yes but no

ěsnt that the whole point of the risk/reward thing about dealing drugs?

This is a sentiment that comes up repeatedly and I want to share my personal opinion on why I think supporting avek is the right thing to do - if you care for him that is.

I mean yes, sure - if avek commited a crime he should receive a fair punishment for it. But I just want to point out that a first time drug offender for the same crime av3k commited would only face probation in most countries (f.e. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-an...-jail.html). In fact in Poland drug dealers with similar cases to his are also usually sentenced to probation or short sentences of 2-3 years. As it stands avek is facing 7 years in prison.

Another concern a lot of people are expressing and I’m sure you would express next is that the proceeds of the donations might be used in illegal operations. My opinion on that is that there are instances where illegal acts can be the morally defensible. Let’s explore a couple of scenarios that may or may not be true:

Avek is being threatened with a disproportional sentence by a corrupt justice system that is trying to extort a bribe from him.

A witness falsely incriminates him of crimes he didn’t commit extorting money to drop his accusations.

I’m not saying that either of these scenarios are true and if they were I wouldn’t be able to state that publicly for obvious reasons. But it is just something I would like you and other people reading this thread to take into consideration.

Nobody would face probation for the amount and diversity of durgs "supposedly" found at the place the police raided, at least not in any European country, especially not if the person was dealing with them.

You didn't even read the linked police report. The big amount of different types of drugs was found in another guys house in another city. Avek was busted with 1kg of weed.

I thought they worked together?

In this criminal action did not end. Later that same day, investigators have determined the main supplier of drugs for ostródzki market. [...]

lmao

assuming half of this is true and you haven't disclosed shit, what exactly was so hard about including this post in your original thread? this "sentiment" is an opinion you should've seen coming from miles away before barging in here with a half-assed post on the incident which absolutely looked like begging and nothing else. hence the shitstorm of fucking corny (yet hilariously justified) replies on morals, ethics, uncertainty and respect for the law.

if this guy did anything wrong other than being caught with a questionable green bag under his roof, it's definitely having you and a mexican midget representing him on the world wide web.

In fact in Poland drug dealers with similar cases to his are also usually sentenced to probation or short sentences of 2-3 years. As it stands avek is facing 7 years in prison.

Unless the polish law system is totally random, which I doubt, you should ask yourself what is different about his case. Hint: maybe he did not tell you the full story.

I don't need to ask myself that question since I am familiar with the specifics of the case. You can ask yourself that question and probably derive the answer from the information given in the two existing topics.

Avoiding a legit question that is relevant to nearly 100% of the discussions here makes it look like you hide something that would prevent people from donating money.

Also, why do you state now that the money is for a lawyer, i.e. why couldn't you tell that in the first thread? Either you are trying to act important here or something is shady as fuck.

http://www.esreality.com/post/2771564/profess...pid2771986

Avoiding a legit question that is relevant to nearly 100% of the discussions here makes it look like you hide something that would prevent people from donating money.

You're right, I wish all the details of the situation could just be layed out on the table publicly but unfortunately that's just not possible. I've written down a few possible scenarios for what might be going on so just imagine one of those or an analogous scenario is true and put yourself into our shoes. I'm not going to comment on this matter any further other than say that anyone who truely cares, wants to donate but has concerns such as those you voiced can always contact me and find out more.

Also, why do you state now that the money is for a lawyer, i.e. why couldn't you tell that in the first thread?

All people have different expenses in their life that they have to account for and as such the payment for a good lawyer is only one of many things that avek needs to pay for. Memento started a donation incentive for lawyer costs because even the biggest esr trolls would have trouble to argue that avek doesn't deserve a lawyer (doesn't keep them from trying). It doesn't mean that this would solve all of his problems.

Yes I am a bit slow-minded. Of course it is an illegal activity but you cannot state that otherwise you would openly admit having a role in said activity. Which might get you into legal trouble.

I am not a lawyer but I wonder if the disclaimer stated in the faq here "the money could be used for anything" is enough to keep you out of that.

Anyway, that is your business. I just hope you don't get others into trouble with that. In best case only MM (or whoever runs that bank account) will be fucked if there are investigations.

Lmao in no countries would donating money to somebody to cover his lawyer costs make you responsible for his future actions in any way, disclaimer or not.

True, but you claimed before that you knew details about said activity. Still, knowing about a planned illegal activity without reporting it to the police does not get you into trouble in Germany at least (unless it involves harming other persons in any way, then you are fucked).

So far I agree. People who donate here and did not talk to you about details are 99% safe.

However, if he uses the 3.5k to bribe a corrupt judge and the police finds out about it, they will check his bank accounts obviously. And if they see this they will put 1+1 together:

1st October: MM -> Avek 3500 Euro
2nd October: Avek picks up 3500 Euro in cash

It will be up to you to prove that you are not involved and that you thought it was only for a lawyer. Poland might be not around the corner, but it is still EU. Better ask the esr admins to delete all backups of your pm-s in which you discussed said activity. Although directly asking them would get them into trouble too.

But that is only for the case that polish police detects it of course. Still, I would not be that naive about it. After all you are dealing with someone who faces 7 years of jail (whether or not that is justified is another story), that goes far beyond covering your friend who steals bubblegum in the supermarket.

Furthermore, as it is about drug dealing on a larger scale, it is not unlikely that Avek, or any of his "friends", had connections outside of Poland. So if the investigating force is interested in these connections, then they will monitor their bank accounts for unusual activity.

tl;dr yes it can go all well, but if it is investigated you might be fucked

There is a complicated situation, which for me is reason for symphatizing with avek, which people can lern from by asking the people mentioned in the op. Details are not public,so it makes no sense to discuss it. You want to know what it's about? Talk to the ppl in private.

Thinking about the situation I found the way I wanted to help Avek publicly, which is what is expressed in the op. Everyone has the right to have a lawyer, guilty or not. Avek is broke and i would like to help paying for the lawyer, and thought that other might want to help with that.

If the people want to learn more and get to help further that's their prerogative.

wow, i liked something exodus has said :o

gl av3k ))

lol

lol

3.5k isn't much. I gave a humble hundred. Come on fags, join the honorable club.

.

He's been dealing drugs and didn't give much fucks about the lifes of those who consume them in the end. Give me a reason to help him out.
I dont care if he's a quake player or whatever. I bet there are tons of rapists and child molesters who played Quake/Doom/Cs or some classic Age of Empires, am I supposed to help them out now, because they were playing videogames?

Anyway not reading that whole thread of what he "had" when he got busted. But I assume if there was nothing to worry about, there would be no issue by now.

Dealing drugs is morally ambivalent and I don't want to try to change your point of view, but selling alcohol is very similar in regards of "not giving fucks about consumers' lifes".

.

Clearly.

.

Have you looked at it?

So, even when the obvious societal effects due to the widespread use of alcohol are not considered (alcohol rates very high, unsurprisingly, on “family adversities” and “environmental damage”) it still is the fourth most dangerous drug.

I tried to read that study but the text isn't available. The methodology is kind of weird in the full text but that's hardly the whole methodology which requires paying for access most likely.

Anyway, it's hard to determine if they separate the fact that many street drugs are adulterated because of their illegality in their analysis. But it's a large factor in the health problems many addicts suffer from. Sync probably has snorted a shit load of animal dewormer at this point if he really is into the cocaine... and that shit can cause AIDs like symptoms and kill you.

Or heroin laced with fentanyl (which is a lot more potent than heroin). Many acute deaths as a result and they often it's just assumed to be the heroin and that goes on the COD even though it really wasn't - although certainly contributing.

I don't really think that study is so accurate anyway. I've seen studies done where the methodology isn't a bunch of experts sitting around and making a decision on the relative dangers.

For example we know approximately 10% of people who use Alcohol will likely become addicted. We know that number is pretty similar for Cocaine and a number of other drugs. Heroin is higher around 15%. Risk of acute death is very high with alcohol as well - comparable to many hard drugs and I"ve seen people get to that point, many many times in my life. Direct cause of death - not always - but indirect as well. I know a number of people who died due to shitty decision making while under the influence. It's easily the most destructive drug in the world. And yet there it is... widely accepted while people preach to others about what they should do because it's so dangerous. It's really quite silly.

Some of the definitions in the graph you linked I would like to see clarification on as well.

Levamisole is really nasty, even if you dont end with AIDS symptoms, it creates heavy vasculitis.

Nice graph that you made, now cite your source nubcakes.

What a clueless, raping wanabee, frightened pity existence your life is.

Theres millions of deaths due to alcohol OD. Theres not only single case of death due to cannabis.

How about those I linked you in the other thread, that you didn't reply to? While cannabis doesn't cause people to OD, it does cause traffic accidents and cancer, just like the majority of alcohol-related deaths are.

See how I didn't call you any name in that paragraph (and not once, that I can recall), yet the moment you are reading this you are already typing an insult?

Actually it kills cancer. I've cured many people while in Oregon over a 4 year period. From head to toe, brain, bone, tongue, gums, any skin, bone marrow, lung, brest, any organs . it was amazing. Even smoking lowers your chance for lung cancer my a nice margin. Just do some research that's not tied to big money people.

I'm sorry but by smoking and inhaling any substance you are promoting lung and heart disease tenfold. You can't pretend otherwise. There are many uses for treating various illnesses and even cancer patients can benefit from it, but killing cancer is bs. It may relieve stress and make a cancer patient happier which could definitely help fight cancer, but that's about it.

I enjoy a toke now and again. I've even had a few acid trips. But God help me, I do not believe that marijuana is a miracle. It's a damned drug.

^^^ Pure ignorance.

UCLA study indicates people who smoke cannabis have a slightly lowered risk, but not statistically significant, of cancer. Worst case there's no difference because there are cancer causing compounds in the smoke. Fortunately THC and other cannabinoids have multiple avenues to kill cancers. If you have an opinion on something you haven't researched its because you are the worst kind of human alive. Get your head out of your ass so that the rest of us don't have to suffer your ignorance. Thanks.

There's no association with heart or lung disease either. Feel free to investigate it.

There is association with acute bronchitis.

Lung capacity of cannabis smokers (no cigarettes - careful! many studies just lump them together!) is on average twice that of non smokers. Probably just by virtue of the practice of deep breathing, but also possibly due to bronchodilating properties having lingering effects.

Lmao. Well whenever you need to talk I'll be here.

You can't deny the evidence that smoking weed raises blood pressure and heart rate. You cannot deny that inflammation on the lungs and tar is harmful, unnecessary, and damaging to heart and lungs.

You can cling to your pro cannibis research all you want, it's not my life and I won't project my own lifestyle as the only right path to walk.

I'm still laughing pretty hard inside that you think I'm the worst kind human alive. Good stuff. Who knew that expressing an opposing opinion based on personal experience could be so offensive?

Have a good day , mister. Hit the blunt, seems you could use a head change. =]

I've seen many people in legal states cured of lung cancer with cannabis

Smoking or by eating? We're there any other contributing factors such as diet, meditation, or activities to keep blood flowing and reduce stress? How about other medications or herbs to assist with fighting free radicals? Et cetera, et cetera.

There's more to fighting cancer than just using marijuana.

Using it too much has many adverse effects on different people. Many of which are not good at all for a person.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there's many good reasons that a person would need to use it. I've got a few personal friends whose lives would be a living hell without it because of their conditions.

You cannot deny you have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

Cannabis lower blood pressure. You're conflating smoking with the effects of nicotine. Please, stop having an opinion on anything you don't know anything about. I do not need to suffer for your ignorance, thanks.

Lol wem ur brillant :D

This is just bullshit. Cannabis killed many people or made them retards for the rest of their lifes (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schizophrenia). THC itself can't kill people, thats true, but its a heavy psychoactive drugs that can induce many psychical illnesses that lead to suicide (depressions/bipolar disorder cause of schizophrenia, etc.). You don't have the slightest clue about what you are talking when you say that THC hasn't killed anyone and therefore is "safe to use".

Rates of schizophrenia circa era 1900's - about 1% of the population
Rates of cannabis consumption same era? A lot lower than currently.

Rates of schizophrenia circa now ? About 1%
Rates of cannabis consumption same era? A lot fucking higher.

Correlation =/= causation? You would think you would learn this in high school, but I'd be surprised if anything of that nature was taught to the mouth breathing retards that emerge from school these days.

Cannabidiol in a recent German study was indicated as a potent anti psychotic - which is probably why a lot of schizophrenics smoke cannabis. Symptom relief. Unfortunately, most cannabis is low in Cannabidiol. Performed the same as the latest and greatest anti psychotic in terms of desired effect. Only it didn't have the life shortening horrid side effects that came with modern anti psychotics.

Its rather amusing reading all these pro marijuana, enlightened by truth and hard research advocates spouting out insults whilst pretending that the information they are conveying has undeniably proven all these amazing remedies.

Did anyone tell them that everyone is different, reacts differently, feels differently towards the effects of marijuana?

And aren't you enlightened ones supposed to be the ones showing grace, patience, and goodwill towards their fellow man?

I used it for a long time, grew up in a family that uses it. Been around all sorts of people who use it. Most, btw are depressed. I quit using it because every so often it triggers a panick attack. Never happens otherwise.

I'm beginning to agree with majority, sadly. Marijuana abuse clouds your ability to reason. Like most drugs, it is wise to use them in moderation if at all.

The study he is citing says the exact same thing I just said - correlation =/= causation.

That's interesting about the depression because in states where it's legal the rates of depression are dropping.

You're in full on ego defense mode because you never were in any other mode as you formed an opinion without any actual research.

Unfortunately I have to live surrounded by people just like you. And as a result the world is total shit.

Thanks for that bro.

You need help and the weed ain't helping at all. I recommend thirty minutes of exercise daily.

http://johntreed.com/blogs/john-t-reed-s-news...te-tactics

Lol are u retarded? Who would give a fuck about their lives? People who consume them are worthless and narcomans, so nobody gives a shit about them. Plus so what that he earned on them? If he wouldnt sell it to them then they would find narcotics somewhere else, simple as that. People talking here just make me laugh. Oh how bad was he.. omg true is that all those people who bought from him, would buy from someone else if not him. I'm sure that 90% of his customers were his friends, who wanted it and would get anyway if not from him. So maybe its goood that they could get it from him not from someone who would lead them to troubles. Also 90% ppl here consume drugs im sure. Who doesn't smoke marijuana or at least didnt try it once? Plus marijuana should be legal instead of alcohol. Alcohol makes u agressive and makes people kill each other or at least makes them fight. Marijuana makes u think deeper and makes u a pacifist. marijuana is illegall so law can earn on it, like FBI or Police and government. They took 1kg from him so they can sell it on their own, for sure they burn it. If Marijuana was legall it would make each country so much better, life standards would grow, some cool dudes like avek would sell it legal and cheaper, maybe start company or a shop. There are milion dudes doing what av3k did. And they do no harm to aynone, thank god they are there. So we dont have to grow the plants on our own, with risk. Just go buy and spend cool time with mates on talking, instead of getting vodka get drunk with mates, go to a club and start a fight with someone.

The fucking point is that unless he grew it all by himself, the drug money supported real criminals who do far worse things than selling pot. Not sure how 90% in this thread fail to get that. But Avek fucking knew it and that did not prevent him from doing what he did.

It has absolutely nothing to do with alcohol being worse (which I agree on) and that weed should be legalized (which I also agree on, for multiple reasons).

I'm American and my government's military does some pretty heinous shit with our tax dollars. Am I guilty by association as well?

Asyy lmao

I dont give a fuck about people who sell drugs, cheers.

lol

http://sixteencolors.net/pack/blocktronics_blockfury/US-LLDT.ANS

So which one of you killed brandan?

I strangled him with my bare feet.

hot

Kind of, maybe. I've come to miss him in the meantime.

"Kind of, maybe. I've come in the meantime."

Fixed.

I have the feeling that memento_mori is like Kyle from South Park...

Hes thinks hes really important and always gives annoying speeches even tho nobody wants to listen to them (and memento also looks kinda jewish).

"memento also looks kinda jewish"

Didnt know you could look like being from a religion.

can't tell if SJW or just didn't think this through

He means ethnicity as in Semitic (Canaanites).

Presumably a German thing.

Didnt know you could look like being from a religion.

Are you serious?

:^D

Ofc I am.

If you don't see an external religious sign, how could you assume someone religion ?

[Waiting for some racial generalization here]

Anyway. As he stated it was meant to be read as a joke, so fair enough ^^

Pretty fucked up to talk about someone who's done so much for this community like that. Personally I always enjoy memo's journals, articles, videos, galleries, interviews and forum posts a lot. And i think many would agree with me

Thank you Memento Mori

You are right, I do regret writing that. It was meant to sound more like a joke, but people took it serious.

Well anyway:

Dear Memento, I respect you a lot for your achievments for our little community. Thanks to your tools I can spawnrape on T7! You and I, we share the same love for this crazy game. That means you are dope.


(I still wont forgive you for working at Disney tho, thats just plain wrong, dude :D)

Personally i think he's annoying as fuck, doing a couple of fucked up videos and interviews, comming up with fucked up ideas, and acting smart, doesnt make u smart.
w/e

cant tell if stupid or jelly

its just my opinion bruh, gl to the dude

100% agree with the bakstinator!

plenty of people have done a lot for this game. Memento hasn't done more than any one specific person. He has done plenty to destroy it too though. He has a history of siding with the wrong people simply because they were a quake pro or because they had weight with the developers in the game. Memento is a troll and most people dont even know it.

His help isn't warranted with this situation especially and him intervening with fate is exactly what's wrong with society as a whole. If you do the crime, you gotta do the time. And in this case av3k and his misfits have done enough damage to not only destroy this game's image but to destroy the lives of the families whose children they sold drugs to. Word on the street is that all quake live pros abuse drugs, thanks to av3k.

By aiding Av3k, memento mori is an accessory and i urge everyone strongly to understand that this thread is being looked at by the authorities and don't get caught in the web in the process. Let Memento go down in flames for yet another bad decision.

Oh golly this was just too good to pass.

This has to be one of the best trolls in this thread so far, well done brotendo

lolsoseriouSSSS my lg went up by 5 percent

:D

Memento hasn't done more than any one specific person.

So there isn't any single person who did less for the game then memento?

This is brilliant.

Memento mori i hope you go to jail for assisting a criminal. You dont even know the damage he has done. One of the teens he sold drugs to could have died. or is now addicted. you have a very bad track record of supporting bullies and people who have helped to destroy this game. stop trying to act like you are better than everyone.

Roll a blunt and relax, bro. =]<=~~~

OD'ing on weed is practically impossible, you'd have to smoke literally 40 000 blunts in a short period of time. GL with that.

gateway drug

Lol so your government tells you. Endorphins are the first drug a person has. Therefor endorphins are more reasonably the gateway drug.

All other drug abuse is the result of chasing the endorphin Dragon.

What if you get a lot of weed but in pill form and stick it up your butt?

As far as i know, nobody ever died of marijuana overdose, and they just founf a kilo of it in Av3k's house, so you can relax, he didn't kill nobody

Don't do the crime, if you can't do the time.

Don't do the time, if you can't do the crime.

Reflex has in game timers, what's up with that? Don't these kids know how to play REAL duel?

Wait, so they took his quake prizemoney because they think it's drugmoney?

How are drug dealers supposed to pay for their defense if even money from their life before that is taken?

We call it justice here c]:-)

Does that mean that he had both his drug money and his Quake prizemoney lying around in bundles of cash, which the police then seized as evidence?

Or does it mean that the police seized the money from his bank accounts, without a judge having established that he's guilty of anything?

The first scenario seems like proper behavior from the police.

But the second scenario is like a sentence before a trial, isn't it? Unless, maybe, it is obvious he has been depositing the drug money in his regular bank account?

I wouldn't be surprised if they took all his monies.
Shit's crazy yo.
Av3k was strong enough to stop polish kids from stealing his shoes but no one can stop the law.

memento I've often been amazed by the way you were always here to support players who were trying to get to an event, but in this case this kind of altruism is borderline pathological and asking for money in such a shady context is getting ridiculous

I love weed and have nothing against Av3k but come on everyone has problems in his life (and usually not ones that they put themselves into fully knowing it's illegal from the get go)

So it makes you wonder what's going to be the next 'good cause' you'll request money from the community for ?

CMSS's sex change.

Again? That's three threads in like a week.

We might have to go through that accounting lesson again. That's like - wait - two numbers wrong. Out of two.

http://esreality.com/post/2769001/n-a/
http://esreality.com/post/2769038/update-on-av3k-s-situation/
http://esreality.com/post/2771564/helping-out-av3k/

Memento, twister and others are behind all those.

BTW they made other threads too, but were nuked and are now lost.

Sweet Lord, no! They're behind all those? Two non nuked threads in two weeks? Why thanks, Sherlock. Excellent work you've done there in your armchair. Except it's two in two and not three in one.

1 + 1 + 1 = 3

1 + 1 = 2

drugs + raid - cash = jail

how's that illegal quake site of yours doing?

Not true, there were no other threads and I nuked the one you linked myself to not have duplicates.

Just paraphrasing what brandan and/or Teen Queen said in one of those other threads.

And even in the case they were wrong (which I doubt), still there was no need to make a second non-nuked thread about the exact same thing, especially when once again you and memento front paged this begging for a drug dealer topic against the admins' policies, so once again it got shut down.

How do you come to think there was no need?

For one, the second thread of his is the hottest topic of this site.

For second, did you notice Teen Queen and/or brandan already took this third (fourth-fifth-whatever) thread out of the frontpage, just like it happened with the previous threads? What's the point of doing that again and again when twister and memento know they are acting against this site's policies.

Nothing of that has anything to do with need. Seriously, why do you even engage in this destructive manner?

Re-read if needed.

I don't really like how recently ESR turned into a site where the main topics are begging for money, that especially when it involves funding a confessed drug dealer and criminal band member, plus then creating and frontpaging new threads about the same thing over, and over, and over again, so that the begging receives even more publicity at the expense of ruining the site.

It's not "over and over and over". You're constantly misrepresenting the facts. for reasons quite mysterious to me. It's two non nuked threads in two weeks. No less, no more.

That said, complain to the admins about what you feel this site is supposed to be or not. In the meantime, maybe let people try and take care of what could possibly substantially affect the real life of a real human being.

I believe Memento believes that even the guilty deserve to be legally represented in order to receive a fair trial.

That's why lawyers represent criminals, even though they suspect they are guilty - everyone had a right to be represented in court.

Yes, I believe this.

I guess the previous 3 threads just didn't cut it huh?

Now they're pulling memento into this because they know he's the voice of reason and will be able to persuade people to donate to just about anything.

FRONT PAGE MOTHERFUCKER

..while the cat's away the mice will play.

Who's top cat, anyway? And why isn't ESR flooded with ponies yet?

There's no topcat, even the admin levels don't mean much when it comes to big decisions. You could argue Sujoy is the topcat but even then, decisions are often discussed between admins before reverting any changes.

A A A A A A A Y
A
A
A
A
A
A
Y

L M A O
M
A
O

wowsoMOIST

why not host an online tourney/showmatch/whatever and stream to get donations?

THIS

That's always my first thought when a donation thread pops up.

.

I would donate to this. Rapha evil dahang cypher av3k, base clawz fraze cooller all worthy of show matches

showmatch between kronic and (free)base_? get ready to light it up!

I have 40eu in the bank motherfucker.

This is poor show from the ESR admins, MM should been banned for even coming up with a business model like this. Avek did the crime and his timing was way off, I wouldn't even let him pass go never mind giving him a Chance.

I have filed a report to paypal regarding drug dealings.

Regards

I wonder if all these anon hits we've been getting in avek threads are the same uptight person or a collective hivemind that decided to let everyone know multiple times how they don't support the cause.

You're anon, why do you care so much about not donating?

It's not about giving him a chance as far as I understood, it's more about giving him a fair trial.

There's also the problem of justice, of which we could talk for hours. For example, the same crime doesn't call for the same kind of punishment from one country to another. If av3k is to face 10 years in prison for dealing weed I call it a harsch punishment. Heck, even more than 6 months I'd call it nuts.

Likewise you'd probably get your head cut off in some countries if you did sell drugs. Would you also say the same bs you've just said then cause "it is the law" ?

I didn't think so. I mean USA is known for invading countries left and right cuz they don't like their laws/leaders so I'm pretty sure you get the picture that I'm trying to draw here.

Basically, terrorism.

Likewise you wouldn't start doing shady business if you intend to be a model citizen, there's no excuse for being a criminal. Harsh penalties up or down, I guess every citizen of a certain nation has at least some basic knowledge of how the penalties look like for certain crimes.

He decided to try his luck and got caught. Now it's time to face the consequences.

He's not gonna get executed and he's not a minor either, so fuck it, if he's gonna sit 10 years he's gonna sit 10 years, his own fault. So no, I wont support criminals, with free money, in fact nobody should.

https://youtu.be/6vYnas6q3Sg?t=34s

One day they'll tell you it's forbidden to walk outside your house from 7PM to 7AM.

Or to wear any clothe that's not either black or white.

I guess law is the law when you're a nazi.

You are the king of exaggerations

I'm just using my contradictor's logic to show him how absurd and/or narrowminded it is.

This guy was basically saying : "well if in North Korea they make you get eaten alive by dogs if you happen to sneeze at a bad time then you shouldn't sneeze."

Granted I'm exaggerating. But it's all in order to make a point : if av3k is facing 10 years in prison for selling some weed then I really do hope he gets a good lawyer, because this is simply out of proportion. I dgaf if it is "the law". The law is broken in many ways and in many countries, and they aren't just God given. They're written by men, so flawed by essence.

When people see thought your exaggeration, they dismiss your view because it looks manipulative, an appeal to emotion.

This is why most anti-drug commercials fail, because they use such ostentatious hyperbole that kids just ignore because it's so far up someone's ass.

It's not an effective tool in arguing.

Whatever.

I think the point of the exaggeration is to point out how reducing ones view of the matter to such an extreme and simplistic caricature does not lead to proper moral judgement, when we are dealing with much more nuanced scenarios like this.

If his view of what is morally right is solely dependent on what is lawful and what is not, then if it is legislated he will have to obey the dictated curfew and be forced to view anyone that is wearing a green t-shirt as a immoral criminal that should be put in jail. Furthermore when asked his opinion about the someone being sentenced for disobeying the dress code, in order to not be a hypocrite, he will once again have to reply:

"He's not gonna get executed and he's not a minor either, so fuck it, if he's gonna sit 10 years he's gonna sit 10 years, his own fault..."

Also

"I wont support criminals, with free money, in fact nobody should"

That is in fact advisable in general, but it still does not apply universally for any given situation, if we concern our selves with moral justice. Reducing everything to such a simplistic black and white picture and pretending that he still holds the moral high ground, is kinda pathetic for sure ignorant in my opinion.

*comment moved*

This.

In much better words indeed.

Whoops. Was really supposed to be a reply to Teen Queen :/

Going to prison for a plant is exaggerated

Clearly, drug dealing should be rewarded with the Nobel prize, and anyone against it should be hung.

Call me when you have kids and tell me what you think about drug dealers.

As for your examples, well maybe that day will come down the road, and we'll see from there. That said, there's private schools and jobs with a dress code, break the dress code, you're suspended of fired - it's really nothing new.

However it's your decision if you want to play by the rules or swim against the flow, but whatever you decide for, don't come crying later because, well, it was your decision.

i dont get this
first, YOU where a kid, i guess u dont do drugs, why? cause you parents teached u that
is that simple
u talk the kids about the subject, hardly anyone with good information would want to try MDMA
still, some people will want anyway, i they will, no matter if the drug is or not legal
being drugs illegal implies a nasty crime scene rising
so yeah, drugs must be legal and studied a lot more
and the responsability should be in the hands of the subject that selects to use em anyway
i did LSD once ONCE, i cant sleepits been 10 years i cant sleep with some psiquiatric drug, but its unkown if its related with the LSD, but one thing is for sure, im working on fixing problem that where there LONG before trying lsd, i could even think LSD was the last step to finally put in fact all the shit i had inside

I did drugs, I was growing up in a very stable family and we had no financial issues what so ever, but the peer pressure is stronger in your teenage years as your moral compass.

It's simply you have friends, so friends got drugs from someone, next thing you know it, you're doing them. Doesn't matter your parents told you 50000 times they are bad for you.

You can't really control your kid 24/7 especially in their rebelious puberty, they will even more likely do shit just to spite the "evil" parent. Dealers have easily advantage over them, sleezy as fuck, I don't really care bout adults getting their hands on drugs, for all I care if you're dumb enough, do it, it's your life and decisions, but when you get up to kids or teenagers, the only solutions is to hang you upside down from your balls on a public lantern in the middle of a major town square for all to see what kind of crappy human being you are.

I understand this point of view, and tried to make the post be very clear, so that there are no misunderstanding.

Anyone donating for this should know he is not innocent.

If you feel like answering, how would you address the problem if the criminal was a close friend or relative?

Depends on the crime they are accused of, really. I however wouldn't ask internet strangers for money - but that's my personal stance.

That said, if you want to collect for him, do it, I'm just stating my opinions. I have no attachment to him, so I can see clearly, as said if it happens to someone close maybe I'd look at it differently, might be hypocritical of me, but that's how humans work.

Makes sense, and I don't think you are hypocritical. I would see it the way you do if I did not care for him.

Just to specify, I did not intend this to reach strangers. I just did not know a better place to reach people who might care about avek.

If you feel like answering, how would you address the problem if the criminal was a close friend or relative?

Too bad that, unlike you, most of us can't use a public gaming site to gather money for our criminal friends

Am I using this site in ways you or others cannot?

You will need some baby wipes for other *friends* who fucked up :)

your passive agressive statements are not going to work here dude.

You sound like a politician and have obviously used that quiet subtle tone to convince people that you are a good perosn. You're a complete phony.

You'd be great in government where you could lie to people every day for your own gains.

You didn't even reply to him, this is just an out of context copy paste from somewhere?

Well, ... xD

i could care less

108.55.66.180 Server Details
IP address: 108.55.66.180
Server Location: Yeagertown, PA in United States
ISP: Verizon Internet Services

this is not a "bussines model", not even bussines, its a seek for true justice, bussines is selling something, not buying justice

Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...

Fuck no.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_4bp8bBNVw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cryMVK1PwuQ

The irony of posting this as the Wire generally made a point of how fucked up drug laws, not drugs themselves, generally led to severe drug problems.

To those who are posting above commenting on how he may or may not have dealt to a teenager, who now may or may not be addicted, or dead, or just continuing on with life having enjoyed a high or two and went about their day like normal folk, I just gotta know.

Alcohol sales. You gotta be against them. You don't have a moral leg to stand on. From alcoholism to drunk driving and everything else. I better never catch you fuckers having a beer.

Tobacco. Of any kind.

To any of you remarking about how 'you should have a kid and then see how you feel'. How about you raise your child to not be a complete fucking retard, and you'll be good.

You'd have a point if alcohol would be illegal to sell, since it's not in about 90% of the world, you sadly don't have a point.

But yes, selling alcohol to minors has serious consequences, and since the current generation has no common sense, they drink themselves into a coma and can potentially die through alcohol poisoning. There's numerous cases where a bar owner was sentenced to jail because he served alcohol to minors (knowing or unknowingly) and they died, even tho it wasn't even him serving the drinks, but his staff. - it's nothing new really.

Just because you wish drugs would be legal, doesn't make them legal. Besides even if drugs are legalized, dealing with them under the table avoiding tax and quality checks (poisoning etc,) is still illegal and jail bound.

EDIT: You know just as an example, there's many many legal drugs you get when you get your doctors prescriptions, among them drugs that drug addicts like to use very much, you as an individual are still not allowed to sell them, also countless doctors in jail who were nicking drugs for themselves or dealing with them or writing too many prescriptions for unreasonable amounts.

You just gotta move past your teenage thinking to realize that. The real world is a bitch, and life's not fair and we can be glad it's not.

The fact that alcohol is legal is exactly my point. Why is one destructive substance legal and one isn't? Cultural values dictating one but not the other and refusing to question those values is a cute way to never have to deal with the problem.

I don't care if drugs are legal. I don't consume anything aside from marijuana, which thankfully is becoming far more accepted even in the land of the Ignorants.

The thing with alcohol is that a glass of wine or a pint of beer wont make you go batshit crazy like a 2mg pill will make you go or even a joint will make you feel. Clearly depends from person to person, but I've never seen a person being drunk after a glass of wine, but I know they exist.

Clearly it's still a drug, and it can be as dangerous as any other drug out there. That being said, alcohol still doesn't hook you so fast as designer drugs do. When I was young, I could go on a wasted tour for a week, where every single day I would be drunk, cause it was super cool at that point, and it didn't make me an alcoholic in fact it made me actually reject drinks for the next couple of weeks. Now in my mid 30s I drink a glass of wine a day at dinner and maybe drink a beer or two a month, and a whiskey here and there. I wasn't drunk for about a year now, and before that for about 5 years.

Also I was doing all sorts of drugs in my teens, from weed to shooting K, to shrooms to all sorts of other harder or easier stuff, and I damn well know the difference between being drunk or being on drugs, and the difference is enormous, whilst again both are equally bad and dangerous.

But as said, it has the same danger as any drug, but the stats still say "depending where you are really" that there's less alcoholics as there is drug addicts. Also note that most strong alcohol beverages are usually more expensive as drugs are, that bring you into the same state of a vegetable for the next couple of hours.

As for cigarettes, whilst they are killing you, they aren't really producing much of a side effect in your everyday behaviour, in the sense that you smoke a cigarette and become a liability in traffic etc., so I'd say whilst cigarettes are bad for you, it's ultimately your decision if you want to smoke, and as we see, smokers are treated as 2nd rate citizens anyway, with all the bans on smoking, which as a smoker I completely agree with.

Also legalizing weed, wont make dealing become legal, that's really the point of why we comment under this article. Weather or not you are pro or contra legalization.

I should clarify that I do not think hard drugs should be legal to use casually and socially as people do with alcohol, tobacco, and weed are. By legalizing them on some level you can take control of the flow and supply, therefore eliminate, at the very least SOME of the violence and gang culture that prevail with their illegality.

It should be apparent to anybody willing to read on the subject that strict prohibition is a failure in basically every regard.

Doing drugs as a young adult/teenager is a pretty common trend everywhere, and while the experience shapes your opinion today it doesn't justify draconian laws that essentially punish people for a medical condition.

The fact is there ARE drug addicts, and where there is an addict willing to pay there is somebody always willing to provide. Taking control of both ends (using the addiction to pay for rehabilitation, while controlling the supply of the drug to cut out some of the illegal traffickers.) The idea is pretty unformed and there is an immense amount of logistics behind it, but as previously stated, prohibition is a failure across the board and continues to support increasingly violent cartels, gangs, and other traffickers daily. And that shit is the real problem.

Give me three beers and I puke. Smoke three spliffs with me and the evening has just started.

How intoxicated you get (or rather, how intoxicated you feel) from one substance is completely subjective. However, when you can die from detoxing from the legal substance and detoxing from the illegal one makes you a little cranky, something is very wrong.

It's not really 'bout dying as much as the fact that those who are on hard drugs are pretty much in the vast majority criminals themselves, weather it be stealing, theft, assault for personal gain to possible even murder, all for the next hit.

Drunkards can be the same, but it's not the really the vast majority. Usually it's anger management issues and depression for them.

As for weed, who cares, I agree, but as far as I'm aware, that was not the only thing that was found by him, I think they even found some guns etc.

Several Polish users have pointed out that all the 'hard' stuff wasn't found at Avek's. He just had weed.

(also the idea behind legalization is to keep addicts from becoming criminals by separating the two. Laws are made to protect people and after half a century of trying to ban drugs, I think it's pretty clear that it makes an already risky activity much more dangerous)

Am I the only one on this site with common sense? Kappa

If avek is facing 7 years of actual jail time then his offense is not only having 1kg of weed at home, as people have said here.

Also, the police reports never said that they found that amount in avek's home or only weed, so people here made up that statement (to defend a criminal 'friend' they have never met).

Yeah I'm definitely gonna take your word on an article in Polish and the Polish judical system over Polish people, lmao@polanf right?

oh yes because parenting outside the house is possible 24/7.

These drug dealers know how to hook kids into that kind of lifestyle.

i suggest you watch the dangers of social media videos on youtube and you'll see how easy it is for good kids with a good upbringing to get tricked and thrust into drugs.

use your brain please. things aren't so black and white. You can raise your kid to do everything right, but unless you're teaching these predators to do the same, it won't make any difference. Most kids learn the hard way...

Raise your kid to be intelligent and you'll be fine.

Continue posting anonymously plz.

that is the most idiotic response ever. Do you really think the average teenager can outsmart a seasoned criminal?

please think before you type

please continue posting anonymously because you're probably not intelligent enough to figure out how to register, so your kid is fucked GG another heroin addict is born.

: D

.

dird

chill out. You're consistently missing the point and/or replying with horrible mischaracterisations of the points you reply to

That's it? Just paying for the lawyer? I need content for my script on this thing, and yes it will feature dizzle too

To spice up the script you could use common sense: they haven't provided a single proof of that the money is going to his lawyer, that after Memento stating on the previous thread that the money wasn't necessarily going to be used for legal things (that statement was edited by twister afterwards) and that he personally knows avek is guilty of drug dealing, so the lawyer thing might as well be a lie.

Or mention how twister casually.posts that the usual sentence is 2-3 years tops but that avek is getting 7; as if we couldn't tell from that statement that avek did more and/or more serious offenses than what they are telling us, since he is facing more serious consequences for a reason. Again, common sense.

Funny how I recently requested a showmatch that would probably help with the cause and verify whether Av3k actually has anything to do with Quake anymore.

I stand behind my original $210 offer if you make it happen, Nico!

(House of Decay / t9 in the map pool please)

im sure he is feeling great and ready to play pro level quake when jail is inminent...................

If it meant $ and a possible way out of jail, I would probably have quite a motivation to play... its not like he would need months of preparation or whatever...

I believe out of jail is basically improbable, the goal is to lower his penalty to something that doesnt makes him suffering parkinson when he leaves.

I'm sure avek would be up for that. Find z4muz and convince him ;)

This is more well put together then that other clusterfuck.
When reading through i do feel kinda sad for the kid and begin to understand why somany polaks come to the Netherlands where you barely get 7 years for murder. On the other hand i believe he would be very aware of the sentences possible in his country so i understand his issue hes just been a dumbass.

A typical sentence in Poland for the crimes that Av3k committed is 2-3 years.

So you suddenly know all the circumstances of the crimes he committed? Whether he was involved with an organized crime group and how deeply? Crimes committed when part of an organized crime group are usually punished much more seriously, and rightly so.

I talked to him.

Why are you only alluding to the possibility that he's guilty of all these things? What's the point in presuming that he's a shitty person?

Dizzle would represent av3k in court for free. He'd give the jury blunts and make everyone watch Chris brown videos as evidence until they find him innocent. Best lawyer money can't buy.

im broke and anyway the money from argentina is worth very little in euros, but i support this "thing", hope av3k gets back on track
i would also donate to ban megaman3 forever from esr, get a fucking life dude

Plused for megaman thing, gold.

Still waiting for aveks obligatory comment, going something like:
love, <3, quake, czm RJ, Mary jane , best time of life, dm6, make weed not war, cummunity <3333, mr. Johnson, more weed, ztn.... See how cute I am, I'm the best.... My bad English makes me sound like I'm too stupid to be guilty... Pls plus this... Quake <3, czm, demo dm6, peace and love

You are bitter as fuck.

id choose bitter over stupid any day

What a shame that you never had the choice

http://esreality.com/post/2769038/update-on-a...pid2769786

.

I remember seeing this thread promoted to the frontpage by Memento, then Teen Queen took it down, then Xerosawyer put it up, then Demiurge down.

You are so very wrong.

xero has nothing to do with majoring or unmajoring the thread - in fact he didn't even want to edit it but just noticed big grammatical mistakes and was told to iron them out - although like I stated below he hasn't really stated his opinion on the major/unmajor issue.

If you want someone to blame it's either me on twister, depending on where you land with this issue.

I assumed last edit = put on the frontpage.

So is this thread (and the upcoming ones) going to be in the FP or not? You admins change your mind every day about this.

Nope, memento published it, either him or twister majored - I then unmajored because it didn't fit the site guidelines and was a direct solicitation and basically a repost which was already unmajored once.

Then there was a huge discussion on IRC, the admin forums, at first it was decided to patch it up and present as news, but as more admins chimed in with their views it is now decided to be left as a thread.

Admin forums look bonkers right now and are almost as active as the public website.

Typical meagman3 post. Doesn't know what he's talking about, makes it up, rolls with it.

brandon was banned for being against this?

xerosawyer should be demoted.

When did he become admin? FFS, some dark times on esr ahead.

Brandan wasn't banned, his user level should just state "It's complicated"


xero should have been promoted a long time ago and worked with admins for years. When I needed help with editorialization I asked him for advice and although he was just a regular user he always complied.

Sure we might not agree on certain things, but he's got nothing to do with this post being on the frontpage.

He hasn't even voiced his opinion regarding avek threads because he doesn't feel entitled to do so, there's no reason to point fingers at him.

.

http://www.esreality.com/?a=users&user_id=7

That police report link doesn't work for me

fucks sake lol

Brandan banned so you could push this? Lol.

You're a bunch of pathetic nerds taking turns in sucking drug dealers dick. Memento is the biggest disappointment for me in all this. Way to flush your reputation down the toilet in a desperate and probably pointless attempt to help a criminal.

Kek, nice butthurt, m8.
8/8 solid

pacmanpl disagreeing with you is a good indication that you're still sane

Are you talking to yourself...?
Daym.

Says a guy who is parroting dird.

only flushing it down the drain for you and a few others so its not that bad really

You are so clueless it hurts. You don't even know who 99% of the people in the community are and you have been posting like a ferverous fanboy since day one.

you are completely obsessed with quake and blind

someone had to say it, stay out of this matter, you know nothing about it.

Plusses

The two are largely unrelated

I will remove this thread from major news, donations should not be on the frontpage for whatever reason unless it is related to upcomming tournaments and helping players get there.

I still hope av3k gets the help he needs.
But regardless people are free to donate and discuss the good and the bad, as long as the posts are not malicious towards any of the involved parties.

okay good bye amokchen

"Game of Admins"

Everyone rich in the world is either a bonafide genius, athlete, entertainer, old money or a sleezebag that has climbed up on the backs of hard working people using all kinds of fucked up ways to steal their money. You got coporate fucks using legal ways to gouge out the working mans salary and then you got shady niggas like my man av3k rolling with drugs n guns and shit.

Rule of the game #1

Anything is legit as long as you don't get caught.
There are no 'actual' rules in life. The law and religion are there to try to hold society together so we all don't fuck each other up.
You can do anything you fucking want. kill 30 people and bury em all over. Ponzi scheme millions, whatever the fuck you wanna do just do it. But DON'T GET CAUGHT.

Av3k got caught, that's why I won't help him. He knew the rules of the game and tried to make it to the top like dat nigga ickarus naw'mean son?

but you said there is no rules in life, how could he knew the rules.

Fucking PARADOXES!

Are you really trying to make sense out of jamalz's posts? You've been here for long enough to realize that there's no point in dissecting this marvelous piece of ebonic poetry.

If he's guilty, as you say he is, why does it matter whether or not he has top of the line legal representation unless you're trying to circumvent justice?

I have no problem with people who consume weed (dealing it is arguably a different matter), but imo you can't just pick and choose which laws you want to obey in society simply because you have a different moral standpoint. If he's found guilty of dealing drugs, he should be sentenced appropriately.

It seriously baffles me how people believe the laws of a country are so readily renounceable simply because of their own personal views on how weed isn't harmful (disclaimer: I also think it's not harmful providing it's not contaminated, my point still stands).

why does it matter whether or not he has top of the line legal representation unless you're trying to circumvent justice?

Law systems usually have distinctions other than guilty or not guilty, some of which include different sentences and punishment. A lawyer typically argues for a lighter sentece, whereas prosecution left alone could come up with a harsher sentence.

Hopefully this is helpful.

You also present some controversial and, IMHO, silly moral ideas, but I probably won't be able to help with those.

You missed the point of my post.

A lawyer typically argues for a lighter sentence, whereas prosecution left alone could come up with a harsher sentence.

Exactly. Your point would be valid in context, except you've missed out the key piece of information here: av3k is actually guilty of his crime. I'm questioning why so many people seem to want to (albeit indirectly) help him reduce a potential jail sentence, when according to the Polish law system he would deserve it. I haven't read through the other longer thread fully, and just skimmed through this one. However, as a member of the EU and NATO, I would imagine Poland doesn't deliver corrupt judicial sentences in criminal cases like this one, and that whatever sentence he's being given is reflective of his criminal actions.

I'm simply asking why people want to help reduce his sentence when he is, according to Memento_Mori in the OP, guilty. Hopefully this is helpful.

You also present some controversial and, IMHO, silly moral ideas

Mind-numbingly useless comment unless you're willing to call me out on them and explain why they're flawed. Blindly criticising unspecified parts of my post won't diminish my argument or strengthen your own, especially when you apparently misunderstood the meaning of my first post entirely.

I'm questioning why so many people seem to want to (albeit indirectly) help him reduce a potential jail sentence, when according to the Polish law system he would deserve it.

Nope, you missed my point. Unless you think that good legal representation is circumvention of justice, or that being guilty means he deserves the harshest punishment that can be given by law.

Reducing a sentence can be more just even if a person is guilty, and law systems specifically have options for circumstances that make the sentence lighter or harsher. Leaving a person with shitty representation isn't just just because a person is guilty. A crazy idea, isn't it?

Mind-numbingly useless comment unless you're willing to call me out on them and explain why they're flawed. Blindly criticising unspecified parts of my post won't diminish my argument or strengthen your own, especially when you apparently misunderstood the meaning of my first post entirely.

It's easy to guess though, isn't it? I think that people shouldn't respect laws that they disagree with. Obviously, still obeying them is the smart thing to do. However, saying a person deserves being sentenced of a crime you don't believe should be a crime.. I don't even know how you can think that. It's a form of doublethink.

that being guilty means he deserves the harshest punishment that can be given by law.

You can't deal in absolutes when referring to punishments since every nation has their own idea of what the "harshest punishment" would be. Technically speaking, the harshest punishment would be execution, and that's a perfectly valid example since people are executed in Saudi Arabia for marijuana possession, let alone dealing.

I don't know why anyone would believe that's morally justifiable, however it's irrelevant as my point (which you've missed for the second time) is that morality should be taken out of the question when it comes to deciding whether or not someone is guilty or not guilty of breaking the law. Note that this is wholly separate from judging whether or not an action can be deemed "good" or "bad", because you take your own perspective on ethics out of the equation and operate fully under the assumption of the laws in question. Since morality is subjective to each individual, attempting to analyse whether or not a case such as Avek's is morally justifiable or contemptible is fallacious, as it provides no concrete guidelines by which you can judge the extent of his actions. Therefore, our concrete guidelines must be the law.

As an example, in Sweden it is legal to work as a prostitute, but purchasing services from one is illegal. This is because the government recognises that sometimes people either have their vulnerability exploited or are simply victims of circumstance, and as a result are forced into this kind of work. Therefore, they instead target those who would attempt to take advantage of the humanity of the prostitutes by criminalising the act of purchasing sexual services from one. One could argue that, the swedish government, when enacting such a law, considered the ethical perspective of both parties and recognised that sometimes, people can be victims when they are engaging in illegal activity.

I'm not familiar with Polish drug laws, and I'm not gonna go and google them to make myself seem smarter or more educated on the subject. However, since this thread exists, they must not give a shit about the context and circumstance surrounding Avek's descent into criminal activity, and he has therefore been branded guilty by the state and subject to a trial which will likely lead to his imprisonment.

Your post gives me the opinion that you think I think you want his jail sentence absolved completely. I don't think that's what you want. I'm just curious as to why you want to help him potentially reduce his jail sentence from something a court has apparently (perhaps preliminarily) deemed as fair.

I think that people shouldn't respect laws that they disagree with

And I'm the one presenting controversial ideas?

However, saying a person deserves being sentenced of a crime you don't believe should be a crime.. I don't even know how you can think that

Because when you choose to live in a society, you respect the laws and culture of that society, regardless of how little or great inconvenience they place upon you. Your attitude could be interpreted as license to commit actions that most people would find morally reprehensible, in addition to also being illegal by most country laws in the world.

Since morality is subjective to each individual, attempting to analyse whether or not a case such as Avek's is morally justifiable or contemptible is fallacious, as it provides no concrete guidelines by which you can judge the extent of his actions. Therefore, our concrete guidelines must be the law.

Oh yes, the good old morality is a spook argument. Do you live by it? Do you act as though the only guidelines for good and bad are the law, and abuse whatever situation comes your way that isn't illegal by law?

Hopefully, you don't. Why do you invoke this argument, then? Because it's good for your own point?

You're not an expert on this topic BTW, and most experts think that morality is objective (it's called moral realism). Just FYI. But that's irrelevant, as you don't even believe what you say, as your actions show.

I'm just curious as to why you want to help him potentially reduce his jail sentence from something a court has apparently (perhaps preliminarily) deemed as fair.

Well, I'd want him to not get sentenced for dealing weed at all. It's the just thing, in my view, considering I don't think weed is any more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes or the heaps of sugar people eat daily.

Maybe he should get sentenced if he dealt other, more harmful drugs, or for being involved in a gang. That I might agree with.

That's another topic though. Let's ignore my own morality and talk law. If the court allows him to reduce his sentence in some way, then apparently the law is such that it allows for that. He will need arguments by his lawyer to do that. If those arguments are good, then he does deserve to get his sentence reduced. Same way if prosecution makes good arguments for why his sentence should become heavier, by law it should.

I'm having trouble interpreting your point. Is it that whatever is the sentence he gets without good representation would be just? Or that whatever, perhaps preliminary sentence he got should be carried out, because it's better than the one he'd get after his competent lawyer gave good arguments for why it should get reduced?

It's like you still didn't get my point I made in my original reply to you. You keep repeating that he's guilty as if guilty for dealing weed is always X years, and prosecution/defense doesn't come into it. Prosecution and defense are both legitimate powers within the law that affect the sentence a criminal gets. You realize that, right?

Your attitude could be interpreted as license to commit actions that most people would find morally reprehensible, in addition to also being illegal by most country laws in the world.

So you think that me saying that people shouldn't be punished for victimless crime is giving license to, for example, bad people, who believe that killing people is right, to kill people?

It's like you're another version of dird, where you cannot realize that someone can have a morality separate from law.

Do you live by it? Do you act as though the only guidelines for good and bad are the law, and abuse whatever situation comes your way that isn't illegal by law?

Serious question: are you stupid enough to actually ask this, or have you just run out of actual arguments to make so you're just rattling on about whatever inane bullshit comes to your head?

There are no guidelines for "good and bad" if you want to talk about it in a strictly moral sense. This is why, while you can use your own morality as personal justification for actions, it is never valid in the context of another person since you and the other person will have differing opinions, and then as a result will not come to a conclusion. Luckily, this is the precursor to the concept of having a legal system, something present in ALL civilised society, and where a judge will decide according to the law, what the appropriate punishment is for a specified action.

This is the third fucking time I'm making this point. Read it this time because I will completely ignore anything you have to say on the matter until you address it. I'd appreciate it if any other ESR users could translate it for you because it's a simple concept and it's frustrating me that you don't understand (or choose to ignore?) it.

You're not an expert on this topic BTW

As I said in an earlier post: blindly criticising unspecified parts of my post won't diminish my argument or strengthen your own, especially when you apparently misunderstood the meaning of my first post entirely. Like seriously, what's even the point in telling me I'm not an expert on a topic which nobody in this thread aside from twister + MM fully understand? Did I claim to be an expert anywhere? All I'm saying is, the way you view morality as being an absolute conclusion to a legal case in a court of law is wrong. You can hold your own warped opinions on that matter, but good luck actually integrating with any society holding such views. By integrating actual defensive statements into your arguments instead of being willing to actually rationally debate my points, you just show me that you either don't understand what I'm talking about (solution: read my above paragraph again) or you have nothing of value to say (stop commenting).

I'd want him to not get sentenced for dealing weed at all. It's the just thing, in my view, considering I don't think weed is any more harmful than alcohol or cigarettes or the heaps of sugar people eat daily.

It would be great if you could read my first fucking post again where I literally said this is the attitude I don't understand. I completely agree with you when you say weed isn't harmful, what I don't agree with is why you let your views on the dangers of marijuana (or lack thereof) give you some kind of judicial or "moral" ruling over a court of law. Do you not see how that behaviour, or even that viewpoint, would be detrimental to society, if everyone took it? Do you not see how it's intrinsically damaging? Do you not see why it's not valid to use in an argument, because everyone's opinion on any given scenario is different and how everyone has their own different view on morality?

Maybe he should get sentenced if he dealt other, more harmful drugs, or for being involved in a gang. That I might agree with.

Two things strike me about this sentence, firstly:

1) You don't know the extenuating circumstances. He had connections with a gang, that we do know. We don't know the extent of those connections, or what type of drugs he was dealing, or if he was involved in any other criminal activity. Therefore, don't deal in hypotheticals when making this argument.

2) Even if you did know the extent of any surrounding circumstances, your opinion would still be irrelevant in the pursuit of justice, as would mine. The only thing relevant would be the laws of the country/state in which the criminal resides, as he made the conscious choice to engage in activity he knew was illegal for what, as vocal spectators, I/we can only assume is for unspecified personal gain. So therefore your entire statement is worthless.

If those arguments are good, then he does deserve to get his sentence reduced.

He is guilty, though. Did you even read the OP? What "good argument" could you make that would undo somebody's crime, and thus eligibility to be sentenced to prison by a court of law? The only possible counter is that there could be some extenuating circumstances that none of us are aware of, for which I am not able to give a potential example. However, if there were any such circumstances that would paint avek in a positive light, I'm pretty sure they would have been mentioned here already, since that in itself would be quite a big donation incentive if people felt like he was being wrongly accused or imprisoned or something.

Or that whatever, perhaps preliminary sentence he got should be carried out, because it's better than the one he'd get after his competent lawyer gave good arguments for why it should get reduced?

Ignoring the "good arguments" section I just covered above, I believe that his preliminary sentence should be carried out. In a court of law, morality does not overwrite the law. A lawyer saying "marijuana was all that was found inside avek's house, therefore he cannot be reasonably assumed to have dealt dangerous drugs" is the best argument I can think of that one could present given the information we, as ESR users, have - is irrelevant, as dealing marijuana is still against the law in Poland and he will still get (presumably) the same sentence. It's possible that the judge may factor his own emotional feelings into his ruling, but that would only show weakness on the part of the Polish justice system.

So you think that me saying that people shouldn't be punished for victimless crime is giving license to, for example, bad people, who believe that killing people is right, to kill people?

Not at all, but you never specified "victimless crime". You just said you act on your own morality, irrespective of laws. That's a doctrine a psychopath would follow and then subsequently use to justify his behaviour.

as if guilty for dealing weed is always X years, and prosecution/defense doesn't come into it.

I'm aware that they come into it. As much as I wish that people weren't able to reduce their criminal sentences by whatever means (I'm heavily against the parole system for example btw), it would be irrational of me to not accept what is a fact and I can only presume happens in Poland too, as in every part of the world. I don't have a problem with people wanting to help avek, I simply don't understand how they can justify helping a criminal reduce his sentence. The most coherent justification I've seen was a Martin Luther King quote someone linked below.

It's like you're another version of dird, where you cannot realize that someone can have a morality separate from law.

There are no guidelines for "good and bad" if you want to talk about it in a strictly moral sense. This is why, while you can use your own morality as personal justification for actions, it is never valid in the context of another person since you and the other person will have differing opinions, and then as a result will not come to a conclusion. Luckily, this is the precursor to the concept of having a legal system, something present in ALL civilised society, and where a judge will decide according to the law, what the appropriate punishment is for a specified action.

There are no guidelines for "good and bad" if you want to talk about it in a strictly moral sense. This is why, while you can use your own morality as personal justification for actions, it is never valid in the context of another person since you and the other person will have differing opinions, and then as a result will not come to a conclusion. Luckily, this is the precursor to the concept of having a legal system, something present in ALL civilised society, and where a judge will decide according to the law, what the appropriate punishment is for a specified action.

There are no guidelines for "good and bad" if you want to talk about it in a strictly moral sense. This is why, while you can use your own morality as personal justification for actions, it is never valid in the context of another person since you and the other person will have differing opinions, and then as a result will not come to a conclusion. Luckily, this is the precursor to the concept of having a legal system, something present in ALL civilised society, and where a judge will decide according to the law, what the appropriate punishment is for a specified action.

Maybe if I post it three fucking times in a row you'll read it.

There are no guidelines for "good and bad"

Plain wrong. Cultural context and background, religion - guidelines everywhere. Or did your parents read law books to you while trying to bring you up?

There are no guidelines for "good and bad" if you want to talk about it in a strictly moral sense

If you're going to quote me, quote my whole sentence so it actually makes sense.

Why, it's just been above. Written thrice. And it doesn't change anything anyway.

Laws are the result and not the origin of ethics. And not seldom do they make little sense (see American prohibition, which criminalized a whole country, more or less).

But it's not even about that. It's about getting adequate legal representation for a guy that needs some. Everybody has a right to that I believe. And if all support systems were torn down and cut off the moment somebody - allegedly! - got in a conflict with the law our world would look pretty bleak.

Laws are the result and not the origin of ethics.

I wish I'd have been able to put it this succinctly to him. Even though I doubt he'd get it with his morality is a spook attitude anyway.

Cheers.

And it doesn't change anything anyway.

It does. On its own, you're either inferring that you:

a) have misunderstood the point of my sentence
b) believe cultural context and religion provide morality by which we can choose to live our lives, and that morality isn't open to interpretation through the outlook of each individual

Laws are the result and not the origin of ethics

Where do these ethics come from if not the laws of our society? It may seem reminiscent of 'the chicken and the egg' argument, but even though I may not naturally have been born wanting to kill people and steal things, I wouldn't have known that they were innately bad things unless I was told at a young age that I could go to prison for doing them. A child cannot examine an ethical scenario himself and make his own valid opinion. You could argue that a parent can instil morality into their child, but that morality is still subjective and largely shaped by culture and religion (not to mention personal experiences) - although in the western world the aforementioned two are much milder, even if still present, influences. I'm willing to bet that, within society, a lot more people would be criminals if there were no consequences for engaging in illegal activity. Therefore, couldn't it be said in such a scenario that their ethics change as a result of the laws in place?

It's about getting adequate legal representation for a guy that needs some. Everybody has a right to that I believe.

I don't agree with any attempts to circumvent avek's prison sentence, but yes I agree he deserves legal representation. He already has legal representation though, doesn't he?

believe cultural context and religion provide morality by which we can choose to live our lives, and that morality isn't open to interpretation through the outlook of each individual

Or, you derive morality form rational argument and not religion, like philosophers do. Seemingly you're unaware that this happens.

Those were the examples weltschmertz gave in his post (EDIT: #198, for reference). Nice try though.

Such a smartass. Would sound so good if it didn't happen to coincide with your opinion that you've repeatedly given, that rational argument is not relevant in ethics, as ethics is only opinion.

Why are you so combative that you're not willing to admit what you believe to further the discussion?

Such a smartass that you tried to make me look like I said something when I didn't? You can't quote something someone else wrote and then tell me "i'm not admitting what i believe" simply because you didn't realise I wasn't the one who originally wrote it. it's honestly embarrassing that this has to be spoonfed to you.

I don't believe I ever said that "ethics is an opinion", as the concept of ethics is fact - it's merely what you interpret as "good" or "bad" ethics that is subjective to the individual. Although, as I said previously, that's irrelevant to the avek case, where firm laws of the state should take precedence in judicial rulings over what somebody feels is moral or immoral.

Meh. You're just being ucooperative, and bitchy, too.

From the scholarly viewpoint, ethics is in fact a philosophical discipline.

Good point. If I were less lazy, I'd go through my previous posts and amend my terminology.

**Most of the content in this post is likely to be very much untrue, if not all of it**

Ethics are more or less guidelines to follow to avoid feeling guilty or ashamed. Doing things that make your environment judge you make you feel shitty. It's this emotion that drives us to make decisions that benefit the group rather than ourselves and our loved ones. As humans evolved, so did the things that made us feel shitty. Fucking everything in sight used to be pretty solid way to keep the species going, but as everything in sight started to be a lot more crowded, it became better to protect your genitals. Your dad kicking out your brother after he kept eating half the buffalo every night became knowing that if someone you'd never seen before would steal your crops, your government would throw him out. To try and ensure that stability we picked some of the more important rules and wrote them down. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time before a consensus is reached that a law should be updated to our current code of ethics. Unfortunate, because in 99% of cases following your sense of right or wrong will lead to a reasonably good outcome for the majority.

At least, that's the cynics version of it. Personally I like to believe someone just realized we're all the same in the end, so you might as well be nice to each other.

I don't disagree with anything you wrote, except perhaps that following one's sense of right or wrong will lead to a favourable outcome 99% of the time. I don't believe humanity is that far evolved to the extent that 99% of us would be willing to set aside the laws of the state and live in some faux-utopian new world civilisation based on nothing but ethical perspective.

Unfortunately, it takes a lot of time before a consensus is reached that a law should be updated to our current code of ethics.

Perfectly said. This is why I believe, while anyone is entitled to have their own ethical perspective on avek's situation, it's not actually relevant as it won't overwrite the laws by which avek is bound (and also why it shouldn't, although that's a longer discussion) :>

Where do these ethics come from if not the laws of our society?

Human nature and thinking. About the consequences of our actions.

Surely you'd agree with me then, that human nature, thinking, and interpretation are all subjective?

To some extent, even what one may view as "good" or "bad" consequences is subjective, although largely irrelevant in avek's case.

Serious question: are you stupid enough to actually ask this, or have you just run out of actual arguments to make so you're just rattling on about whatever inane bullshit comes to your head?

There are no guidelines for "good and bad" if you want to talk about it in a strictly moral sense. This is why, while you can use your own morality as personal justification for actions, it is never valid in the context of another person since you and the other person will have differing opinions, and then as a result will not come to a conclusion. Luckily, this is the precursor to the concept of having a legal system, something present in ALL civilised society, and where a judge will decide according to the law, what the appropriate punishment is for a specified action.

This is the third fucking time I'm making this point. Read it this time because I will completely ignore anything you have to say on the matter until you address it. I'd appreciate it if any other ESR users could translate it for you because it's a simple concept and it's frustrating me that you don't understand (or choose to ignore?) it.

I told you you weren't an expert in this topic because you were making claims that most experts disagree with, yet made them with absolute arrogance. You didn't seem to understand who those experts are, so I'll spell it out - philosophers of ethics. Most of them believe moral realism, which is the opposite of your opinion. Not only are you absolutely sure in your ignorance that morality is subjective and is a useless judge of actions, but you're also sure that any person who disagrees with that is an idiot. From that you go on to make bullshit arguments and paste them thrice. Which goes to show your arrogance in your ignorance.

My reply was largely focused on what you said - that morals are only opinions, believed by specific persons, and are useless in determining how good or bad an action is. You accused me of a doctrine of psychopathy, so let me point out that your doctrine - whatever you do that isn't illegal is subjective, therefor it's useless arguing for your own morality, and that anyone who doesn't believe that is stupid - is much more effective in enabling psychopathy. You're essentially saying that a morality that a law abiding psychopath would have is just as good as yours and mine. That means that you believe there are no grounds on which that morality is bad. You're also saying that abusing an unjust law is perfectly fine.

What you do - invoking the subjectivity of morality when it's convenient for your argument - is a very popular, yet hypocritical argument among people nowadays. If you fully believed it, you'd only pretend to be a good person in sight, but resume being a psychopath in private - because why wouldn't you, if it benefits you and after all, your morality isn't worse than anyone else's?

It seems that you don't believe your own morality is any better than a law abiding psychopath's, yet you don't adopt a psychopath's morality that would obviously benefit you. Why is that?

It's also pretty sad to hear a young person argue this from the perspective of your mindless respect for law. You're arguing that one should respect law in all cases, no matter what one's own morality says. That includes enabling nazis to track down jews, owning and abusing slaves and whatever else happens to be in the law. Before you claim straw man, inspect your arguments - they all could be used to defend anything the state does [edit - legally], however unjust. Do you really believe this, or do you only believe it because you didn't think your own arguments through and wouldn't apply it to laws you see as much more draconian?

He is guilty, though. Did you even read the OP? What "good argument" could you make that would undo somebody's crime, and thus eligibility to be sentenced to prison by a court of law? The only possible counter is that there could be some extenuating circumstances that none of us are aware of, for which I am not able to give a potential example. However, if there were any such circumstances that would paint avek in a positive light, I'm pretty sure they would have been mentioned here already, since that in itself would be quite a big donation incentive if people felt like he was being wrongly accused or imprisoned or something.

It seems you still haven't gotten what I meant in my original reply. Perhaps that's my fault. Let me try to explain it in the clearest fashion I can.

After a person gets caught, there are often several things he can be accused of, many which are the same thing with different circumstances. For example, homicide is different from murder. Secondly, a sentence is typically given as a range - like from 8 to 14 years. Depending on many things, the judge will decide whatever number from that range he things is just. Now, in an ideal world:
1) the law applied is just (I won't discuss this here, explained it at lenght above)
2) the prosecution gives the best possible arguments
3) the defense gives the best possible arguments.
4) the judge weights the arguments perfectly and decides on the sentence

You're talking like he's already been given the most just court decision, and giving him money for a good legal presentation is somehow cheating the system. I view it as making the system closer to perfect (even if the best action would be to change the law, but obviously that isn't likely here).

You didn't seem to understand who those experts are, so I'll spell it out - philosophers of ethics

tl;dr: you don't know either so avoid giving names that may discredit your points. fair. moving on:

Not only are you absolutely sure in your ignorance that morality is subjective and is a useless judge of actions, but you're also sure that any person who disagrees with that is an idiot.

Explain to me how morality can be absolute. Are you going to pretend as though we, as humans, don't think freely, and don't formulate unique ideas? That is ignorant. It's not even a question of stupidity - you can clearly see that you and I have differing viewpoints on the matter, and that in itself should disprove what you're saying. If Avek's case were to be judged on morality only, the judge would never be able to come on a final agreement. If an "agreement" was reached, it would be contestable since it's not based on anything other than someone or a group of people's moral perspectives.

It is also unfathomably ignorant to assume that morality is independent and free from context and circumstance. As you are obviously not aware of the full circumstances of avek's arrest (neither am I), neither one of us is in the position to be able to judge effectively in full. We've been told avek is guilty of dealing drugs - where does morality come into this situation now? It's morally wrong to send an ex-quake player to prison because he once happened to play the same game online as me? It's morally justifiable to sell weed because I personally don't believe weed is harmful and therefore Avek should be exempt from sentencing even though when drug dealers get arrested every day I don't give two shits?


You're also making the mistake of assuming I'm basing my personal morality on law. I did already make a post on this, but I only mentioned it once so maybe you skimread it. In this particular situation, you can only judge whether or not someone is guilty of a crime by using the law of a country or state as a guideline.


What I said in my original post was (AND PLS READ THIS):

- each individual can (and should) have their own viewpoints on what is moral and immoral
- morality is independent from the laws enacted by the state
- when judging guilt vs innocence, morality has no place in the discussion, since morality is subjective to each individual

There is no pre-defined notion of morality that will encompass every single situation. This is why context and circumstance are so important when you attempt to analyse a scenario and judge whether or not someone should be judged as guilty. If law is derived specifically from ethics, why is your morality conflicting with the laws of the state?

You're arguing that one should respect law in all cases

Yes. If there was an extreme circumstance like your cherrypicked historical events, I'd move country. Seriously. If you don't like a certain law in your country to the point where it conflicts with your own morality, moving is always a viable option. You can't (and shouldn't try to) win a battle against the state.

You're talking like he's already been given the most just court decision, and giving him money for a good legal presentation is somehow cheating the system.

I think I may have misunderstood part of this already. As far as I'm aware, Avek already has legal representation, or doesn't he? I was under the impression that the unspecified nature of these donations indicated that they were to be used for some kind of darker dealings that would reduce or possibly circumvent his jail time altogether, and that he already has a lawyer?

Explain to me how morality can be absolute. Are you going to pretend as though we, as humans, don't think freely, and don't formulate unique ideas? That is ignorant. It's not even a question of stupidity - you can clearly see that you and I have differing viewpoints on the matter, and that in itself should disprove what you're saying. If Avek's case were to be judged on morality only, the judge would never be able to come on a final agreement. If an "agreement" was reached, it would be contestable since it's not based on anything other than someone or a group of people's moral perspectives.

I'm not giving names because we're not at a stage in our discussion where names are relevant. You're exhibiting the usual, naive moral-antirealism without any imagination how the question can be seen differently that is very popular among people nowadays. If you had been interested, you obviously could have googled the question, and seen a SEP article about moral realism.

It's not that you're a moral-antirealist - it's that you're that, and ignorant about either moral anti-realism or moral realism, and arrogant too.

Explain to me how morality can be absolute. Are you going to pretend as though we, as humans, don't think freely, and don't formulate unique ideas? That is ignorant. It's not even a question of stupidity - you can clearly see that you and I have differing viewpoints on the matter, and that in itself should disprove what you're saying.

So your argument is that people have different opinions, therefor nobody is right? Let's take that and apply it as an argument for anti-realism in other areas as well, as people have had their fair share of different opinions on that too.

For example, mathematics. Most people seem to believe that an advanced alien species would have developed mathematics on their own, same as us. Well, that obviously shows us that mathematics isn't a figure of imagination, but rather a real thing. Why does it work this way? This is because, despite that different opinions of mathematical opinions at different times have existed, argument is used to further the field of mathematics. Same argument can be used towards science, and science has had sooo many different, now-considered ridiculous ideas about various fields of science. Hopefully this shows you that realism isn't a ridiculous idea, but rather an obvious conclusion about a property of fields that can be furthered by argument rather than opinion.

Obviously, you're having issues with the fact that ethics isn't measurable like science in the real world. However, mathematics isn't either. It's just axioms after which arguments are formed to prove theories. What people generally have a problem with in the ethics field is that arguments don't in all cases lead you to perfect conclusions, but only show support for one side or the other.

Yet, in the most obvious of cases, the arguments are very clear and convincing. In those cases, it's most obvious that moral realism is the right position to hold.

For example, when we look from the perspective of the society, or even from every single person's perspective and sum them up, some positions have very good arguments and little defense against them.

1.One should not kill, unless that is the only way to prevent murder. From either side you look, it's very obvious that this leads to the best conclusions for either the society or the individual.
2. Slavery should be abolished. This is good in both that it frees up society's resources (the humans who were slaves but are now free to do what they want, including progress society), but also eliminates suffering (slaves no longer are abused). Some even have put forth arguments that the abolishment of slavery lead to our technological progress, as rich slave-owner societies with potential for science seem to stop in their progress (like Rome).
3. Both sexes should have equal rights. Presuming enough technological progress where we're not a hunter-gatherer society, it's a similar issue like slavery - it frees up valuable resources from not very valuable jobs (like being abused as sex slaves) to do what they want, and relieves suffering.
4. Different ethnic / racial groups of humans should have the same rights. Now we know that people are born with roughly the same intellect on average, so it's obvious that everyone's more valuable to the society when they have equal rights. Same argument as 2 and 3.

Hopefully you can see how these positions have way better argumentation for than against. It doesn't even matter whether you like my argumentation, as I'm sure you can come up with argumentation of your own that will lead you to the same conclusions. If you look at science (intelligence of these different groups / their value in the economy) and pair it with whatever amateur philosophy you have, you should see how good argumentation makes this of a matter of fact rather than opinion.

Anyway, I didn't even mean to try to prove to you that morality is objective. What I thought would be enough was just showing that experts think differently from you, therefor your assuredness in your position is naive considering your level of expertise.So please don't repeat your version of naive, uneducated moral-antirealism with schoolboy arguments anymore as if I'm an idiot for not realizing them. I used to think what you say too, after all.

Yes. If there was an extreme circumstance like your cherrypicked historical events, I'd move country. Seriously. If you don't like a certain law in your country to the point where it conflicts with your own morality, moving is always a viable option.

First of all, you're admitting that you're valuing your morality enough to do such a thing. Which given your arguments against the value of morality is surprising. I'm aware that you still cling to your morality despite thinking it's useless, as much as I find that funny.

Still, this is you dodging a question rather than answering it. What if you can't move from nazi germany without a huge risk of being killed? What if all countries are a slave owning country? Your position is still that of a potentially slavery-enabling, jew-killing person.

You can't (and shouldn't try to) win a battle against the state.

First of all, in many cases people did this. Even if you're unable to participate in a big movement against what the state is doing, you can just not own slaves yourself. Or not abuse your slaves at the very least.

Your opinion of the value of morality doesn't support these actions though. And your defense goes against doing anything vs. the state essentially makes you an automatic supporter of whatever horrible regime you're in, given that you can't move.

Do you really value your own morality so little that you'd allow these kinds of things to happen?

PS. Ethics has been obviously the precursor to law in very many cases. Lots of lawmakers have moral philosophers at their side. Moral writings, (Plato's, aristotle's) have obviously been precursorts to law. Whenever people try to support a new law, they give philosophical arguments.John Stuart Mill inspired people to create the type of state we have nowadays (democracy), FFS. Are you really able to ignore all that and claim that law is the only useful morality, when the progress of law has been obviously led by progress in ethical thinking?

I think I may have misunderstood part of this already. As far as I'm aware, Avek already has legal representation, or doesn't he? I was under the impression that the unspecified nature of these donations indicated that they were to be used for some kind of darker dealings that would reduce or possibly circumvent his jail time altogether, and that he already has a lawyer?

OP says this money is to pay his lawyer who is currently unpaid, and may or may not leave av3k as far as I understand.

I don't even support donating given the amount information we have. I just argued for the value of giving him a good defense.

Just a side note apropos moral realism, there's also an understanding, based on game theoretical reasoning, that ethical behavior gives us an evolutionary advantage. Steven Pinker elaborates on this in "The Better Angels of Our Nature". Brief video interview on the matter:
http://bloggingheads.tv/videos/2346?in=49:59&out=58:34

Hey, just wanted to let you know you've given me a lot of food for thought about the question of moral realism. I remember arguing about this back when I was in Catholic high school, foaming at the lips over being told that Catholic morality was objectively correct. It never occurred to me to reconsider the idea itself independent of that particular morality, and your points helped me look at the matter more critically.

isn't esr great

haha, thanks. Awesome to hear.

If you're really interested in this topic, I recommend reading around in SEP (moral realism, moral anti-realism, metaethics). Suffice to say, much smarter people than me have described these issues.

"If he's found guilty of dealing drugs, he should be sentenced appropriately."

Thats exactly the point, helping him get the appropriately sentence.

But it seems like many people are using their own opinions on drugs as justification for their own idea of what is an appropriate sentence. As an example, dem0n even said in an earlier post that "6 months maximum" would be appropriate, as opposed to what is allegedly seven years by the decision of an EU + NATO member state. I have huge respect for dem0n but that's honestly a horribly juvenile way of looking at the situation.

The point I'm making is that regardless of one's own opinion on the law, you can't disobey it and then expect leniency. What sort of society would we be in if every case involving illegal actions were treated this way? Where do we draw the line, and why should av3k be an exception? An individual's perspective on morality shouldn't be a substitute for legal jurisdiction.

I don't take drugs. I have friends who do weed, and I have precisely zero problem with it. Good for them, if they enjoy it who am I to judge? They're still my friends and they're not bad people because of it. I'm not going to rat them out for doing something illegal. If I found out the name of their dealer, I wouldn't rat him out either. However, if any of them actually got into legal trouble because of their actions, I'd give nothing more than emotional validation and actionable advice framed around the situation at hand. I certainly wouldn't try and bail them out of what they knowingly chose to get themselves into.

I'm not trying to discourage people from donating. Anyone who wants to donate won't pay attention to what I write anyway. I'm just curious as to why people feel as though this is justifiable.

Check out Martin Luther King on unjust laws.

'One has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws'

If you're referring to this quote, as I've said in #158 this attitude is in itself fallacious since everyone has a different perspective on morality and therefore the only concrete guidelines we can go by today are the laws set in place by the state. I'm not going to pretend to be an expert on Martin Luther King, but I don't think this quote was framed around drug dealing, probably something to do with the inequality which was incredibly prevalent in the early-mid 20th century and the disparity between the viewpoint which society took on people simply because of their skin colour and/or ethnicity.

Alternatively if this was as a response to my question asking why people feel helping avek in a case like this is justifiable, thanks for the clarification. I don't agree with it but it was nice to see another (coherent) viewpoint, it's appreciated. :)

I do agree the context is very different (being treated as a citizen in your own country vs getting high), but the law is not an absolute and should not be treated as one. Strictly functionally speaking, laws are there to keep us from fucking each other up all the time, to borrow jamalz' eloquent phrasing. Laws are there to strengthen a society by promising a level of safety and stability to its citizens, while maintaining as much personal freedom as possible. Prohibition laws were made in a time when widespread usage of certain substances was seen as a direct threat to the stability of our society, but I think it's pretty apparent that prohibition in fact only harms our society and jeopardises our safety. As such, a law banning certain drugs is a law that does not serve its intended purpose and should be changed.

I cannot change a law. What I can do however, is help out an individual that is the victim of its implementation and if I had the means to do so, I would.

Besides ivory tower pseudo-philosophy, I think it's common decency to forgive a man when he has the courage to expose himself to whole world. People shittalking avek call him a beggar and that's unfortunately true. Think about how fucking desperate you have to be to ask the help of strangers.

factoid: some US politicians involved in writing the law that dictated one gram of crack should be punished like a 100g of cocaine powder have publicly stated they've come to severely regret it.

nice, that was actually an interesting read with well-structured arguments. a rarity on esr nowadays.

Thanks for your opinion.

EDIT: fuck it have a [+]

"Whoever in discussion adduces authority uses not intellect but rather memory."

“If you find from your own experience that something is a fact and it contradicts what some authority has written down, then you must abandon the authority and base your reasoning on your own findings.”

Leonardo Da Vinci

But we don't know the facts, so we can't make a judgement ourselves.

You know, in a system where with just possession of weed people only get probation (as stated by someone on this thread), then for facing 7 years avek must have done many more things Memento & co. aren't telling us.

So, those 7 years might as well be the appropiate sentence, or not, or more. We don't know and cannot know yet.

You also dont know the facts.

Somebody i appreciate is in trouble, i decide to help him, i dont need your advice. You want to wait to know the sentence to know if it was appropiate or not? Newsflash, after the sentence theres not much that can be done, so i will help him now. Your obsessed to boycot this, you hunt post after post. Youre a sad human being.

Bam #truth

But then again you don't know who he really is either, and with that uncertainty you could be helping someone who you despise, who you wouldn't appreciate.

I know it's your money. Just saying that if he is facing 7 years then possession of weed is the very least of his offenses, as it gets you probation, no jail time. You are funding him solely based on that practically irrelevant offense, but I have to remind you that we don't know what are the others, the ones that matter and that you might find to be wrongful.

If I was obsessed I would have already done acts to stop the fundraiser, but I have not. And trust me, if someone does get obsessed it can be shut down in a couple of hours. For instance, PayPal immediately shut downs stuff like this, and that's not the only way anyone could do it from their PC.

If everybody wanted 100% guarantees nobody would produce children. Because they might grow up to be killers.

This is a matter of trust. We trust the cause to be right. Based on what we know about the person and the allegations. And you won't change that.

I believe the post you are refering to also insinuated as to why avek may be facing 7 years despite only having been busted with a relatively small amount of drugs.

av3k is just another dumb drug dealer hanging with the wrong crowd. i wont be donating a penny.

I still dont get whats with all the hate here. Some of you dont agree with the idea od helping av3k. Thats fine. But FFS we dont need to hear your fukin non-stop whining abaut you, not supporting the idea. Memento is only trying to help here... if u dont agree....fine! But pls stfu already.

Also
C O F E
O
F
E

C O F E
O
F
E

Agreed, they infest each thread with their hate and delusions of av3k being a murderer, teen spoiling monster till it becomes a cesspool of negativity.

i still dont get whats with the hating on people that don't agree with supporting a drug dealer.

I didnt say that i am supporting the idea so dunno whats the problem here. Only thing that i meant to say here is that ppl rage at other ppl cus they dont agree...and that is just stupid. I still think that av3k deserves fair trial, doesnt matter if he was involved in dealing or no. If he was, than i see only racional option that he would get punished. Properly.

Drug dealer Av3k in legal trouble

top bantz m8s

Mement, create a song about this and release it online, and ask for the donation.
Music can tell much more than an article when it comes to this kind of topics.
Then Live performance on zlive twitch after Sunday cup might be also good to spread your song and donation.

wem420's donations are worth as much as his plusses

Face value? :s

Give what u can anon, give what you can.

I donated because when I read all the haters, I just wanted to troll them by converting their hatred into a few quid for the person they hated on.

Trolling is an art.

aren't you rich? this would be a great time to prove all the naysayers wrong about the fact you're a fat, socially unacceptable pile of garbage who has never contributed anything to anyone on any level whatsoever.

This is one I trolled earlier :)
Wind em' up and watch em' go!

Guys im realy intrested if the donation goal is achived, but av3k still goes to jail for 10yrs - what will happen ( i hope he gets fair trial). The "x scammed everyone" thread coming up? Another ESR drama for sure.

P.S
I realy hope, that this shit doesnt happen but if it will, i got a lot of popcorn ready....

I don't like popcorn, the fucking shells always get stuck on the back of my tongue.

lol

was av3k in drug businesses as of 2010?

Nice question and timing to support your quake national hero.

i gave 10 euro and will give more he has made polish proud and i am proud to have say am helping

A guy with the talent and time that Av<3k put in the game deserves a second chance, everybody does mistakes and his while being "ilegal" is more etical than selling alcohol which is a toxin. You know your community sucks when the highest donor is from a southamerican third world shithole.

C H E A P A $ $ E S
H
E
A
P
A
$
$
E
S

his past as pro gamer is irrelevant. hes just a low level dealer that got busted.

That's one generous contribution and I hope it's not going to hurt. May the force be with you, and protect you from ever being corrupted by hubris, greed and fear.

.

Another fantasy of Dird, being a druglord. Keep projecting brah.

""A guy with the talent and time that Av<3k put in the game deserves a second chance""

there are many quake players have put in lots of time into the game. Do they deserve a second chance? or is it only talented quake individuals that get put up on your mantle.

zeroql got a 2nd chance because he was friends with syncerror
effortless was given a 2nd chance and 20k because he was friends with syncerror

maybe the reason av3k isn't getting love is because av3k is not friends with syncerror. hmm

let that sink in for a second before you get mad at the community and realize that the only people who get help are the ones who suck up to the developers of this game.

tldr: in other words, tell av3k to make a frag video and have him stream his games.

even in a drug prosecution, SyncError is to blame. Your dedication to his eventual downfall is admirable, raythenoob.

Are you saying that because he played Quake so much, he deserves a second chance?

Teen Queen, I want your hoof inside me.

Don't know who came up with that one but I love it : D

Mine cme very potent and depending on strain and process used, 70-95% cannabinoids in the hash oil. Great for seizures.

All this thing proves how dumb people become when it is about group membership. He plays quake, so he is like me. Which triggers empathy and turns off logical reasoning. See MM, who is most certainly not a stupid person.

Who plays quake? Anyone from students to garbage men to kids to old farts to religious people to atheists to police officers to drug dealers to rapists to moms .....................
Yes sure we have followed Avek through the internet, and some met him on LAN. But how many here do really know him?

And also, do not trust twister. That guy has lost touch with reality long ago (some might remember his opinion on rape and other rl topics).

But that is just imo.

Hey now, let's not get personal. A lot of people wouldn't be able to contain themselves if a really hot girl was passed out...

Yeah, a lot of rapists.

Avek is facing over 5 years in jail for something that hurt no one and is legal in other parts of the world. Just let that sink in for a moment before you comment on anything..

Avek is facing over 5 years in jail for dealing with drugs while he would get his head cut off in other parts of the world. Just let that sink in for a moment before you comment on anything..


Oh and please name one country where dealing is legal.

When you give weed to your friend it is dealing. It doesn't matter whether you only take enough money to cover the cost to break even or if you take more to make a profit.

If you pool your money together to buy a bag that is still dealing. Someone is getting paid and someone is getting stuff.

Even if you were to give it away free it would still be dealing in some sense.

Now, how does the method of acquisition alter the morality of the situation? Do you just object to someone making a profit or is it because they're an unlicensed tax evading business?

Surely you can not object to independent adults doing whatever they want to their bodies?

5+ years for giving weed to someone who asked for it in exchange for money they willingly paid. Not forcing anyone to buy it (if he did then to hell with him). I hope you can appreciate the nuances and not rush to a black and white judgment.

Do I believe it should be sold in specialized stores? Yes, but for now this is what we have.

True, however, as you also mentioned, you don't take money from your friends for smoking with them - you share. When I was smoking, I don't remember a single time when I gave a friend some of my weed, no, I rolled it up and we smoked together, never did I give any weed away, maybe cause I was a cheap guy, what's mine is mine, I'll share, but on my terms. And from my experience that's pretty much how it is in general.

Whilst it is possible considered dealing, you're still not doing it for personal gain, which the real dealing is (exchange drugs for money).

If it was just grass they found at him there wouldn't be such a panic, even if they only found weed at his place, maybe they got something else on him, like a bigger drug network which he is part of - which if true, could make him get a higher penalty, weather or not he was dealing with only weed, he was still involved with that network which dealt with harder drugs and possible even weapons - which would make a higher time sentence appropriate.

Nickname Donation (EUR)
Anonymous 42.88
Anonymous 7.10
Anonymous 62.39
gSTRUCTOR 267.1
baksteen 100
Anonymous 135.65
weltschmerz 100
Anonymous 26.71
Anonymous 47.75
Anonymous 11.18
Anonymous 9.26
wem420 4.45
jamerio 13.37

ctrl+f twister, memento, dem0n, etc.

"yes I am going to put money for this." - memento mori

http://esreality.com/post/2769038/update-on-a...pid2769244

n1 m8

should he put money from his paypal to his paypal?

You will shit bricks when memento does his donation.

i want to see people donate to a worthy cause, not for some drug dealing loser.

incredible that this is even a discussion all because he was once someone who played quake for a living.

av3k is not god like the op is making him out to be.

It has been raised a good amount of cash for donations, its not like this is the only donation thread in the last 5 years.

We're not donating because he once played quake for a living but because he is a good-hearted, upbeat and friendly guy who we got to know on quake lans and through interviews.

So he is the good-hearted, upbeat and friendly drug dealer busted with drugs, weapons and armor? Nice to know.

In my profession i meet people every day that has some kind of abuse, mostly drugs. The people i talk to is between 16 and 25. I do both rehabilitation programs but also preventations (dont know if its the right word).

I have yet to meet the guy who says they doesnt want to quit, they regret taking the drugs the first times and then getting hooked.

Very, very few people can actually handle drugs and life. Often, and too often it actually becomes addiction. The brain takes damage after long use/abuse. I cant in the world understand how anyone can sympathise with Av3k and his situation.

Im pretty sure he knew of the risks before, why people are caring in here is mostly thier own egos. Justifi thier own use, or boosting thier self esteam by helping a "fellow".

Its fun that some people actually belieaves he is a victim, memento_mori, you should prolly go to an NA/AA meeting before posting....

Some people here think it's fine because it was 'only weed', but I'm not one them. I'm helping him to cover his lawyer costs because I know he has no money at all, and seems morally acceptable as a form of help.

All I would like for Avek is a fair judgment, but I got to know from talking to him pretty disturbing things about how they are treating him and the options he is given. And this treatment he's subject to - which I know/hope would not happen in other places - is the reason I sympathize with him.

Only weed? they found a heck of alot more than only weed...

Well, a fair trail, thats what everyone should get. But you seem very clear about that is not the case. Few of the users, abusers and dealers i've delt with are seldom giving away the truth. They do whatever they have to, because in that world, you learn to fuck people over to get where/what you want - even if its your own mother.

if you now want money for his trial, use your eyes with care. Its always like this, when you have personal attachments you become blind.

I would rely on the polish justice system, even if it has its own ways. I mean, av3k didnt just jump into this from nothing. Ofcourse he has friends/enemies that has gone this way, and he was PERFECTLY clear on the outcome - the day it comes.

What else did they find? Back in March the only thing the officials confirmed was weed. Has anything changed, or are you simply repeating that Tweet from the clueless Razer dude which was ridiculed an hour later?


Disclaimer: I don't smoke weed and I'm amazed people don't see the difference between fundraising and begging, which this is.

Yes, this makes sense and I appreciate the warning. To be fair it's hard to know the complete truth. Avek has been very open on this topic in the past, but yes, I was not there to guarantee what he says is completely true. There a component of trust, which is where your advice lands, I guess.

Just to specify, the bust was over different cities and houses. One guy has the same first name as avek, and he was the one with most of the drugs and the gun. Yes avek was connected with the other people, so he share some of that guilt. He had 'just weed' in his home.

As for trusting the polish system, I would completely share the sentiment. At the same time, you may find out things are sadly more complicated by talking to him, but that assumes you can believe what he says. What I learned and tend to believe - which was over multiple discussions - disturbed me anough to become sympathetic to him, where as if everything was normal and fair I would probably staid colder.

Hence the decision to go public with something like this. Supporting him with trial costs seemed the best way to show him sympathy, and an acceptable thing to do, morally speaking. He fucked up and should pay in a fair way, nothing more nothing less.

He's desperate and is probably willing to tell you whatever you need to hear to gain sympathy and for you to help him financially.
Don't let the fact that you are a fan of his quake skills get in the way of your better judgement. Is he truly a friend of yours? I would say from his perspective, probably not; but he knows you have money so in this case hes willing to be best buddies. I don't blame him, I would grasp after whatever straws I could if I was in the same situation. One would do quite a lot for 3-4 years off a sentence.

kinda lame that you post it as an anonymous...
But at least you do have a realistic view of the world.

He didn't even share the first name and avek most certainly doesn't share the guilt for the crimes the other guy may have commited.

Google Translate translates Maciej into Matthias.

oh ok

I'd argue the "shares some of the guilt" part. If I for example dealt some weed to friends but the big time guy I get it from has all kinds of drugs, cash and guns lying around that's certainly not my responsibility. Because I'm just a customer of that guy, not the guy.

2kg of weed in three homes, one of them purportedly aveks. That's all the police report said. People should stop trying to portray him as some drug lord that potentially would sell his mother for another wad of cash. It's a ridiculous proposition, considering what we know.

Did he tell you he bought it from that guy?

Very, very few people can actually handle drugs and life.

Where life might be the bigger problem. Otherwise, everything you said applies to alcoholic beverages not just the same but even more. Except they aren't being criminalized.

Holy shit I cant fathom that you work as a rehab counselor or whatever :D Poor swedish junkies having to deal with an immature sociopath noob :DDDDD FUck me thats just too funny :DD

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eGc5zP6DjGM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuy63esj3g4

I didn't know there were this many legal experts and moral theorists on ESReality. Truly an inspired community.

best community of all times wot u expect m8?

quake is esr

Yea comedy that stems from a bitter attitude is easy to relate to I guess

Worst community to beg money for criminals from wot you expect m8?

We all have to live the thing is how somebody choses how to live. Av3k is young and everybody makes mistakes , some smaller some bigger. I know people that got busted for silly mistakes and people who worked illegily a longer period and got busted. If that whas his only time he tried to do smth illegal i cant blame him that much.Mayby he was just asked for "little help" of his mates,and didnt was to look bad in there eyes. That was a stupid mistake. If he was working a longer period like that then I cant find any excuse for him. Quake is a small community and many people like him and is normal someone searches for help. If people want to help is fine , if they dont want its ok also. Personaly i would leave this to the court of justice becase they will know exactly what he did and how many times he did it.

Personaly i would leave this to the court of justice becase they will know exactly what he did and how many times he did it.

No, they don't unless somebody informs them. And those who do are typically the prosecutor, who usually goes for the maximum sentence he could possibly get to beef up his track record, and the defense attorney, who tries to counter that tendency. And a good defense attorney is all this thread is about.

It's not about trying to evade the legal system or other crap ppl keep imagining up. Quite the contrary, it actually is about a trial. Just a fair one.

I got it. The lawyer is a mob lawyer, but avek still has to pay the weed cost back to the mob.

dearest, kind, sweet avek, you're in my prayers.

av3k...i tried to teach you son..


ima have to bail this nigga out..

i will save al of yo

thank

everyone is just horribly fucking stupid in this thread but what to expect

from what twister told etc the situation is like:

-he was directly connected to a main importer (maybe producer or both based on diff. substance), obv thats like a big deal as in the sense of the case might aswell becomes a main argument point for the next year ostroda district (or wherever he leaves) law enforcement budgets, even more likely so at areas hes from usually a more quiet half a year follows these busts - things even worse if some election also foreseeable.
so they trying to break him by ruling the hardest possible punishment to squeeze the most out of him (as testifying against the importer, providing further evidence/proof etc) which once he falls for it will get him his sentence degraded to what hed "normally" get. also a firearm turning up wherever is like make everything a full force shitshower.
now obviously if av3k having a single braincell thats also like a scenario he want to avoid the most for obvious reasons.... prolly on both sides a lot of scavengers already looking to suck him dry as its really the most despreate situation ever.

you know what youd get in his case in like any other european country or might aswell even in poland at a different circumstance? like half a year in prison at worst + 2 on parole maybe topped with hundreds of hours of community work (like picking up garbage on the street etc).... not 7 fucking years thats almost like 1/3rd of his entire life or also like 1/4th of most posters life spent in the same cell!

for 3500 the lawyer being mediocre at best more probably the lowest (prolly state appointed) willing to pretend sometimes

really hope once he gets any reasonable amount hell already have his backpack ready. sorry bro

so they trying to break him by ruling the hardest possible punishment to squeeze the most out of him (as testifying against the importer, providing further evidence/proof etc) which once he falls for it will get him his sentence degraded to what hed "normally" get.

Meaning he would get a fair sentence in the end while the real bad boys get fucked up. How awful.

donation page down :(

More like lairofmemento down.

It's fixed.

Don't you think putting your money towards, saving the last remaining rhinos in the wild (for example) to have more value?

I think you could be using your time and money on more important matters. protecting drug dealers is not exactly a good investment.