Yeah, yeah…but do I still get prison raped? Do I? Huh, huh?
Yap!
Now, now, Mr. Fool, we need to be a little more sensitive, Mmkay? Instead of "prison rape" say "purple nurple", mmkay.
|
Would it be better if we played some banjo music?banjo music makes everything better.
Ask and ye shall recieve
Yeah, yeah…but do I still get prison raped? Do I? Huh, huh?
Yap!
It's not rape if you want it you little fluffy tailed slut. Now you've ruined it, it's not fun any more if you don't put up a fight and scream No,No when deep down we both know you "really" want it.
<SNIP> My solution to the violent offenders is to nmore effectivly enforce the death penalty. </SNIP>
But most criminals, even violent ones, don't receive the death penalty. Or are you advocating expanding the death penalty for all violent crimes (say, battery, for example)? Two drunken morons get in a bar fight, one gets a broken arm, the other gets gang raped and put to death. That, sir, is BAT SHIT CRAZY.
|
|
<SNIP> My solution to the violent offenders is to nmore effectivly enforce the death penalty. </SNIP>But most criminals, even violent ones, don't receive the death penalty. Or are you advocating expanding the death penalty for all violent crimes (say, battery, for example)? Two drunken morons get in a bar fight, one gets a broken arm, the other gets gang raped and put to death. That, sir, is BAT s@*! CRAZY.
it would turn us into a police state but violent crimes would drop. There would be no repeat offenders.
These degrees are a big part of the issue. We have close to a million non violent drug offenders doing time with murderers, rapists, and whatnot. We put non violent offenders into the system to be brutalized; we joke about how they had it coming; then we (society) have the temerity to be surprised when come out as violent offenders.
OK BT I am honestly curious as to what solution you have to the problem. We say drugs are bad so we lock the dealers up but then when they get hurt or turned into someones prison pal then we say oh no how horrible. Why the heck can't we make prisons as undesirable as possible, why does it take over 20yrs to kill a man when it only took 20 minutes to kill his victims?
If you want my solution then build a very nice large facility in the furthest point in alaska so trying to escape would be a freezing death sentance and put all NON violent offenders there. My solution to the violent offenders is to nmore effectivly enforce the death penalty.Your turn BT what would you see done with our criminals.
I would have fewer criminals. I think the notion of a victimless crime is absurd. If there is no victim there should be no crime.
I think we have made far too many things illegal.
Also keep in mind that the criminal justice system is far more than the prison system. We also have to pay the cost of managing millions of people on probation or parole.
Eliminating victimless crimes take millions of people out of the system allowing the system to focus on violent offenders.
We have around 10,000,000 in the system now.
We have a system that that doesn't rehab offenders it makes them worse offenders. I'm not saying everyone can be rehabbed; some people simply have to be warehoused, but let's at least warehouse the dangerous ones and not the pot heads.
It seems insane to me that we have a system that paroles child molesters and hand out mandatory minimum sentences for selling pot to adults.
We also spend huge amounts of money in the criminal justice system, and I don't think it's working.
EDIT: My numbers are a bit high.
it would turn us into a police state but violent crimes would drop. There would be no repeat offenders.<SNIP> My solution to the violent offenders is to nmore effectivly enforce the death penalty. </SNIP>But most criminals, even violent ones, don't receive the death penalty. Or are you advocating expanding the death penalty for all violent crimes (say, battery, for example)? Two drunken morons get in a bar fight, one gets a broken arm, the other gets gang raped and put to death. That, sir, is BAT s@*! CRAZY.
I think you just made blood shoot out of bugleyman's eyes.
We are all criminals, Steven. It's only a question of degree.
I can accept that to a certain point bitter but in those degrees is a world of diffrence and within those degrees some comparisons simply can not be made in any logical manner.
To conced your point yes I have commited "minor" crimes such as speeding or running a few red lights when there was no one around or even helping my buddy collect from some guys that owed him some money for their "medicinal" herbs.
That being said I never murderd anybody nor did I steal,shoot someone because my gang friends told me to, or any other multitude of crimes that result in incarseration. That means I am not a criminal.
Degrees are very important when dealing with laws, a drunk driver that has never been convicted before and trys to clean up their act vs a repeat offender should be treated diffrently. A man that was found guilty of shooting someone in his home with an unregistered weapon vs a man that commits wonton murder for no reason should be looked at very diffrently.Want me to get bitter thorn in here to link the number of people currently incarcerated for non-violent possession charges. because i think you'll learn quite quickly that there are a lot of people getting prison raped that don't actually deserve prison rape.
Damn you BT ninja'ing me when I'm talking about you even.
LOL! I don't think I've every ninja'd anybody before. I'm a dreadful typist.
It's not rape if you want it you little fluffy tailed slut. Now you've ruined it, it's not fun any more if you don't put up a fight and scream No,No when deep down we both know you "really" want it.
You will have to forgive my complete lack of sympathy for taking the fun of rape away from the rapists.
They were asking for it.
Just look how they were dressed.
BT has nailed it dead-on. We've declared that years of rape and condemnation to second-class citizen status is perfectly appropriate for "criminals." Then we go around designating totally harmless activities as "criminal" (while any number of far more harmful activities are "AOK"). OK so far?
But guess what -- ANYTHING can be designated as "criminal." All you need is a Congress willing to pass the bill, or a jury willing to call "guilty" whether the defendant is or isn't.
We all agree that rape and murder are, and should be, criminal acts -- they demonstratively cause irreparable harm to others.
However, at least one person has argued that speeding, though illegal, isn't "criminal" for the specific reason that no prison time is typically served for it. This logic has nothing to do with harming others, and has only to do with administrative decisions. By this logic, you can speed all you want in Niceguy County, and you don't "deserve" to be punished. However, if a cop in East Bramblethorpe feels like pulling you over for speeding, and local laws say it's a felony, and the jury hates out-of-towners anyway, then you suddenly "deserve" years of torture simply by virtue of driving over a county line somewhere.
This is an argument for a nation devoid of reason; a legal system predicated on the whim and caprice of arbitrary definitions; and a total lack of any objective baseline for what should be considered illegal.
I think the notion of a victimless crime is absurd. If there is no victim there should be no crime.
But most of the time, there are not any victimless crimes. Unless someone lives alone on an island somewhere, where they never interact with anyone else, their actions are always going to affect someone else.
Unless someone lives alone on an island somewhere, where they never interact with anyone else, their actions are always going to affect someone else.
"Affect" is different from "cause irreparable or lasting harm," however. If I praise a co-worker's performance, it might brighten their day. That shouldn't make me a criminal, should it?
I think you just made blood shoot out of bugleyman's eyes.
Still cleaning it up... ;)
I have to admit he has a point, though. :P
I think the notion of a victimless crime is absurd. If there is no victim there should be no crime.But most of the time, there are not any victimless crimes. Unless someone lives alone on an island somewhere, where they never interact with anyone else, their actions are always going to affect someone else.
I would argue that this is the exact kind of thinking that has lead us to the lunacy of our current situation.
This is a slippery slope to insanity. We criminalize gambling because it could leave someones family destitute. Should we criminalize other forms of financial foolishness too? What if they manage money really poorly? Should we jail them to teach them a lesson?
When the state criminalizes our choices because of some kind of butterfly effect what is the limit of what can be criminalized?
I'd like a list of what people think are victimless crimes.
I'd like a list of what people think are victimless crimes.
Putting yourself in financial ruin.
Drugging yourself into a stupor.etc. etc. etc.
Basically, any situation in which the primary blame is on the person who's suffering. The only person who's in a tough situation is the person who put him- or herself there, purely through their own actions.
Are others affected? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's society's job to come and save them from their own bad choices. Sometimes people need to suffer. Sometimes they need to endure the consequences of their own bad choices.
I did it for a year and I think it was the most educational year of my life.
Should we criminalize other forms of financial foolishness too? What if they manage money really poorly? Should we jail them to teach them a lesson?
The only places this goes are either to a nanny state situation where the government or some other arbiter is responsible for all decisions, or a non-monetary system which I seriously doubt would work today.
Indecent exposure -- This cannot cause "lasting or irreparable harm" to any onlookers, no matter how ugly you are. And it doesn't automatically mean you're a "sex offender."
Simple possession of marijuana -- claiming possession means that you're automatically going to become an addict and rob liquor stores in the future is not only false, it's active thought crime legislation.
I'd like a list of what people think are victimless crimes.
As long as it's adults involved:
Drugs, gambling, prostitution, suicide, consensual sex, porn
I'd like a list of what people think are victimless crimes.Putting yourself in financial ruin.
Drugging yourself into a stupor.
etc. etc. etc.Basically, any situation in which the primary blame is on the person who's suffering. The only person who's in a tough situation is the person who put him- or herself there, purely through their own actions.
Are others affected? Sure, but that doesn't mean it's society's job to come and save them from their own bad choices. Sometimes people need to suffer. Sometimes they need to endure the consequences of their own bad choices.
I did it for a year and I think it was the most educational year of my life.
Should we criminalize other forms of financial foolishness too? What if they manage money really poorly? Should we jail them to teach them a lesson?The only places this goes are either to a nanny state situation where the government or some other arbiter is responsible for all decisions, or a non-monetary system which I seriously doubt would work today.
Hm. An interesting point, Orthos. To counter, I have to ask what you(and I guess BT) think of most fraud cases, particularly penny, nickel, and dime schemes.
The vast majority(sorry, I read this recently and I cannot find where my source is, feel free to blow me out of the water on this one) of nonviolent offenders in minimum security prison today are in there for various forms of fraud, convicted on multiple counts so that they actually HAVE to serve a sentence(i.e. not pay/can't afford a fine). Many times they are able to appeal and end up on some kind of parole, but there are those who feel this does nothing more than set the person in question to renew their schemes again. What say you on this?
Indecent exposure -- This cannot cause "lasting or irreparable harm" to any onlookers, no matter how ugly you are. And it doesn't automatically mean you're a "sex offender."
Simple possession of marijuana -- claiming possession means that you're automatically going to become an addict and rob liquor stores in the future is not only false, it's active thought crime legislation.
The first I can see a good case being made for- the sex offender aspect of indecent exposure truly, truly gluts the system, and that's not including those who are there out of spite(to get one out of the neighborhood, make them lose custody/access to their children, etc). The latter...I can agree, but where I live, we usually find these on our violent criminals and its sometimes the only way we can keep someone in jail. I still feel that there needs to be something done regarding possession, however- it's a crime, but the majority of punishments in this country do NOT fit.
To counter, I have to ask what you(and I guess BT) think of most fraud cases, particularly penny, nickel, and dime schemes.
I'd need you to define that latter phrase first... I'm not familiar with the particulars implied.
I'd like a list of what people think are victimless crimes.As long as it's adults involved:
Drugs, gambling, prostitution, suicide, consensual sex, porn
Drugs- Not entirely victimless. I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies, but growing up in brooklyn in the 80's gives me a considerable bias towards carte blanche usage(Tons of B & E, almost random violence, etc).
Gambling- As long as uncle sam gets his cut, I have no problem with it.
Prostitution- Hm. A tough one. I'd have to say the same as the above, but I think legalization would have to be VERY stringent in terms of oversight to avoid a boom in insidious forms of STDs.
Suicide- Another tough one. I guess it depends on how one went about it.
Consensual sex- No problems there.
Porn- Adults only? No problem.
To counter, I have to ask what you(and I guess BT) think of most fraud cases, particularly penny, nickel, and dime schemes.I'd need you to define that latter phrase first... I'm not familiar with the particulars implied.
Penny, nickel and dime schemes are fraud/con jobs that, while low yield, are notoriously easy to repeat. Perhaps the best example of a potentially lucrative nickel-and-dime would be a pyramid scheme. A penny ante con job might be the pigeon drop.
It seems insane to me that we have a system that paroles child molesters and hand out mandatory minimum sentences for selling pot to adults.
+1
I'd like a list of what people think are victimless crimes.As long as it's adults involved:
Drugs, gambling, prostitution, suicide, consensual sex, porn
Drugs- Not entirely victimless. I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies, but growing up in brooklyn in the 80's gives me a considerable bias towards carte blanche usage(Tons of B & E, almost random violence, etc).
Gambling- As long as uncle sam gets his cut, I have no problem with it.
Prostitution- Hm. A tough one. I'd have to say the same as the above, but I think legalization would have to be VERY stringent in terms of oversight to avoid a boom in insidious forms of STDs.
Suicide- Another tough one. I guess it depends on how one went about it.
Consensual sex- No problems there.
Porn- Adults only? No problem.
B&E, and assault are crimes with victims. If someone commits an assault under the influence of drugs or alcohol I don't think it follows that you then ban alcohol and drugs. I think it makes sense to prosecute for assault.
Sex workers health is put in even more danger by being forced into the black market that facilitates their exploitation. Imagine if they could unionize and get union health benefits and pay their taxes. I think STDs are an argument to decriminalize not vice versa.
Drugs- Not entirely victimless. I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies, but growing up in brooklyn in the 80's gives me a considerable bias towards carte blanche usage(Tons of B & E, almost random violence, etc).
Those things you mention are already crimes in an of themselves.
Gambling- As long as uncle sam gets his cut, I have no problem with it.Prostitution- Hm. A tough one. I'd have to say the same as the above, but I think legalization would have to be VERY stringent in terms of oversight to avoid a boom in insidious forms of STDs.
Suicide- Another tough one. I guess it depends on how one went about it.
Consensual sex- No problems there.
Porn- Adults only? No problem.
Wait...so it's OK to have sex for money on camera, but when not on camera, it's a "tough one?" ;)
Penny, nickel and dime schemes are fraud/con jobs that, while low yield, are notoriously easy to repeat. Perhaps the best example of a potentially lucrative nickel-and-dime would be a pyramid scheme. A penny ante con job might be the pigeon drop.To counter, I have to ask what you(and I guess BT) think of most fraud cases, particularly penny, nickel, and dime schemes.I'd need you to define that latter phrase first... I'm not familiar with the particulars implied.
I believe prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of government.
Wait...so it's OK to have sex for money on camera, but when not on camera, it's a "tough one?" ;)
ROFLMAO!
I believe prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of government.Penny, nickel and dime schemes are fraud/con jobs that, while low yield, are notoriously easy to repeat. Perhaps the best example of a potentially lucrative nickel-and-dime would be a pyramid scheme. A penny ante con job might be the pigeon drop.To counter, I have to ask what you(and I guess BT) think of most fraud cases, particularly penny, nickel, and dime schemes.I'd need you to define that latter phrase first... I'm not familiar with the particulars implied.
Seconded.
And Bugley gets a soda point.
I'd like a list of what people think are victimless crimes.As long as it's adults involved:
Drugs, gambling, prostitution, suicide, consensual sex, porn
Drugs- Not entirely victimless. I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies, but growing up in brooklyn in the 80's gives me a considerable bias towards carte blanche usage(Tons of B & E, almost random violence, etc).
Gambling- As long as uncle sam gets his cut, I have no problem with it.
Prostitution- Hm. A tough one. I'd have to say the same as the above, but I think legalization would have to be VERY stringent in terms of oversight to avoid a boom in insidious forms of STDs.
Suicide- Another tough one. I guess it depends on how one went about it.
Consensual sex- No problems there.
Porn- Adults only? No problem.
B&E, and assault are crimes with victims. If someone commits an assault under the influence of drugs or alcohol I don't think it follows that you then ban alcohol and drugs. I think it makes sense to prosecute for assault.
Sex workers health is put in even more danger by being forced into the black market that facilitates their exploitation. Imagine if they could unionize and get union health benefits and pay their taxes. I think STDs are an argument to decriminalize not vice versa.
Like I said, when it comes to carte blanche legalization of drugs, I'm biased. The field I work in means I only get situations where things have gone moderately wrong(I will not comment on what happens when things go REALLY wrong, that's not me). I realize there are some people who are capable of using with a minimum of muss and fuss, but I can count the individuals I know personally on one hand.
In terms of sex workers, good points all around. I'm looking at it from a different viewpoint in terms of STDs- I specifically mentioned insidious ones meaning ones that we know very, very little about. Depending on the gender of the worker and the union, I could see a serious strike with respect to HPV alone until we know more about it.
|
BT has nailed it dead-on. We've declared that years of rape and condemnation to second-class citizen status is perfectly appropriate for "criminals." Then we go around designating totally harmless activities as "criminal" (while any number of far more harmful activities are "AOK"). OK so far?
But guess what -- ANYTHING can be designated as "criminal." All you need is a Congress willing to pass the bill, or a jury willing to call "guilty" whether the defendant is or isn't.
We all agree that rape and murder are, and should be, criminal acts -- they demonstratively cause irreparable harm to others.
However, at least one person has argued that speeding, though illegal, isn't "criminal" for the specific reason that no prison time is typically served for it. This logic has nothing to do with harming others, and has only to do with administrative decisions. By this logic, you can speed all you want in Niceguy County, and you don't "deserve" to be punished. However, if a cop in East Bramblethorpe feels like pulling you over for speeding, and local laws say it's a felony, and the jury hates out-of-towners anyway, then you suddenly "deserve" years of torture simply by virtue of driving over a county line somewhere.
This is an argument for a nation devoid of reason; a legal system predicated on the whim and caprice of arbitrary definitions; and a total lack of any objective baseline for what should be considered illegal.
Kinda like Sodomy Laws? *slaps self for publishing in a political thread and stirring the pot*.
... I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies ...Where do "seat-belt laws" fit with this?
I think I'm reluctantly OK with seat belt laws. It's hard to control the vehicle if you aren't in the drivers seat.
Helmet laws on the other hand I'm not OK with.
... I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies ...Where do "seat-belt laws" fit with this?
As far as I'm concerned, if a person wants to risk flying out their windshield if they crash, that's their own dumb fault. I'll wear mine but because I'm paranoid, and I'd prefer the law back off.
The one place I cross with most people who share my viewpoints on this situation is abortion, as I view the line having been crossed - it's no longer about what you're doing with your own body, as another life is now involved.
In all other circumstances, though, I think the government's best bet is to back the heck off.
Like I said, when it comes to carte blanche legalization of drugs, I'm biased. The field I work in means I only get situations where things have gone moderately wrong(I will not comment on what happens when things go REALLY wrong, that's not me). I realize there are some people who are capable of using with a minimum of muss and fuss, but I can count the individuals I know personally on one hand.
In terms of sex workers, good points all around. I'm looking at it from a different viewpoint in terms of STDs- I specifically mentioned insidious ones meaning ones that we know very, very little about. Depending on the gender of the worker and the union, I could see a serious strike with respect to HPV alone until we know more about it.
I should also mention that I understand that things like drug use, prostitution, and suicide have dire consequences, but so can smoking and drinking being over weight.
Individual liberty has consequences. Some people will do dumb things with their liberty, but I prefer it to the alternative.
Drugs- Not entirely victimless. I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies, but growing up in brooklyn in the 80's gives me a considerable bias towards carte blanche usage(Tons of B & E, almost random violence, etc).Those things you mention are already crimes in an of themselves.
Wait...so it's OK to have sex for money on camera, but when not on camera, it's a "tough one?" ;)
Gambling- As long as uncle sam gets his cut, I have no problem with it.Prostitution- Hm. A tough one. I'd have to say the same as the above, but I think legalization would have to be VERY stringent in terms of oversight to avoid a boom in insidious forms of STDs.
Suicide- Another tough one. I guess it depends on how one went about it.
Consensual sex- No problems there.
Porn- Adults only? No problem.
LOL, yeah, you got me there a bit, but to put a spin on it, let's say yes. Adult film companies are notorious for keeping good records ever since the Traci Lords fiasco, and busting a two-bit unlicensed operation is rather easy as a result.
"Houses of ill repute" are a little harder when it comes to this.
Kinda like Sodomy Laws? *slaps self for publishing in a political thread and stirring the pot*.BT has nailed it dead-on. We've declared that years of rape and condemnation to second-class citizen status is perfectly appropriate for "criminals." Then we go around designating totally harmless activities as "criminal" (while any number of far more harmful activities are "AOK"). OK so far?
But guess what -- ANYTHING can be designated as "criminal." All you need is a Congress willing to pass the bill, or a jury willing to call "guilty" whether the defendant is or isn't.
We all agree that rape and murder are, and should be, criminal acts -- they demonstratively cause irreparable harm to others.
However, at least one person has argued that speeding, though illegal, isn't "criminal" for the specific reason that no prison time is typically served for it. This logic has nothing to do with harming others, and has only to do with administrative decisions. By this logic, you can speed all you want in Niceguy County, and you don't "deserve" to be punished. However, if a cop in East Bramblethorpe feels like pulling you over for speeding, and local laws say it's a felony, and the jury hates out-of-towners anyway, then you suddenly "deserve" years of torture simply by virtue of driving over a county line somewhere.
This is an argument for a nation devoid of reason; a legal system predicated on the whim and caprice of arbitrary definitions; and a total lack of any objective baseline for what should be considered illegal.
That's actually an excellent example of Kirth's point. Few other laws in our history have been so freaking arbitrary.
I think the notion of a victimless crime is absurd. If there is no victim there should be no crime.But most of the time, there are not any victimless crimes. Unless someone lives alone on an island somewhere, where they never interact with anyone else, their actions are always going to affect someone else.I would argue that this is the exact kind of thinking that has lead us to the lunacy of our current situation.
This is a slippery slope to insanity. We criminalize gambling because it could leave someones family destitute. Should we criminalize other forms of financial foolishness too? What if they manage money really poorly? Should we jail them to teach them a lesson?
When the state criminalizes our choices because of some kind of butterfly effect what is the limit of what can be criminalized?
You'll notice I didn't say I support all of those laws, I merely pointed out that claiming almost any crime is "victimless" is naive in the extreme. Someone is usually harmed by crimes (that is why we make them crimes as opposed to Kirth's "good job" issue), either directly (in the case of assault or theft) or indirectly (a child is without a parent because they ODed accidently on purpose).
I believe prosecuting fraud is a legitimate function of government.Penny, nickel and dime schemes are fraud/con jobs that, while low yield, are notoriously easy to repeat. Perhaps the best example of a potentially lucrative nickel-and-dime would be a pyramid scheme. A penny ante con job might be the pigeon drop.To counter, I have to ask what you(and I guess BT) think of most fraud cases, particularly penny, nickel, and dime schemes.I'd need you to define that latter phrase first... I'm not familiar with the particulars implied.Seconded.
And Bugley gets a soda point.
But aren't the schemes I just mentioned(and a goodly deal of fraud cases, imhoO) simply someone being really, really bad(or in the case of insider trading, really, really good) with money(LOL at the possibility of social security being a pyramid scheme)? The nanny state decried previously?
You'll notice I didn't say I support all of those laws, I merely pointed out that claiming almost any crime is "victimless" is naive in the extreme. Someone is usually harmed by crimes (that is why we make them crimes as opposed to Kirth's "good job" issue), either directly (in the case of assault or theft) or indirectly (a child is without a parent because they ODed accidently on purpose).I think the notion of a victimless crime is absurd. If there is no victim there should be no crime.But most of the time, there are not any victimless crimes. Unless someone lives alone on an island somewhere, where they never interact with anyone else, their actions are always going to affect someone else.I would argue that this is the exact kind of thinking that has lead us to the lunacy of our current situation.
This is a slippery slope to insanity. We criminalize gambling because it could leave someones family destitute. Should we criminalize other forms of financial foolishness too? What if they manage money really poorly? Should we jail them to teach them a lesson?
When the state criminalizes our choices because of some kind of butterfly effect what is the limit of what can be criminalized?
OK, but you support the principal that drives those laws and is causing those kind of laws to grow more common.
Where is the line?
For me it's does "X" directly harm or threaten someone else or their property.
|
... I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies ...Where do "seat-belt laws" fit with this?I think I'm reluctantly OK with seat belt laws. It's hard to control the vehicle if you aren't in the drivers seat.
Helmet laws on the other hand I'm not OK with.
Motorcylces and scooters can carry passenger the same as a car, granted not multiple passenger (well I guess with a sidecar you can even carry multiple passengers).
You'll notice I didn't say I support all of those laws, I merely pointed out that claiming almost any crime is "victimless" is naive in the extreme. Someone is usually harmed by crimes (that is why we make them crimes as opposed to Kirth's "good job" issue), either directly (in the case of assault or theft) or indirectly (a child is without a parent because they ODed accidently on purpose).I think the notion of a victimless crime is absurd. If there is no victim there should be no crime.But most of the time, there are not any victimless crimes. Unless someone lives alone on an island somewhere, where they never interact with anyone else, their actions are always going to affect someone else.I would argue that this is the exact kind of thinking that has lead us to the lunacy of our current situation.
This is a slippery slope to insanity. We criminalize gambling because it could leave someones family destitute. Should we criminalize other forms of financial foolishness too? What if they manage money really poorly? Should we jail them to teach them a lesson?
When the state criminalizes our choices because of some kind of butterfly effect what is the limit of what can be criminalized?
OK, but you support the principal that drives those laws and is causing those kind of laws to grow more common.
Where is the line?
For me it's does "X" directly harm or threaten someone else or their property.
I don't exactly where the line is, but I'll tell you this. If I had a child and a man stood outside of the gated school yard and then flashed the kids his twig-and-berries, then he'd better be put in jail. The alternative is me taking the law in my own hands, I would certainly be put in jail after what I did to "correct" him.
Must be nasty to be raped by a prison.
Motorcylces and scooters can carry passenger the same as a car, granted not multiple passenger (well I guess with a sidecar you can even carry multiple passengers).... I agree people should do what they wish with their bodies ...Where do "seat-belt laws" fit with this?I think I'm reluctantly OK with seat belt laws. It's hard to control the vehicle if you aren't in the drivers seat.
Helmet laws on the other hand I'm not OK with.
My point was that not wearing a seat belt could result in being knocked out of the drivers seat in a minor collision and result in a major collision therefor the issue goes beyond driver safety only.
Can we add this whole wilful killing of offspring? Not just killing your kid from neglect or out of rage. But also abortion - no matter when or why you do it. But we won't stop there. Whenever you spill your seed without siring a child, you kill your offspring.
And, of course, by that I mean that every single sperm must be used to father children, or you have killed offspring according to the new law. I'll be magnanimous and allow up to 10% of your sperm cells to die of natural causes.
Everyone else: Death by prison rape!
Must be nasty to be raped by a prison.
Ya think?
How did a topic of loseing 80 acres of american soil to foreign invades get into a legal disscussion. Not that I haven't enjoyed it but still.I like debateing and BT and I are so opposed in veiw point it's facinating to read his responses( no mattter how misguided:-)< -- sarcasm in case it wasn't apparent, please do not take the sarcasm seriously as it tends to scare it.
Can we add this whole wilful killing of offspring? Not just killing your kid from neglect or out of rage. But also abortion - no matter when or why you do it. But we won't stop there. Whenever you spill your seed without siring a child, you kill your offspring.
And, of course, by that I mean that every single sperm must be used to father children, or you have killed offspring according to the new law. I'll be magnanimous and allow up to 10% of your sperm cells to die of natural causes.
Everyone else: Death by prison rape!
*starts signing* every sperm is sacred..every sperm is good..
Wow, this thread went off the rails...
That that they were very good rails to begin with, but yes, they managed to derail *this* thread. Absosmurfing incredible.
*starts signing* every sperm is sacred..every sperm is good..
Every sperm is needed
in the neighbourhood!