(08-29-2015, 04:49 PM)Calliope Cloverbloom Wrote:(08-29-2015, 04:32 PM)Oli! Wrote: There are many ways you can be stopped from peeing on the sidewalk. Tackled by a passerby, tazed by a police officer, having your urine caught by a cup, who knows. The point is that just about any action done in meatspace can be stopped through physical interference. Not the case in Roleplay, where any interference at all has to go through the person being interfered with, who then makes the choice of whether or not they want to go with it or not. Therefore, this situation would be more akin to someone coming up and asking you whether you would allow them to stop you from peeing on the sidewalk, at which point you decide yes, no, or to ignore them.
Um, no. No other human has control over the function of my bladder, thank you. They could tackle me, taze me, etc, but they literally can't stop me from exercising bodily functions, nor can they inhibit the effect of gravity upon the results. The sidewalk got wet. Sorry.
Regarding the rest, I feel at this point that you may be arguing for the sake of arguing, and I'm going to disengage from that. It's unproductive.
Then in that case, that would fall under the category of Able, which I outlined in the second part of my post. When Morality is removed, you are Allowed to pee on the sidwalk, because you are physically Able to do so. So, the answer in that scenario would be Yes, you are Physically Allowed to pee on the sidewalk, though it may not be Socially Acceptable. I expressed such a little further down after the portion that you quoted.
Also, I never argue solely for the sake of argument. I argue for the sake of increased understanding regarding people's motives and outlooks on the way they conduct themselves. As I've stated beforehand, I don't necessarily morally agree with everything that I'm stating. The reason why I am arguing it nonetheless is that we can achieve a greater amount of communal cohesion and understanding by recognizing the reasons why someone may choose to do something, or what they may be thinking when they do something, regardless of whether or not one agrees. The end goal, at least for me, is to have someone think "huh, here's a few reasons why someone might not want me to intrude on their RP despite being in public, maybe I can use my new understanding to see where they're coming from next time I'm in this situation," instead of blacklisting them outright because of an initial disagreement. And to be honest, I actually kind of find the accusation that I'm only arguing for the sake of arguing or being confrontational a little on the rude side. :/
