Laws shouldn't be based on morality - General

[QUOTE=The Epidemic;17108391]But I thought laws shouldn't be based on morality :downs:[/QUOTE] He has a point. Child porn doesn't harm the child if consent is involved. That means by the OP's opinion, this should be legal. Otherwise, I agree with the OP.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111124]There is entirely no rational reason within the purview of the purpose of laws being to protect individual rights for not wearing a seatbelt to carry a criminal punishment. If there are ANY serious issues that arise in interpersional conflict they can easily be solved in civil court. The law was lobbied into place by malicious lobbyists on behalf of the insurance industry and it's a conflict of interest we simply choose not to acknowledge.[/QUOTE] You bring a tear of joy to my eye. WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU WHEN I WAS IN THAT SEATBELT THREAD MONTHS AGO DAMMIT

[QUOTE=DeathFang;17111132]He has a point. Child porn doesn't harm the child if consent is involved. That means by the OP's opinion, this should be legal. Otherwise, I agree with the OP.[/QUOTE] Children cannot consent. You are fucking stupid. [editline]07:27PM[/editline] [QUOTE=T2L_Goose;17111145]You bring a tear of joy to my eye. WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU WHEN I WAS IN THAT SEATBELT THREAD MONTHS AGO DAMMIT[/QUOTE] It sets a horrible precedent that individual choices, however small they may be, can be thrown aside entirely for the sake of money. It's a much bigger issue than seatbelts, and laymen don't understand that.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111124]There is entirely no rational reason within the purview of the purpose of laws being to protect individual rights for not wearing a seatbelt to carry a criminal punishment. If there are ANY serious issues that arise in interpersional conflict they can easily be solved in civil court. The law was lobbied into place by malicious lobbyists on behalf of the insurance industry and it's a conflict of interest we simply choose not to acknowledge. Fuck everyone and their insurance rates. [B]Fucking insurance payments do not necessitate banning something.[/B][/QUOTE] Do deaths then? If I had to choose between [I]one more freedom[/I] and more deaths... To choose the one more freedom is stupid. It's like the people who are opposed to nationalized health care solely based on the idea that it's "socialist".

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111216]Do deaths then?[/QUOTE] Not when it's suicide. There is no right to life if there is no right to death. Every individual should be able to choose what happens to their body so long as it doesn't violate anyone else's right to the same. There is only one person who is harmed by not wearing a seatbelt and that's the person who chooses not to.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111227]Not when it's suicide.[/QUOTE] I think he's talking about the possibility of other people getting hurt if you don't wear your seat-belt.

No I wasn't. I was talking about how seat belts reduce deaths in car accidents. Some guys earlier on were talking about getting ejected from cars and hitting people and shit. That's stupid.

[QUOTE=Billiam;17111243]I think he's talking about the possibility of other people getting hurt if you don't wear your seat-belt.[/QUOTE] What, if your body flies through the windshield and hits someone on the pavement?

[QUOTE=Billiam;17111243]I think he's talking about the possibility of other people getting hurt if you don't wear your seat-belt.[/QUOTE] [quote] If there are ANY serious issues that arise in interpersional conflict they can easily be solved in civil court.[/quote] That is an extremely unlikely and highly rare thing to justify such widespread legislation. [editline]07:33PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111262]No I wasn't. Some guys earlier on were talking about getting ejected from cars and hitting people and shit. That's stupid.[/QUOTE] Then you're just dumb. But hey, look who I'm talking to: The guy who thought when I said I have crutches that I am a cripple.

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111262]No I wasn't. Some guys earlier on were talking about getting ejected from cars and hitting people and shit. That's stupid.[/QUOTE] Charge the motherfucking splatter with negligence.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111151]Children cannot consent. You are fucking stupid. [/QUOTE] A child cannot say, "I want to have sex."? You are fucking stupid. I don't give a shit if it is considered legal or not.

[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;17111265]What, if your body flies through the windshield and hits someone on the pavement?[/QUOTE] [B]THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT STORIES TO JUSTIFY BULLSHIT LAWS[/B] Jesus christ. And if that is your argument: [B]What about motorcyclists[/B] They typically go faster than cars, and there is NO restraints to the vehicle for them. So they have the biggest chance of being dangerous.

[QUOTE=DeathFang;17111282]A child cannot say, "I want to have sex."? You are fucking stupid. I don't give a shit if it is considered legal or not.[/QUOTE] Oh God, not this again.

[QUOTE=DeathFang;17111282]A child cannot say, "I want to have sex?". You are fucking stupid. I don't give a shit if it is considered legal or not.[/QUOTE] A child does not understand and cannot understand the risks and implications of sex. Any verbal consent is devoid of meaning.

[QUOTE=DeathFang;17111282]A child cannot say, "I want to have sex?". You are fucking stupid. I don't give a shit if it is considered legal or not.[/QUOTE] No, a child cannot. They are stupid, they cannot knowingly consent to having sex or starring in pornography because they do not fucking know anything. It's about preventing exploitation of unavoidable ignorance.

Well, it would keep our prisons from getting clogged with stupid people. But the average lifespan would drop dramatically. And some of these things, such as doing drugs/alcohol while driving could lead to harm for others.

[QUOTE=T2L_Goose;17111293][B]THIS HAS NEVER HAPPENED STOP MAKING UP BULLSHIT STORIES TO JUSTIFY BULLSHIT LAWS[/B] Jesus christ. And if that is your argument: [B]What about motorcyclists[/B][/QUOTE] Oh man, if that did happen, points for style of death, especially if it was a mugging or something. Someone being mugged and then suddenly a guy just flies out of his windshield straight into the attacker

[QUOTE=Boba_Fett;17111311]Well, it would keep our prisons from getting clogged with stupid people. But the average lifespan would drop dramatically. And some of these things, such as doing drugs/alcohol while driving could lead to harm for others.[/QUOTE] Uhh, drunk driving is illegal. Trippin-driving would be illegal too. That's a dumb argument.

[QUOTE=Uberkitty;17108171]In my opinion, laws should only serve to protect people and establishments from each other. Legislators should not make laws prohibiting victimless crimes and crimes which only harm one's self. I believe that laws which criminalize victimless crimes restrict personal freedoms while exhausting the capacity of prisons. This is why blue laws, laws restricting gambling, and drug laws are complete bullshit. Laws should only be in place to protect people from direct harm, such as the loss of property or bodily harm. My point is this: If it harms no one or only harms one's self it should be fully legal.[/QUOTE] The problem is people who get deep into gambling and drugs have a tendancy to hurt people around them for either money, or because their brains have been addled.

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111348]The problem is people who get deep into gambling and drugs have a tendancy to hurt people around them for either money, or because their brains have been addled.[/QUOTE] That's why hurting other people is ALREADY ILLEGAL. [editline]07:37PM[/editline] You can't make something MORE illegal.

I'm going to make a metaphor, and knowing how my conversations with Lankist usually go, it's going to end up being horrendously inaccurate and he's going to yell at me. Imagine a law is passed that frees owners of companies from liability if workers die. You're the owner of a company. One day, you see Stephen de-clogging a wood chipper with his feet. You scold him. But he keeps doing it because he's an idiot. Is it a [I]bad[/I] idea to fire him for it? I'm so fucking nervous to post it because I know it's going to end up making me look like a total moron.

If you're worried about drug violence, increase the punishments for DRUG VIOLENCE, not drugs as a fucking whole.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111353]That's why hurting other people is ALREADY ILLEGAL.[/QUOTE] Outlaw the harmful act, not the act that is not inherently harmful that you like to pretend is the problem.

[QUOTE=DeathFang;17111282]A child cannot say, "I want to have sex."? You are fucking stupid. I don't give a shit if it is considered legal or not.[/QUOTE] By law, minors are not considered to have enough knowledge, experience or maturity to consent.

[QUOTE=Lankist;17111353]You can't make something MORE illegal.[/QUOTE] What? Wouldn't you call, say, treason more illegal than littering?

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111363]Imagine a law is passed that frees owners of companies from liability if workers die. You're the owner of a company. One day, you see Stephen de-clogging a wood chipper with his feet. You scold him. But he keeps doing it because he's an idiot. Is it a [I]bad[/I] idea to fire him for it?.[/QUOTE] That is a horrible anecdote and it has nothing to do with the discussion. Nobody is saying COMPANIES shouldn't be liable. We are saying individuals shouldn't be liable for damage to themselves.

People who get meth brains often lose control over there state of mind. It doesn't matter if it's illegal, they will kill people anyway.

[QUOTE=melonmonkey;17111348]The problem is people who get deep into gambling and drugs have a tendancy to hurt people around them for either money, or because their brains have been addled.[/QUOTE] Then they get in trouble for assault or murder. It's not a crime until they commit it, and it's stupid to make something illegal because [B]some[/B] users exert the behavior.

[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;17111305]A child does not understand and cannot understand the risks and implications of sex. Any verbal consent is devoid of meaning.[/QUOTE] You are considered a child until you turn 18. You are telling me a 17 year old does not understand the risks and implications of sex?

[QUOTE=Elecbullet;17111382]What? Wouldn't you call, say, treason more illegal than littering?[/QUOTE] No, they're the same level of illegality. It's black and white. They carry different punishments. [editline]07:40PM[/editline] [QUOTE=DeathFang;17111396]You are considered a child until you turn 18. You are telling me a 17 year old does not understand the risks and implications of sex?[/QUOTE] That's why we have fucking proxy laws that apply to post-pubescents. On a state by state basis an approximate age difference is established and if you are within the difference you can engage in sex with a minor. It is all invalidated when both parties are adults. Minors can never star in pornography.