Why is the plane gone?

[xp_wallflower]

So, we've been delayed by about eight hours so far. I can actually see the vein throbbing in the temple of the father sitting across from us in the aisle while his kid is doing her best to not fall asleep on his shoulder.

You'd think they'd take better care of their planes so they didn't have engine problems. But I suppose that would be logical. I'm trying to decide whether it's ethical for me to give the people at the gate a break and start giving people a little 'chemical happiness' so to speak.

Comments

[x-tarot.livejournal.com]

You are thinking about this far too much. If the person is annoying you, deal with him. As long as you break no laws and neither he, nor you, nor the people around all of you are harmed, what is the trouble?

[x-wallflower-.livejournal.com]

You're right.

[x-cannonball.livejournal.com]

She's not.

Using your powers on folks to make them do what you want is only different from using a gun because they're unaware. We don't have any more right to make people do what we want than anyone else, evolution arguments or not.

[x-tarot.livejournal.com]

No, a gun will kill someone, Laurie's power just makes them go away and stop annoying everyone in the room. It hurts no one, and it benefits everyone.

[x-jeangrey.livejournal.com]

I gun can kill someone and, actually, so can Laurie. It's not really a fine line between what you're suggesting (which, as you say, benefits the group, although we could argue whether or not it really hurts no one and the value of free will) and using manipulative powers to "better" any situation the controller likes in whatever fashion they chose, but the two ideas are very definitely connected. I would disagree that there is ever a point when those of us who can, with a thought, remove the free will of another human are ever "thinking about it too much".

[x-aerial.livejournal.com]

Is she? Would you prefer it if there were laws against using your powers, even when they do not involve physical injury or death?

Also, would you wish for someone to do something like this to you?

[x-copycat.livejournal.com]

Isn't the justification you gave Laurie exactly the justification that everyone holds against Manuel for having used? I'm not agreeing or disagreeing with whether or not it's "right," but I just find it interesting that Laurie's being encouraged to look at things and use her powers in a way that earned Manuel the villain's role in the mansion.

[x-aerial.livejournal.com]

She is? I believe that most people who have replied on this journal do not agree with this.

[x-copycat.livejournal.com]

Most people, maybe, but obviously someone does agree with it.

[x-aerial.livejournal.com]

People having different thoughts and opinions does seem to be the way the world works, yes.

[x-copycat.livejournal.com]

My point is more about having one standard. Either something that makes one person a monster makes everyone a monster or it doesn't. Just found it interesting that it would be encouraged in one person publicly when it is rather publicly discouraged in another. Obviously the people who don't agree would say so and that just makes it pretty pointless to get on the "it doesn't hurt anyone" train when those people can see you say it.

[x-aerial.livejournal.com]

Again, different people will have different viewpoints on the matter. Is there actually anyone on this journal system who has both encouraged something in one person and discouraged it in another? In other words, has one specific person voiced a negative opinion of Manuel's past actions while also telling Laurie that it would be perfectly permissible for her to use her mutant abilities in the way mentioned on this journal?