are playing videogames, whether it is for people to communicate, cooperate, or have fun with people everywhere. Some people think that video games increase violence in society; however, I think it does not. Video games relieve stress in many ways. Crimes cannot be committed if the criminal is on his or her couch playing Grand Theft Auto. The actions in the videogame may induce violent behavior, but why does it matter if they are too busy playing the videogame to act upon these impulses?
You should never give your home address or telephone number over the internet. The person that you give it to can look you up and find you and probably try to do something bad to you when they find you. That's why some internet chat rooms are not good to be on. You can't trust people these days it is a very dangerous world. "How you can tell your child may be a victim (or is being preyed upon) by a computer sex offender?
Torture is morally wrong for people to even think about legalising this sort of practise; really gets amazement from most of the world’s population because really is pain and suffering of a human being humain at all. Nevertheless, under any circumstance it should not be allowed, other ways must be found because decisions like legalising torture, and in a civilized society is just unheard of; we do not need to legalise torture to combat terrorism, because terrorism cannot hurt us unless we allow it. We don’t even need to be discussing legalising torture in any country; there is just no need for this kind of behavior. “Even when the victim has the necessary information, torture frequently fails to extract it.” In some cases killing is absolutely right; killing someone to prevent
All bullying is dangerous, but there are no physical signs of someone being verbally bullied. Many bully victims will not tell an adult or their peers that they are being bullied because they fear of suffering the possible consequences of having the bullying turn into violence. Put yourself in that position. Put yourself in the position where you feel like you have nowhere to go and nobody to turn to. You can’t tell anybody what’s going on because you don’t want to risk having everything turn into a boxing match where you become the punching bag.
I feel that no matter what happens there will be violence and their will be betrayers. I believe that it is impossible for this world to go on lacking violence. Each part of the world is known for different things, some places are known to have their oil, some places are known to have gold, and other scarce or rare materials. If this world lived by sharing all their materials peacefully at no cost their would not be enough goods to go around for everybody, in result to this their will be violence which would go against Plato’s wishes. Also if we were to continue to sell these materials we would also be going against Plato’s wishes.