You were there? You have some means of peering into the past? The only truth about what happened is that we will likely never know the truth about what happened. We know a conviction was not obtained in court, but that does not mean OJ didn't do it. We don't know that he did either, however things certainly don't bode well.
As I said, I don't understand what point you're attempting to make here.
You started off by listing a bunch of crimes which
do have logical justifications and then, when I pointed out that doesn't equate to the reasons why crimes are committed in ED, you post up a short list of apparently random acts of violence... which the perpetrators were punished for.
Given that there are currently very few logical reasons for committing violent crimes in ED (all BGS or RP related) we
already know the vast majority of violent crimes in ED are "gratuitous violence".
This comes as news to
nobody.
The point is that, if you're intending to use real-world crime as a comparison, it doesn't work - except as a comparison with the actions of "nutcases", who are dealt with severely in the real-world.
There are a vast number of non-violent crimes committed in Elite minute-to-minute that haven't even seen the light of day - speeding, pad loitering, smuggling, interdiction, destruction of property (skimmers and turrets), data theft, trespass - and nobody is making a fuss about any of these. And how many of these are done for gain? Smuggling, certainly. Trespass and destruction of property assuredly. What gain is there for speeding? Loitering? Littering? I've know a few commanders who have dumped a number of tons of biowaste in a station for no other reason than to lower their standings with the controlling faction there. I've even dumped some biowaste in protest. The only gain - a small fine and a smirk.
Again, I'm not sure what point you're attempting to make.
If somebody commits a petty crime of the type you describe, and for the reasons you describe, in real-life then they'll probably get a fine for their actions.
ED
does (for the most part) replicate that level of consequences.
Is that so? So what reason can a law-abiding citizen understand for:
1. The wanton rioting and destruction of Ferguson? The dry-cleaner's was set on fire, and they didn't even so much as clean police uniforms?
2. What reason can be easily understood for the wide-spread, near epidemic, illegal use of dangerous narcotics?
3. What reason can be easily understood for the seasonal rampant destruction of private property (the smashing of mailboxes in the spring, or the theft and vandalism of pumpkins in the fall)?
4. Where I live it a crime to text message while driving, yet thousands of people do it daily - for what easily understood reason?
5. Drinking and Driving is also a crime, committed at least thousands of times every day, and there is absolutely no understandable reason for this.
I could probably continue listing various crimes that are committed on a daily basis where the motivations for these will lie outside the realm of understanding, but these should be enough.
The irony here is that you've posted up a list of stuff which certainly DO all have understandable justifications (however misguided).
1. Rioting happens as a result of people's frustration at perceived injustices within society - and sometimes leads to other people taking advantage of the situation for personal gain.
2. Drug use is the result of dealers wanting to make money and users wanting to get high.
3. You
really can't figure out why there's a surge in attacks on pumpkins in autumn?
4. People do irresponsible things for the sake of convenience.
5. See 4.
Once again, I find myself confused though.
Are you attempting to use
any of the above examples as a comparison or justification for the sort of "for the lulz" attacks which occur in ED?
Excellent personal attack, where's the -rep function? Try talking about the issues, not the poster, ok?
When you make a jibe I will respond in kind. If you find such things offensive, don't do it yourself.
That's the thing about criminal behavior and criminal psychology - there are plenty who neither submit nor accept the rule of law, which is what makes them criminals.
And then... there are those times where people decide the rule of law is no longer suited to them, and rise up to cast it off - usually to replace it with a new rule of law - civil wars and revolutions still happen to this day, in some places far more than others.
Nah, this is all kinds of wrong.
Firstly, you're attempting to use outlying examples of a thing to refute the existence of a trend.
It's like somebody saying "Most German Shepard dogs are black and brown" and you responding by saying "I disagree cos some are black and white".
Secondly, a person's refusal to accept or submit to the rule of law is certainly NOT what "makes them criminals".
As I've said numerous times, the overwhelming majority of criminals accept the rule of law which is why they moderate the crimes they commit.
Thirdly, if people reject the rule of law for ideological reasons then they obviously HAVE a reason for their actions.
About the only constructive thing to take from this discussion is to consider why this might be.
I might be wrong but I suspect it's because most criminals are sane and they fear the consequences of committing more serious crimes.
This is something ED should seek to replicate.
As for what FDev should be striving to create... I think it's a bit presumptuous to say what they should be striving to create. Perhaps a "bananna republic" feel is exactly what they want to create - we need only look at how hard it has been to clamp down the iron hand of law and order on just one single planet over the past 200,000 years or so, when the first humans came to be on Earth, then spread that over a few thousand light years and see how much easier it gets.
You seem to basing what future life should be on personal preconceptions and wishful thinking - and I am just as hopeful as you that as we move further into the future we do improve towards a more fair, just and balanced society, but the current state of things in Elite suggests strongly the opposite to be more likely.
Well, no.
FDev have given us a game where people can pursue a variety of play-styles. They've even told us this is their intent.
This (finally) takes us back to the reason why your argument is flawed.
A law-abiding person should be able to go about their business in a 1st world society without significant threat of violence.
And, if they
are part of the miniscule minority who fall victim to violent crime, the authorities should be capable of ensuring the criminal faces consequences for their actions.
Most importantly, in terms of a comparison with ED, a person is able to understand that there are different levels of risk dependent on the sort of society where they are.
Things that have no significant risk in the UK or US might be more risky in Eastern Europe and will be very risky in an African banana republic.
That's important (in the real world and in ED) in broader terms than personal safety too.
There will be far less risk involved in running a business in a first-world society than there will be in a less developed country, and there'll be even more risk if you're doing it in a banana republic.
On that note, let's take a quick look at the way the world works and compare that to ED.
We have cars and planes and TVs and computers and a stock-market and scientific research.
Why?
Do you think it's a coincidence that
we have all those things while people in banana republics are living in mud huts and picking fruit for a living?
When was the last time you considered buying a car or laptop made in Africa?
Organisations and corporations can grow and flourish in lawful economies in a way which isn't possible in a lawless society.
If ED was supposed to represent an "interstellar banana republic" then we simply wouldn't
have coriolis stations and spaceships and SRVs and trading and outposts.
Instead, it'd consist of us gazing up at the stars and then going to stab somebody so we could steal their stuff.
