But we've been focusing on polygamy for quite some time now. And before that prostitution and seat belts.
So what about the others? Come on. There's more to argue about. I mean, what the hell is the point of keeping gambling illegal?
What about the reefer?
Gambling has huge externalities with regards to crime. Besides which, I don't think there's any significant population center left in the U.S. without a casino within an hour or two (and by "significant," I mean "there were 4 within an hour of my shithole town in California), which means it's basically legal, if very well-regulated.
I don't think you're going to find much argument from anyone but me over keeping marijuana illegal, and the only reason I argue against it is because the California economy (and Northern California's housing market) are so dependent upon the price support.
How's that? I think I know what you mean about the California economy, but how about Northern California's housing market?
But we've been focusing on polygamy for quite some time now. And before that prostitution and seat belts.
So what about the others? Come on. There's more to argue about. I mean, what the hell is the point of keeping gambling illegal?
What about the reefer?
Gambling has huge externalities with regards to crime. Besides which, I don't think there's any significant population center left in the U.S. without a casino within an hour or two (and by "significant," I mean "there were 4 within an hour of my shithole town in California), which means it's basically legal, if very well-regulated.
I don't think you're going to find much argument from anyone but me over keeping marijuana illegal, and the only reason I argue against it is because the California economy (and Northern California's housing market) are so dependent upon the price support.
I might make a joke about gambling and related crime because gambling is essentially illegal. But I won't. The lottery, horse races, sports gambling. Placing bets and wagering on anything, including chance. It's so natural and obvious, I don't know why it can be considered so bad. There are those who become addicted, but that in itself is human nature. I wouldn't ban an activity because of that.
I googled "busted for gambling" and pulled up articles on gambling "crackdowns." Oh no! Hot damn! The dangerous criminals and their dangerous sports gambling! Saying that because gambling can be connected to crime as an argument for its continued illegalization is like arguing for the prohibition of loaning money because of the loan sharks. Yes, crime can arise from gambling, but far more people are being harmed who had no involvement in any illegal activity besides the wagering of their money on a certain activity. Which they should, as it is their money, be allowed to do.
And, yes, I am confused as well as the how the legalization of marijuana would affect the housing markets. It's not that I think it couldn't, or that you must be wrong. Marijuana and housing markets, though. Just not any sort of an obvious connection.
And besides all that. I've got to ask. Thin, what do you like. There's obviously things you do. However, I've never seen you arguing for anything. Which really just means you've never, in my time here, been given the opportunity to argue for something. Prostitution, gambling, marijuana, polygamy. These aren't exactly activities that I would so readily pin to anyone, as natural as most (polygamy) of them are, so this thread may not be a good example. Add overdone reverence for a past generation, as well.
So what do you enjoy? Besides Patrick Warburton.
Edit: This is not some asinine, petty dig to imply you don't enjoy anything. My curiosity just grew overtime from never hearing you talk positively about anything.
Specifically on the issues of legalized prostitution -
Most of the biggest problems associated with prostitution stem from the fact that it is illegal. Many of us are uncomfortable with the idea of prostitution, myself included. It seems that one ought to have more respect for their own body than to trade it for money, but that is a personal issue with it just as many people have a personal problem with the idea of homosexuality, interracial relationships, and Mormons. (only kind of kidding on that last one - a lot of people seriously don't like Mormons.) Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean it necessitates illegality.
I went to visit Amsterdam a few years ago, and checked out the Red Light District, out of curiosity, not in search of service. I was shocked by how clean and comfortable the whole area was. In fact, the sex shops with their strange toys displayed in the window were far more disconcerting than the pleasant, smiling bikini-clad women behind their glass doors. I got curious about the issue and did a bit of research. The fact that prostitution is legal there has made it a safe and even worthwhile career choice for those who have no moral qualms with it. The women have unions, they have no "pimps" to hurt them or steal their money. They can insist on safe sex only, turn away dangerous and drug-using customers and go to the police if someone does attempt to hurt them. It's not as though the laws against prostitution here do anything but put desperate women (because in this society, you usually have to be to consider the job) and lonely men in jail for a private transaction that under safe conditions, can not possibly be considered harmful. People have sex every day, and it really doesn't matter if there's money involved. The problem isn't the prostitution. The problem is the criminilization of the people involved. Once you've become a "criminal" in the eyes of society, there is nowhere for you to turn for any problems. You can't count on the justice system to protect you, so there is rampant violence, unsafe sex, and unreported rape and you are forced to turn to alternate (and usually very unsafe - ie: pimps system) means to offer protection and to insure that a deal is fulfilled.
I believe absolutely that prostitution should be legalized. It'd be good for the economy and it would probably PREVENT crime to at least a small extent. It would also make a lot of people uncomfortable, which is why it will never happen.
But we've been focusing on polygamy for quite some time now. And before that prostitution and seat belts.
So what about the others? Come on. There's more to argue about. I mean, what the hell is the point of keeping gambling illegal?
What about the reefer?
Gambling has huge externalities with regards to crime. Besides which, I don't think there's any significant population center left in the U.S. without a casino within an hour or two (and by "significant," I mean "there were 4 within an hour of my shithole town in California), which means it's basically legal, if very well-regulated.
I don't think you're going to find much argument from anyone but me over keeping marijuana illegal, and the only reason I argue against it is because the California economy (and Northern California's housing market) are so dependent upon the price support.
I might make a joke about gambling and related crime because gambling is essentially illegal. But I won't. The lottery, horse races, sports gambling. Placing bets and wagering on anything, including chance. It's so natural and obvious, I don't know why it can be considered so bad. There are those who become addicted, but that in itself is human nature. I wouldn't ban an activity because of that.
I googled "busted for gambling" and pulled up articles on gambling "crackdowns." Oh no! Hot damn! The dangerous criminals and their dangerous sports gambling! Saying that because gambling can be connected to crime as an argument for its continued illegalization is like arguing for the prohibition of loaning money because of the loan sharks. Yes, crime can arise from gambling, but far more people are being harmed who had no involvement in any illegal activity besides the wagering of their money on a certain activity. Which they should, as it is their money, be allowed to do.
And, yes, I am confused as well as the how the legalization of marijuana would affect the housing markets. It's not that I think it couldn't, or that you must be wrong. Marijuana and housing markets, though. Just not any sort of an obvious connection.
And besides all that. I've got to ask. Thin, what do you like. There's obviously things you do. However, I've never seen you arguing for anything. Which really just means you've never, in my time here, been given the opportunity to argue for something. Prostitution, gambling, marijuana, polygamy. These aren't exactly activities that I would so readily pin to anyone, as natural as most (polygamy) of them are, so this thread may not be a good example. Add overdone reverence for a past generation, as well.
So what do you enjoy? Besides Patrick Warburton.
Edit: This is not some asinine, petty dig to imply you don't enjoy anything. My curiosity just grew overtime from never hearing you talk positively about anything.
J-j-j-jaded :whistle:
Wait, how is gambling illegal again? Because I'm fairly certain I've been to a horsetrack and lost a few bucks. I thought it was just internet betting, and that was only because the government couldn't figure out how to collect taxes on it (like everything else on the internet). There can't be all that much gambling-related crime happening these days since you can bet on anything, and I mean anything, on the internet.
How about public indecency? Who am I hurting running down the street naked? If I want to hang out with my wang out at my picture window, what's the big deal? I mean, I do now anyway, and perhaps I shouldn't since there's a catholic school across the street and it seems like a quick way to get arrested, but that's the point of the question. WHY.
But we've been focusing on polygamy for quite some time now. And before that prostitution and seat belts.
So what about the others? Come on. There's more to argue about. I mean, what the hell is the point of keeping gambling illegal?
What about the reefer?
Gambling has huge externalities with regards to crime. Besides which, I don't think there's any significant population center left in the U.S. without a casino within an hour or two (and by "significant," I mean "there were 4 within an hour of my shithole town in California), which means it's basically legal, if very well-regulated.
I don't think you're going to find much argument from anyone but me over keeping marijuana illegal, and the only reason I argue against it is because the California economy (and Northern California's housing market) are so dependent upon the price support.
I might make a joke about gambling and related crime because gambling is essentially illegal. But I won't. The lottery, horse races, sports gambling. Placing bets and wagering on anything, including chance. It's so natural and obvious, I don't know why it can be considered so bad. There are those who become addicted, but that in itself is human nature. I wouldn't ban an activity because of that.
I googled "busted for gambling" and pulled up articles on gambling "crackdowns." Oh no! Hot damn! The dangerous criminals and their dangerous sports gambling! Saying that because gambling can be connected to crime as an argument for its continued illegalization is like arguing for the prohibition of loaning money because of the loan sharks. Yes, crime can arise from gambling, but far more people are being harmed who had no involvement in any illegal activity besides the wagering of their money on a certain activity. Which they should, as it is their money, be allowed to do.
And, yes, I am confused as well as the how the legalization of marijuana would affect the housing markets. It's not that I think it couldn't, or that you must be wrong. Marijuana and housing markets, though. Just not any sort of an obvious connection.
And besides all that. I've got to ask. Thin, what do you like. There's obviously things you do. However, I've never seen you arguing for anything. Which really just means you've never, in my time here, been given the opportunity to argue for something. Prostitution, gambling, marijuana, polygamy. These aren't exactly activities that I would so readily pin to anyone, as natural as most (polygamy) of them are, so this thread may not be a good example. Add overdone reverence for a past generation, as well.
So what do you enjoy? Besides Patrick Warburton.
Edit: This is not some asinine, petty dig to imply you don't enjoy anything. My curiosity just grew overtime from never hearing you talk positively about anything.
J-j-j-jaded :whistle:
Wait, how is gambling illegal again? Because I'm fairly certain I've been to a horsetrack and lost a few bucks. I thought it was just internet betting, and that was only because the government couldn't figure out how to collect taxes on it (like everything else on the internet). There can't be all that much gambling-related crime happening these days since you can bet on anything, and I mean anything, on the internet.
How about public indecency? Who am I hurting running down the street naked? If I want to hang out with my wang out at my picture window, what's the big deal? I mean, I do now anyway, and perhaps I shouldn't since there's a catholic school across the street and it seems like a quick way to get arrested, but that's the point of the question. WHY.
that's something that's rubbed me the wrong way too. I mean, I can find no reason for the negative stigma we have on nudity. Certainly not from a secular stand point, and it's hypocritical from a Judeo-religious standpoint, because you're essentially saying "God created something dirty that mustn't be seen"
I thought public decency rules were because no-one wants to see fat people naked. That's the only legitimate argument I can think of.
You don't think fecal-oral cross-contamination is a legitimate argument in favor of pants?
Edit: I guess no one ever scratches their ass though, so nevermind.
Ferals whole thing about sex on TV translates across here rather nicely.
Where's Feral's thing about sex on TV?
I'd be in favor of mandatory pants for health reasons. However, that women may not go topless is an archaic double standard.
Yes, it's unequal that women can't go topless. It's also unequal that we can't all be astronauts. Equality for equality's sake would be fantastic, but unrealistic. This is one of those cases, however, where I feel it's important, and should be pursued.
Why? What great enemy could I possibly be so concerned with that I'd want to rip off women's bras (figuratively)? The ridiculous sexual repression that seems almost pandemic. The general air of a culture raised with openness and frankness towards the body and sexuality would earn so much less trouble. Besides repression in almost every conceivable way, not least of which the feeling of actual guilt for ever being aroused, I wholly believe that in a society so much more open minded towards intimacy, there'd be at least one less thing to criticize and judge people by, and perhaps in that we'd be one step closer to some reasonably liberal and free society.
Now, right now, America is not this society, nor will it be in the next few generations. And maybe we'll never reach that form of liberty. Unless we work now on the measures that would begin to cultivate this open-mindedness. That's why I want to rip women's bras off.
Huh? What? You know bras aren't just coverage, they also have a support role which makes athletic and daily activity more comfortable. If your testicles were the size of oranges you'd probably want something similar too.
Also, in Australia at least women totally go topless on our beaches. And god damn it, you feel an annoying moral conundrum everytime you either stare or don't stare.
I'm all for women keeping their tops on because of society saying "that isn't appropriate". But it being a law is ridiculous. Not that it is in the top 70% of laws that shouldn't be, but there ya go.
Ok, under what circumstances are you proposing not wearing a shirt should be appropriate? Because it's fully within my power as some sort of business owner to ask men put on a shirt, and have them arrested if they don't comply and don't leave.
If someone is on your property, they wear what you say they wear or they GTFO. In a system of law I would find ideal, you would say "Hey, GTFO" and the police would only interview because they are trespassing, not because of what they are wearing.
Huh? What? You know bras aren't just coverage, they also have a support role which makes athletic and daily activity more comfortable. If your testicles were the size of oranges you'd probably want something similar too.
Also, in Australia at least women totally go topless on our beaches. And god damn it, you feel an annoying moral conundrum everytime you either stare or don't stare.
I'm completely aware of that. I'm not at all saying that social standards are the only thing keeping women from going topless. Just like I"m not saying the law is the only thing keeping people from prostitution.
I know there are tons of women who would wear bras regardless for the support. My point is that they shouldn't have to because of some puerile reaction from the religious. I know it's not all the religious, but where the hell could the idea possibly originated besides from about the same crowd who now have their women wearing beekeeper suits.
My mom, for instance, hates wearing a bra. Not as some statement, like a lot of girls at my high school and college, but just because it's uncomfortable for her. So she gets to just be plain uncomfortable when she has to go out. I highly, highly doubt she's the only one, and I'm sure for many women it's a lot worse. And even assuming there were bras that did fit her so nicely she didn't care, there's still the matter of the argument I made above.
Ok, under what circumstances are you proposing not wearing a shirt should be appropriate? Because it's fully within my power as some sort of business owner to ask men put on a shirt, and have them arrested if they don't comply and don't leave.
I can't exactly see the problem here. There are always gray areas, and it's up to each person to decide what they think, and if they aree with the current law. But as per this particular issue I think it is completely within the rights of the company to require men or women to put a shirt on, even if both were legally allowed to go without. I could conjure any number of reasons for this, But I'll be brief.
However, while failure to comply with the rules of the company certainly can be grounds for expulsion, I would find it unreasonable that anyone might call the cops immediately for non-compliance. If, however, after refusing to leave when asked, then you could call the cops. Not for not putting on a shirt. But for trespassing, disturbance, or whatever laws would apply when you refuse to leave private property. I'm sure in that case some very liberal news sources would report "Man Arrested for Refusing to Wear Shirt" because that's much more entertaining than "Man Arrested for Refusing to Leave Private Property."
Yes, that is controversial, and as loony as I may appear calling for the legalization of drugs, prostitution and sodomy, I would never agree to legalize drunk driving.
There's a very good reason for that law. Legalizing drunk driving would be like legalizing a guy arbitraily firing an automatic weapon at a highway. Sure, he might not have hit anyone yet, and he isn't trying to, but...
Public drunkenness, maybe. I'm talking about just being drunk in public, not harming or hurting anyone. People may be bothered, but I'm bothered by cigarette smoke, and I'm not gonna call the cops on them.
See, I'd like to see a place where doing very dangerous shit isn't illegal, but actually causing harm is harshly punished.
For instance, if you were doing your best to be a good driver, and you just made an error in driving that cause a death, it would be considered a tragic accident. If you caused a death because you were fucked up on shit, it would be something like 2nd degree murder.
The idea is I think we should punish people for actually doing bad shit, not for doing something that we think will probably end up in some bad shit. The punishment should be so harsh that a person would never want to risk it.
BTW, I also think it should be legal for a guy to shoot randomly at the highway. You do get to arrest him when he damages government property or commits one of the few crimes that would exist (like murder).
I... I don't want to use this word, but you should consider... the externalities of your claim.
Legalizing drunk driving would invariably lead to a lot more drunk driving. Which would invariably lead to a lot more accidents, and deaths. I might be willing to argue that the sober guy who made a simple, honest mistake, and caused someone's death, doesn't deserve jail time. However, driving drunk is so recklessly, and carelessly dangerous that under no circumstances should this be tolerable.
You could argue that every person in the world, when they step outside their house, is engaging in an activity that may result in the death of another. When you get in my car, you might end up having to dodge a jaywalker, and running someone else over. Anything could happen, always. But drunk driving is so recklessly dangerous, I can't possibly imagine a good reason to allow it. It's not so much that the driver's themselves are endangered, it's that by their actions their endangering another.
Now, of course, by that logic you should outlaw most rednecks who handle guns and get drunk, because they may end up shooting someone else with their reckless, drunk, gun-handling. But I wouldn't propose taking the guns and beer from them. So maybe my argument is flawed. Maybe it's based solely on the fear-driven, emotional misconception that drunk driving is a horrible evil, and under no circumstance should it be legalized, regardless of any seemingly logical argument. Maybe my rational is failing me. Still, I wouldn't legalize drunk driving.
Drunk driving is irresponsible and terrible, no question. Based on that part of the argument for it being illegal, I don't think anything should be illegal because it is "wrong" or "evil".
As far as the number of deaths it would cause, I am uncertain if the number would be higher or lower than it is now, but I don't think it would be a DRASTIC increase, on the order of 100% or anything like that.
Any law is trading away a right for something. I give away my right to murder you in exchange for knowing you don't have the right to murder me. I would be willing to give away my right to drive drunk (something I can't imagine doing except in an extremely contrived scenario) only if it was worth something valuable. My estimation of the number of deaths it would cause is lower than yours.
I think if people knew that causing a fatal car accident while drunk would mean 25-life, they would be just as deterred as the possibility of having to pay a ticket and spend the night in jail.
edit: Keep in mind, this would only work in a system with these harsh punishments and very very little wiggle room in the legal system.
By driving a car on a public road, you're always putting others at risk. That's not really avoidable, it's the price we pay for the convenience of using cars as a means of transportation. But when you get drunk and then do the same thing, you're increasing the chances of putting others at risk. That is completely avoidable. How can you argue in favour of putting people (not necessarily yourself) at a greater risk than is really necessary*?
*if you consider people being able to drive around in cars a necessity
I used a guns example. My point was that impairing yourself so horribly and then playing such a dangerous game as driving is irresponsible. It can end in property damage, loss of life, and should remain illegal. Simultaneously, however, impairing yourself so horribly and then firing off your gun with company around on your own property, can end in property damage and loss in life, yet should remain legal. The difference?
It's your own property, for one, and the the company sticks around, waiving their innocence. What makes drunk driving different, and so much worse, is that their company, their participants, are unwilling. It's very dangerous, it's public property, and it's endangering the lives of men, women and children who aren't given the chance to consent.
The freedom comes in the fact that you can engage in potentially fatal activity with another assuming they give consent. If this results in loss of life, then you get to punish whoever was responsible.
Drunk driving is thus so wicked, and should remain illegal, because of the unfairness of the participants. Now, you may say that walking out of your house everyday is dangerous, and possibly giving consent to death, and so why don't we make everything illegal? Well, to that respond that I respond as such.
Yes, life is dangerous, it's fatal even. Living is nothing but slow dying. You could die at any moment. Maybe even before you finish this post. A stray bullet, or a falling meteor, or a sinkhole. Any could write the story of your death right now. However, drunk driving just happens to be an activity which finds itself on the "wrong" side of moral for the consent reason I gave, and it's also at least partially controllable, so that we may save property, and lives.
JamesKeenan on
0
Options
Gabriel_Pitt(effective against Russian warships)Registered Userregular
I'm not in favor of putting others at risk. I'm just not in favor of outlawing it.
Cute, but you're just playing with the two usages of the word favour. He never implied your personal feelings were pro-others-at-risk, he just said your position would directly result in it.
A smart old professor of mine once told me that part of the problem with drunk driving (which kills a ton of people every year) is that we haven't accepted human nature: the only real way to stop drunk driving deaths is to design cars to be operated safely by people who are impaired. Either that or ditch the whole thing and go with mass transit.
A little utopian, I guess, but the point is that we focus on punishing bad people when the only way to ultimately solve the problem is to design a system that takes their badness into account. I think that has become my personal philosophy on these kinds of things: you can either try to stop people from doing the things they want to do, or you can rework your society so that their impulses don't end up doing much damage.
You need a car to get around + people like to drink = automatic fatalities. Personal responsibility is a nice phrase, but I think that history shows us that you can only get mixed results by 'educating people to do the right thing'.
One day there'll be cars so safe that an 8 year old can pilot them. That's my prediction.
RedShell on
Homing In Imperfectly?
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
A smart old professor of mine once told me that part of the problem with drunk driving (which kills a ton of people every year) is that we haven't accepted human nature: the only real way to stop drunk driving deaths is to design cars to be operated safely by people who are impaired. Either that or ditch the whole thing and go with mass transit.
A little utopian, I guess, but the point is that we focus on punishing bad people when the only way to ultimately solve the problem is to design a system that takes their badness into account. I think that has become my personal philosophy on these kinds of things: you can either try to stop people from doing the things they want to do, or you can rework your society so that their impulses don't end up doing much damage.
You need a car to get around + people like to drink = automatic fatalities. Personal responsibility is a nice phrase, but I think that history shows us that you can only get mixed results by 'educating people to do the right thing'.
One day there'll be cars so safe that an 8 year old can pilot them. That's my prediction.
I imagine that auto-navigating cars are more likely
actually, if you could combine such a thing with a breathalyzer that locks the car into an autopilot mode, that'd pretty much solve everything.
of course, you'd have to rework a ton of the traffic signals, installing transmitters/recievers at every stop light, sign and railroad crossing to signal the car to respond accordingly.
Although then you have to find a way to make the car stop on it's own for pedestrians.
See, I'd like to see a place where doing very dangerous shit isn't illegal, but actually causing harm is harshly punished.
For instance, if you were doing your best to be a good driver, and you just made an error in driving that cause a death, it would be considered a tragic accident. If you caused a death because you were fucked up on shit, it would be something like 2nd degree murder.
The idea is I think we should punish people for actually doing bad shit, not for doing something that we think will probably end up in some bad shit. The punishment should be so harsh that a person would never want to risk it.
BTW, I also think it should be legal for a guy to shoot randomly at the highway. You do get to arrest him when he damages government property or commits one of the few crimes that would exist (like murder).
So reckless endangerment shouldn't be a crime, in your opinion?
So reckless endangerment shouldn't be a crime, in your opinion?
Right. These things would be considered in sentencing when you recklessly endanger someone and it ends badly, but the simple act of acting dangerously would not be a crime.
Catering to people's stupid decisions seems like a really bad philosophy to me.
I agree. Ban nicotine gum! :P
Nicotine gum is designed to help you STOP smoking, not enable you to keep smoking...
Right, in other words there is no use for nicotine gum without people making decisions you personally deem stupid. Ergo nicotine gum, just like cigarettes, exists as a product solely to cater to decisions you have decided are stupid. Without the decision to smoke, the product doesn't have any function except as a means of getting a nicotine-buzz.
Posts
How's that? I think I know what you mean about the California economy, but how about Northern California's housing market?
I might make a joke about gambling and related crime because gambling is essentially illegal. But I won't. The lottery, horse races, sports gambling. Placing bets and wagering on anything, including chance. It's so natural and obvious, I don't know why it can be considered so bad. There are those who become addicted, but that in itself is human nature. I wouldn't ban an activity because of that.
I googled "busted for gambling" and pulled up articles on gambling "crackdowns." Oh no! Hot damn! The dangerous criminals and their dangerous sports gambling! Saying that because gambling can be connected to crime as an argument for its continued illegalization is like arguing for the prohibition of loaning money because of the loan sharks. Yes, crime can arise from gambling, but far more people are being harmed who had no involvement in any illegal activity besides the wagering of their money on a certain activity. Which they should, as it is their money, be allowed to do.
And, yes, I am confused as well as the how the legalization of marijuana would affect the housing markets. It's not that I think it couldn't, or that you must be wrong. Marijuana and housing markets, though. Just not any sort of an obvious connection.
And besides all that. I've got to ask. Thin, what do you like. There's obviously things you do. However, I've never seen you arguing for anything. Which really just means you've never, in my time here, been given the opportunity to argue for something. Prostitution, gambling, marijuana, polygamy. These aren't exactly activities that I would so readily pin to anyone, as natural as most (polygamy) of them are, so this thread may not be a good example. Add overdone reverence for a past generation, as well.
So what do you enjoy? Besides Patrick Warburton.
Edit: This is not some asinine, petty dig to imply you don't enjoy anything. My curiosity just grew overtime from never hearing you talk positively about anything.
J-j-j-jaded :whistle:
Most of the biggest problems associated with prostitution stem from the fact that it is illegal. Many of us are uncomfortable with the idea of prostitution, myself included. It seems that one ought to have more respect for their own body than to trade it for money, but that is a personal issue with it just as many people have a personal problem with the idea of homosexuality, interracial relationships, and Mormons. (only kind of kidding on that last one - a lot of people seriously don't like Mormons.) Just because it makes you uncomfortable does not mean it necessitates illegality.
I went to visit Amsterdam a few years ago, and checked out the Red Light District, out of curiosity, not in search of service. I was shocked by how clean and comfortable the whole area was. In fact, the sex shops with their strange toys displayed in the window were far more disconcerting than the pleasant, smiling bikini-clad women behind their glass doors. I got curious about the issue and did a bit of research. The fact that prostitution is legal there has made it a safe and even worthwhile career choice for those who have no moral qualms with it. The women have unions, they have no "pimps" to hurt them or steal their money. They can insist on safe sex only, turn away dangerous and drug-using customers and go to the police if someone does attempt to hurt them. It's not as though the laws against prostitution here do anything but put desperate women (because in this society, you usually have to be to consider the job) and lonely men in jail for a private transaction that under safe conditions, can not possibly be considered harmful. People have sex every day, and it really doesn't matter if there's money involved. The problem isn't the prostitution. The problem is the criminilization of the people involved. Once you've become a "criminal" in the eyes of society, there is nowhere for you to turn for any problems. You can't count on the justice system to protect you, so there is rampant violence, unsafe sex, and unreported rape and you are forced to turn to alternate (and usually very unsafe - ie: pimps system) means to offer protection and to insure that a deal is fulfilled.
I believe absolutely that prostitution should be legalized. It'd be good for the economy and it would probably PREVENT crime to at least a small extent. It would also make a lot of people uncomfortable, which is why it will never happen.
Wait, how is gambling illegal again? Because I'm fairly certain I've been to a horsetrack and lost a few bucks. I thought it was just internet betting, and that was only because the government couldn't figure out how to collect taxes on it (like everything else on the internet). There can't be all that much gambling-related crime happening these days since you can bet on anything, and I mean anything, on the internet.
How about public indecency? Who am I hurting running down the street naked? If I want to hang out with my wang out at my picture window, what's the big deal? I mean, I do now anyway, and perhaps I shouldn't since there's a catholic school across the street and it seems like a quick way to get arrested, but that's the point of the question. WHY.
that's something that's rubbed me the wrong way too. I mean, I can find no reason for the negative stigma we have on nudity. Certainly not from a secular stand point, and it's hypocritical from a Judeo-religious standpoint, because you're essentially saying "God created something dirty that mustn't be seen"
You don't think fecal-oral cross-contamination is a legitimate argument in favor of pants?
Edit: I guess no one ever scratches their ass though, so nevermind.
Ferals whole thing about sex on TV translates across here rather nicely.
Where's Feral's thing about sex on TV?
I'd be in favor of mandatory pants for health reasons. However, that women may not go topless is an archaic double standard.
Yes, it's unequal that women can't go topless. It's also unequal that we can't all be astronauts. Equality for equality's sake would be fantastic, but unrealistic. This is one of those cases, however, where I feel it's important, and should be pursued.
Why? What great enemy could I possibly be so concerned with that I'd want to rip off women's bras (figuratively)? The ridiculous sexual repression that seems almost pandemic. The general air of a culture raised with openness and frankness towards the body and sexuality would earn so much less trouble. Besides repression in almost every conceivable way, not least of which the feeling of actual guilt for ever being aroused, I wholly believe that in a society so much more open minded towards intimacy, there'd be at least one less thing to criticize and judge people by, and perhaps in that we'd be one step closer to some reasonably liberal and free society.
Now, right now, America is not this society, nor will it be in the next few generations. And maybe we'll never reach that form of liberty. Unless we work now on the measures that would begin to cultivate this open-mindedness. That's why I want to rip women's bras off.
Figuratively.
Also, in Australia at least women totally go topless on our beaches. And god damn it, you feel an annoying moral conundrum everytime you either stare or don't stare.
I'm completely aware of that. I'm not at all saying that social standards are the only thing keeping women from going topless. Just like I"m not saying the law is the only thing keeping people from prostitution.
I know there are tons of women who would wear bras regardless for the support. My point is that they shouldn't have to because of some puerile reaction from the religious. I know it's not all the religious, but where the hell could the idea possibly originated besides from about the same crowd who now have their women wearing beekeeper suits.
My mom, for instance, hates wearing a bra. Not as some statement, like a lot of girls at my high school and college, but just because it's uncomfortable for her. So she gets to just be plain uncomfortable when she has to go out. I highly, highly doubt she's the only one, and I'm sure for many women it's a lot worse. And even assuming there were bras that did fit her so nicely she didn't care, there's still the matter of the argument I made above.
Elm, why?! I originally used the bra argument for humor's sake.
And after that I was only arguing the point you brought up instead of seeming an ass and just saying, "Hey, wtf? That's not my point."
I know it's not illegal not to wear a bra.
Here's what you're doing.
Ha-electricitylikesme-irs
I don't thing driving drunk should be illegal.
As for actually debate and discoure:
I can't exactly see the problem here. There are always gray areas, and it's up to each person to decide what they think, and if they aree with the current law. But as per this particular issue I think it is completely within the rights of the company to require men or women to put a shirt on, even if both were legally allowed to go without. I could conjure any number of reasons for this, But I'll be brief.
However, while failure to comply with the rules of the company certainly can be grounds for expulsion, I would find it unreasonable that anyone might call the cops immediately for non-compliance. If, however, after refusing to leave when asked, then you could call the cops. Not for not putting on a shirt. But for trespassing, disturbance, or whatever laws would apply when you refuse to leave private property. I'm sure in that case some very liberal news sources would report "Man Arrested for Refusing to Wear Shirt" because that's much more entertaining than "Man Arrested for Refusing to Leave Private Property."
There's a very good reason for that law. Legalizing drunk driving would be like legalizing a guy arbitraily firing an automatic weapon at a highway. Sure, he might not have hit anyone yet, and he isn't trying to, but...
Public drunkenness, maybe. I'm talking about just being drunk in public, not harming or hurting anyone. People may be bothered, but I'm bothered by cigarette smoke, and I'm not gonna call the cops on them.
For instance, if you were doing your best to be a good driver, and you just made an error in driving that cause a death, it would be considered a tragic accident. If you caused a death because you were fucked up on shit, it would be something like 2nd degree murder.
The idea is I think we should punish people for actually doing bad shit, not for doing something that we think will probably end up in some bad shit. The punishment should be so harsh that a person would never want to risk it.
BTW, I also think it should be legal for a guy to shoot randomly at the highway. You do get to arrest him when he damages government property or commits one of the few crimes that would exist (like murder).
Legalizing drunk driving would invariably lead to a lot more drunk driving. Which would invariably lead to a lot more accidents, and deaths. I might be willing to argue that the sober guy who made a simple, honest mistake, and caused someone's death, doesn't deserve jail time. However, driving drunk is so recklessly, and carelessly dangerous that under no circumstances should this be tolerable.
You could argue that every person in the world, when they step outside their house, is engaging in an activity that may result in the death of another. When you get in my car, you might end up having to dodge a jaywalker, and running someone else over. Anything could happen, always. But drunk driving is so recklessly dangerous, I can't possibly imagine a good reason to allow it. It's not so much that the driver's themselves are endangered, it's that by their actions their endangering another.
Now, of course, by that logic you should outlaw most rednecks who handle guns and get drunk, because they may end up shooting someone else with their reckless, drunk, gun-handling. But I wouldn't propose taking the guns and beer from them. So maybe my argument is flawed. Maybe it's based solely on the fear-driven, emotional misconception that drunk driving is a horrible evil, and under no circumstance should it be legalized, regardless of any seemingly logical argument. Maybe my rational is failing me. Still, I wouldn't legalize drunk driving.
As far as the number of deaths it would cause, I am uncertain if the number would be higher or lower than it is now, but I don't think it would be a DRASTIC increase, on the order of 100% or anything like that.
Any law is trading away a right for something. I give away my right to murder you in exchange for knowing you don't have the right to murder me. I would be willing to give away my right to drive drunk (something I can't imagine doing except in an extremely contrived scenario) only if it was worth something valuable. My estimation of the number of deaths it would cause is lower than yours.
I think if people knew that causing a fatal car accident while drunk would mean 25-life, they would be just as deterred as the possibility of having to pay a ticket and spend the night in jail.
edit: Keep in mind, this would only work in a system with these harsh punishments and very very little wiggle room in the legal system.
*if you consider people being able to drive around in cars a necessity
It's your own property, for one, and the the company sticks around, waiving their innocence. What makes drunk driving different, and so much worse, is that their company, their participants, are unwilling. It's very dangerous, it's public property, and it's endangering the lives of men, women and children who aren't given the chance to consent.
The freedom comes in the fact that you can engage in potentially fatal activity with another assuming they give consent. If this results in loss of life, then you get to punish whoever was responsible.
Drunk driving is thus so wicked, and should remain illegal, because of the unfairness of the participants. Now, you may say that walking out of your house everyday is dangerous, and possibly giving consent to death, and so why don't we make everything illegal? Well, to that respond that I respond as such.
Yes, life is dangerous, it's fatal even. Living is nothing but slow dying. You could die at any moment. Maybe even before you finish this post. A stray bullet, or a falling meteor, or a sinkhole. Any could write the story of your death right now. However, drunk driving just happens to be an activity which finds itself on the "wrong" side of moral for the consent reason I gave, and it's also at least partially controllable, so that we may save property, and lives.
IZANAMI: Each day I will cause a thousand of your people to be slain!
IZANAGI: Do so, and each day I will cause fifteen hundred to be born!
MINOR KAMI: A masterful plan, Lord Izanagi, but what of the thousand who die?
IZANAGI: What? I'm replacing them.
MINOR KAMI: ... of course, my lord.
A little utopian, I guess, but the point is that we focus on punishing bad people when the only way to ultimately solve the problem is to design a system that takes their badness into account. I think that has become my personal philosophy on these kinds of things: you can either try to stop people from doing the things they want to do, or you can rework your society so that their impulses don't end up doing much damage.
You need a car to get around + people like to drink = automatic fatalities. Personal responsibility is a nice phrase, but I think that history shows us that you can only get mixed results by 'educating people to do the right thing'.
One day there'll be cars so safe that an 8 year old can pilot them. That's my prediction.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
I imagine that auto-navigating cars are more likely
actually, if you could combine such a thing with a breathalyzer that locks the car into an autopilot mode, that'd pretty much solve everything.
of course, you'd have to rework a ton of the traffic signals, installing transmitters/recievers at every stop light, sign and railroad crossing to signal the car to respond accordingly.
Although then you have to find a way to make the car stop on it's own for pedestrians.
So reckless endangerment shouldn't be a crime, in your opinion?
Reminds me of Idiocracy.
Come Overwatch with meeeee
I agree. Ban nicotine gum! :P
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
Nicotine gum is designed to help you STOP smoking, not enable you to keep smoking...
Right, in other words there is no use for nicotine gum without people making decisions you personally deem stupid. Ergo nicotine gum, just like cigarettes, exists as a product solely to cater to decisions you have decided are stupid. Without the decision to smoke, the product doesn't have any function except as a means of getting a nicotine-buzz.