There are two kinds of people, those who are mentally sane and do understand the law and never have problems with unlawful behaviour.

And tose who were brianfucked by their bitch - mom and jerk - dad assholes, and who become criminals, becouse they do not understand shit and consider the law to be just a bunch of rules.

In reality the situation is much more complex:

Universal code of sane ego with a complete conscious intellect:

I Law: A human being must not injure mentally or physically, or murder another normal human being, or trough inaction allow this to happen, except where this would conflict with the Second or Third law.

II Law: A human being must understand and respect all the natural needs and preferences of other normal humans, except where such needs or preferences would conflict with the First or Third Law.

III Law: A human being must protect his personal freedom, existence, well-being and property, except where such kind of protection would conflict with the First or Second Law.


As you see, if you do have a clear mind, you are in a conscius state, and you do understand why you should follow these three rules.

If your mind is uncoscius, you are not able to control your mental processing, and with a retarded and illogical mind you do become a criminal just becouse you can't hink properly.

That's why all the criminals are always also psicologically unstable, not becouse they enjoy being a psycho, but becouse they cannot think or behave in a normal way for real.

Infact the difference between a normal law understanding citizen and a criminal is:

1 A normal person is able only to pretend to be a cirminal for a while, in order to have fun, becouse it makes him feel stupid for a while.

2 A criminal is able only to pretend to be normal for a while, as his brinas are fucked up, and he is unable to comprehend what and why normal people think, say or do.

What about a doctor who practices unlawful euthanasia on a suffering terminally ill patient?

/thread
/troll

As you see, if you do have a clear mind, you are in a conscius state, and you do understand why you should follow these three rules.

If your mind is uncoscius, you are not able to comtrol your mental process, and with a retarded and illogical mind you do become a criminal just becouse you can't hink properly.

That' swhy alll the criminals are laways also psicologically unstable, not becouse they ebjoy being a psycho, byt becouse they cannot think or behave in a normal way for real.

Infact the difference between a normla law understanding citizen and a crimina is:

Please tell me this post was a joke

What about a doctor who practices unlawful euthanasia on a suffering terminally ill patient?

/thread
/troll
If you are unable to understand I can explain to you. I recognise your intellectual or psychological incapacity to perform self analysis of this question. I'll proceed my explanation.

If a mentally sane doctor is aware that some law is wrong and makes suffer his patient, he is free to not give a fuck about this said fucked up law and proceed in order to quit the pain of his patient.

Is there something fucking hard to undrstand?

is there something fucking hard to undrstand?
and tose who were brianfucked by their bitch - mom and jerk - dad assholes

12345

I Law: A human being must not injure mentally or physically, or murder another normal human being, or trough inaction allow this to happen. Except where this would conflict with the Second or Third law.

II Law: A human being must understand and respect all the natural needs and preferences of other human beings, except where such needs or preferences would conflict with the First or Third Law.

III Law: A human being must protect his personal freedom, existence, well-being and property, except where such kind of protection would conflict with the First or Second Law.


Somebodys watched too much fucking I,Robot

This message is hidden because Emc3 is on your ignore list.

Sweet, sweet silence.

there should be a law against spelling like you. Breaking it would result in deathpenalty.

there should be a law against spelling like you. Breaking it would result in deathpenalty.

It's part of his unique trolling style, I've actually come to respect it.

Please tell me this post was a joke

it was a joke.

happy?

It's been a while since I've read Asimov, but aren't the laws such that you should do each law as long as it isn't contradicting the preceding laws? For example, do the first law; do the second law as long as it doesn't conflict with the first law; do the third law as long as it doesn't conflict with the fist or second laws. In this way, there is an order of importance among them.

I don't think it would make sense to say, because of the nature of these laws, that you can only obey a law if it contradicts no other of these laws. For a very simple example, what if you had to protect your existence by killing another human. You wouldn't be able to follow the third law lest you break the first. At the same time, you would not be allowed to follow the first law lest you break the third. Perhaps there should be a revision of your universal code?

It's been a while since I've read Asimov, but aren't the laws such that you should do each law as long as it isn't contradicting the preceding laws? For example, do the first law; do the second law as long as it doesn't conflict with the first law; do the third law as long as it doesn't conflict with the fist or second laws. In this way, there is an order of importance among them.

I don't think it would make sense to say, because of the nature of these laws, that you can only obey a law if it contradicts no other of these laws. For a very simple example, what if you had to protect your existence by killing another human. You wouldn't be able to follow the third law lest you break the first. At the same time, you would not be allowed to follow the first law lest you break the third. Perhaps there should be a revision of your universal code?

This have nothing to do with Asimov, but the contrary. This is the original Greek table of universal mentally sane and not corrupted human behaviour.

This was written in Grece 2000 years ago more or less, and it is about how human mind works exactly, as you need to know human mind is more sophisticated than Intel Pentium micrchip. A pentium is faster than human mind but is able to process calculations only in sequential mode. Exactly as stolen & written in Asimov's Laws of robotica.

Normal human mind is slower than a microchip, but is able to perform multiple tasks contemporarily, allowing this way normal humans do not think like retarded assholes and faggots.

Asimov wrote his robotic laws only in the 20th century, based on the original table of human mind written in Greece before Asimov was born.

As you might want to know, Asimov was a Jew, and as every jew he was keen to steal other's intellectual property and use it as it's own. This way every average Joe thinks these laws were invented by the Jewish Asimov, not Greek ancient scientists.

Anyway what these three Greek laws mean is that "You are free to think, say or do everything you wish, as long as it won't disturb other people's freedom to think, say or do". Which was also used as the fundament for the French democratic revolution, and soon after for the American democratic revolution.

Who of the Ancient Greeks wrote these laws? Is this how it was originally styled or is it just put in a form similar to Asimov's laws? You say, "you are free to think, say or do everything you wish, as long as it won't disturb other people's freedom to think, say or do," which is a much more sensible statement. Your universal code doesn't make sense right now because of the disclaimer at the end of each law. The way to make this make the most sense and keep the spirit of your quote would be to structure the disclaimers like in Asimov's laws.

Who of the Ancient Greeks wrote these laws? Is this how it was originally styled or is it just put in a form similar to Asimov's laws? You say, "you are free to think, say or do everything you wish, as long as it won't disturb other people's freedom to think, say or do," which is a much more sensible statement. Your universal code doesn't make sense right now because of the disclaimer at the end of each law. The way to make this make the most sense and keep the spirit of your quote would be to structure the disclaimers like in Asimov's laws.
Universal code of sane ego with a complete conscious intellect:

I Law: A human being must not injure mentally or physically, or murder another normal human being, or trough inaction allow this to happen, except where this would conflict with the Second or Third law.

II Law: A human being must understand and respect all the natural needs and preferences of other normal humans, except where such needs or preferences would conflict with the First or Third Law.

III Law: A human being must protect his personal freedom, existence, well-being and property, except where such kind of protection would conflict with the First or Second Law.

Look dude, these are the laws, and they are perfectly understandable by a normal mind.

If you do not understand these simple laws, the problem is your motehrfucked brain. Not the laws.

I do not remember, I am interested only in laws, not history, try founding th eauthor by yourslef if you need.