Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. #1
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like

    The purpose of laws

    *note* This thread is a split from: Homosexuality is not wrong.


    Quote Originally Posted by Telex
    I don't think its the government's place to intrude on the private lives of its citizens, as long as those citizens are not hurting anyone else (or themselves, to an extent).
    I think this may start to take the thread off-topic, and as such, I will split it if it does, no biggie. But I don't agree with this statement. There are things that are illegal even if they don't hurt other people or themselves. Some are stupid laws (Is it Maine that it is illegal to put celery (or some veggie) in Clam Chowder? I'll look it up). Also, beastiality is illegal, and one could make the argument that the animal is willing and not hurt. Do you think it should be legal (if no one is hurt)?
    Last edited by Apokalupsis; January 25th, 2004 at 05:59 PM. Reason: Thread split
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  2. #2
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    Also, beastiality is illegal, and one could make the argument that the animal is willing and not hurt. Do you think it should be legal (if no one is hurt)?
    I don't see how bestiality would occur without someone being hurt. The animal wouldn't enjoy it, and I would say that this is a case where the government should intervene for the person's sake, much like when a criminal is ruled as being insane and submitted to an institution.

    But asking if bestiality would be legal if no one was hurt is like asking if murder would be legal if no one was hurt.

    And I have a question for you...do you want it to be illegal for someone to miss church on Sunday?

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,041
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Telex
    And I have a question for you...do you want it to be illegal for someone to miss church on Sunday?
    For that matter, should consentual adult incest be illegal? Especially if one of the participants is sterile? It wigs me out, but I am not sure how I feel about its legal status. I would have a hard time voting to legalize incest - call me prejudiced. I suppose this is how serious homophobes feel about homosexuality.

    However, homosexuality should not belong in the same category as beastiality. There is simply nothing wrong with it. In this case, the bible is wrong! I see no reason to believe that the bible is infallible. The people who wrote in the bible that homosexuality was wrong were people who just plain thought it was sick, for whatever reason. It was their bias that is reflected in the bible. The bible is an impressive work, for a number of historical reasons - but I have read it and found plenty of ethical flaws. The unexplained condemnation of homosexuality is one of them.

    If God truly wanted us to believe that homosexuality was wrong, he/she could have made the communication very precise, and could have explained why it was wrong. Simply inspiring someone to proclaim it wrong is a terrible way to get the message out.
    Assume nothing. This includes assuming that you should not assume.

  4. #4
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    For that matter, should consentual adult incest be illegal? Especially if one of the participants is sterile?
    Incest leads to a much higher rate of birth defects, which is where this law came from. If they started making exceptions for every possible situation, it would be too complicated. However, this also brings up the point of whether it should be illegal to have children if there is a good chance that child will have a hereditary disease, because we now have the technology to determine that. Which is another complicated issue.

    If God truly wanted us to believe that homosexuality was wrong, he/she could have made the communication very precise, and could have explained why it was wrong.
    It was precise. I believe it went something like "A man should not lie with a man as a women, it is an abomanation." And God didn't explain the 10 commandments either, He just gave them.

    In this case, the bible is wrong! I see no reason to believe that the bible is infallible. The people who wrote in the bible that homosexuality was wrong were people who just plain thought it was sick, for whatever reason. It was their bias that is reflected in the bible
    I think there is a thread discussing this in the religion forum.

  5. #5
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Telex
    I don't see how bestiality would occur without someone being hurt. The animal wouldn't enjoy it
    I'm not going to argue the details of beastiality, but animals engage in this activity willingly, and no one is harmed in the process. I suggest some research on the subject (as controversial and taboo as it may seem).

    But asking if bestiality would be legal if no one was hurt is like asking if murder would be legal if no one was hurt.
    No it isn't. Someone is hurt in murder...the victim, family, and friends of the victim. How is this possibly comparable?

    And I have a question for you...do you want it to be illegal for someone to miss church on Sunday?
    Nope. I'd be fined or jailed many times if it were the case.

    Quote Originally Posted by AntiMaterialist
    For that matter, should consentual adult incest be illegal?
    Yes. But I thought it was already...is this not the case? Obviously it's illegal to be married to an immediate blood relative...I always assumed it was illegal to have relations with them as well.

    However, homosexuality should not belong in the same category as beastiality.
    No one claimed it was. It was an analogy re: a non-harmful act being illegal. To claim that the inference was made between homosexuality and beastiality, you would also have to claim that an inference was made between homosexuality and clam chowder to be consistent. No such claims or inferences of relationship were made.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  6. #6
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm not going to argue the details of beastiality, but animals engage in this activity willingly, and no one is harmed in the process. I suggest some research on the subject (as controversial and taboo as it may seem).
    You missed the second part of my point - the gov should intervene for the person's sake. And animals actively seek out humans to have sex with? I've never heard of that, but I'll take your word for it. I don't really want to look it up, for obvious reasons :p

    No it isn't. Someone is hurt in murder...the victim, family, and friends of the victim. How is this possibly comparable?
    It's comparable because you are taking away the very aspect that makes the act illegal. Would ice-skating still be ice-skating if you took away the ice-skates?

    Nope. I'd be fined or jailed many times if it were the case.
    I forgot what my point was...crap. Maybe I'll remember it later, or maybe I never had a good one. In any case, here's another question: What aspect of private life do you think the government should interfere in?

  7. #7
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Telex
    You missed the second part of my point - the gov should intervene for the person's sake.
    Why?

    And animals actively seek out humans to have sex with?
    No. This isn't what I said. Willing and "seeking out" are 2 different things.

    It's comparable because you are taking away the very aspect that makes the act illegal.
    The relationship that you gave to both for being illegal, is that in both instances someone is hurt. This is not the case. b = not hurt, m = someone hurt (victim).

    Would ice-skating still be ice-skating if you took away the ice-skates
    No. This is not the same question you asked previously. If it were, the previous questions would be: Would it be beastiality if you didn't have relations with an animal? Would it be murder if there were no victims?

    Your question above is that of definitional. Your questions of b and m were that of causal.

    What aspect of private life do you think the government should interfere in?
    I don't know...I'd have to give it some serious thought. As a general rule, as little as possible (this includes 2 consenting adults of non-blood relationship, regardless of gender). But there are exceptions (a consenting adult and consenting child in privacy, should remain illegal).
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  8. #8
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    Originally Posted by Telex
    You missed the second part of my point - the gov should intervene for the person's sake.
    Why?
    Because the government's job is to protect its citizens, maybe even from themselves.


    No. This isn't what I said. Willing and "seeking out" are 2 different things.
    That was faulty phrasing on my part.


    The relationship that you gave to both for being illegal, is that in both instances someone is hurt. This is not the case. b = not hurt, m = someone hurt (victim).
    I guess we disagree then. I think that someone engaging in bestiality is hurting themselves, and that the government should give them help for that. It's like a sickness.

    No. This is not the same question you asked previously. If it were, the previous questions would be: Would it be beastiality if you didn't have relations with an animal? Would it be murder if there were no victims?
    Okay, here's a new one. Would baseball be a sport if you didn't compete against the other team? My point was that you are eliminating the very thing that makes bestiality a crime and then asking why it's a crime.

    a consenting adult and consenting child in privacy, should remain illegal).
    I agree. Even if the child consents, that relationship would cause harm to the child.

  9. #9
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    Quote Originally Posted by Telex
    Because the government's job is to protect its citizens, maybe even from themselves.
    I agree...but you haven't shown the harm that befalls one who engages in this activity that you and I both agree is disgusting. Let's assume that there IS no harm done for the sake of the argument...should it be legal?

    I guess we disagree then. I think that someone engaging in bestiality is hurting themselves, and that the government should give them help for that. It's like a sickness.
    If it is harmful, then yes, I would agree with you. But I do not believe it to be. I do believe it is wrong, disgusting, and it should remain illegal...but I do not see evidence of it being "harmful". Which is why I don't use "being harmful" as the sole basis of something being legal or not.

    What is the harm in putting celery in clam chowder? That's illegal in a New England state.

    Okay, here's a new one. Would baseball be a sport if you didn't compete against the other team?
    No. This is the same as the last 2 questions you gave me. There is no causal relationship...merely a definitional one.

    My point was that you are eliminating the very thing that makes bestiality a crime and then asking why it's a crime.
    So the ONLY reason it is a crime, is because someone is hurt? Then putting celery in clam chowder hurts someone...otherwise, it wouldn't be a crime that results in punitive action, right?

    I believe there is more to something being a crime, than merely "harm". While harm IS a factor...it is not the only factor. Boog's an attorney (for the ACLU)...I know he can respond about this topic in detail (and verbosity ). I'm anxious to see his take on it.

    I agree. Even if the child consents, that relationship would cause harm to the child.
    Good, then this at least establishes that "privacy" isn't necessarily the sole factor involved here. But I don't agree that "harm to someone" is the sole factor either. I believe it is ONE...but not the ONLY.

    What harm results in these laws that makes the person committing them a criminal?

    In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset.

    In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor.

    In Ohio, if you ignore an orator on Decoration day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speaker's stand, you can be fined $25.00.

    In Miami, Florida, it's illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.

    The list goes on and one. There is more to criminal law than "harm".
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  10. #10
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    I agree...but you haven't shown the harm that befalls one who engages in this activity that you and I both agree is disgusting. Let's assume that there IS no harm done for the sake of the argument...should it be legal?
    Well, if no harm was done to either party, I would argue that an animal is not able to give consent because of its obvious lack of communication, just as a child's "consent" is not valid because they don't have the required intellect to make an informed decision. This effectivly means that they don't have the intellect to make the best choices for themselves, and so the government would act on their (the animal's) behalf.

    But again, If we did not make that assumption, I would say the human in the relationship is insane and should be institutionalized or whatever by the government.

    No. This is the same as the last 2 questions you gave me. There is no causal relationship...merely a definitional one.
    Nuts...here's another try: Would hitting someone be fighting if getting punched didn't cause harm? But I think I made my point clear in my last post.

    What is the harm in putting celery in clam chowder?
    I don't believe that this is a just law, and would support removing it.

    What harm results in these laws that makes the person committing them a criminal?

    In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset.

    In Denver it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor.

    In Ohio, if you ignore an orator on Decoration day to such an extent as to publicly play croquet or pitch horseshoes within one mile of the speaker's stand, you can be fined $25.00.

    In Miami, Florida, it's illegal for men to be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
    Same with all of these...I don't believe they are just laws, or valid crimes.

    I'm curious as to what Booger's views are too...maybe I'm missing something. Or maybe I'm so right your head will explode. :o

    (that was the closest smilie I could find to convey the tone...)

  11. #11
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'll start here:

    I'm not going to argue the details of beastiality, but animals engage in this activity willingly, and no one is harmed in the process. I suggest some research on the subject (as controversial and taboo as it may seem).

    You missed the second part of my point - the gov should intervene for the person's sake. And animals actively seek out humans to have sex with? I've never heard of that, but I'll take your word for it. I don't really want to look it up, for obvious reasons
    Okay.....here's where everyone loses whatever bit of respect I may have gained.

    As a young man I lived a dangerous sordid life. I seen, done and witnessed things that I would not list on a job resume.

    So please realize that life changes people, and though I cannot erase the images and memories from my mind, I am a changed person......*g*

    As A young G.I. soldier startioned at Fort Bliss near El Paso Texas in 1970 I guess I sorta got drunk one night (of many) and followed my buddies to a "donkey show".

    For anyone who cannot put that together it is as it would seem. A donkey, a woman (I'm asumming one of the local prostitutes) get in the center of a bunch of drunk soldiers and the soldiers encourage outrageous behavior by offering part of their monthly paychecks.

    Yes, I saw it all, no, I put forth no money. (no need to as there were plenty who did)

    If a donkey were not available they would sometimes (yes I went more than once but there was more going on than just the donkey shows) they would find a horse.

    I'm no animal expert but though frustrating at times, the animals (especially the horse) certainly seemed to enjoy it inspite of having their hooves tied to stakes in the ground. (and from what I could see, the donkey got no percentage of the take)

    Anyway, there is some research for you, albeit it just put me in the corner.

    However, as someone explained, I don't beileve any animal (besides humans) have the mental capacity to "give consent" of any kind. Like children, animals are taught to do what adults tell them to.

    Should beastaility be illegal? I think it's a moot point. Should beastality in front of unwilling spectators be illegal? Surely. Other wise if it happens it is happening in some sort of private setting, (I DON'T but if I wanted to be intimate with our cat I sure as heck would not get caught at it!) it is for all purposes, not enforceable anyway.

    Do I think it is sick? Yes, I guess I do. But not as sick as some of the drunken soldiers who would have sex with the prostitute AFTER she was through with the donkey! Should THAT be illegal?


    and YIKES!
    Originally Posted by Telex
    Because the government's job is to protect its citizens, maybe even from themselves.

    I agree...but you haven't shown the harm that befalls one who engages in this activity that you and I both agree is disgusting. Let's assume that there IS no harm done for the sake of the argument...should it be legal?
    *********************************

    Really? As I recall there was quite a bit of disagreement on that point by some of our founders. Ben Franklin said (para-phrasing) "Any man who thinks another man knows what is better for him than he himself does deserves to be told what to do."

    The gov is not here to protect me from me. I do what I want to do regardless of silly laws. Fortunately my views coincide with the more relevant laws that most of us agree with.

    The gov is here to represent us as a whole to other nations.
    The gov is here to assist us with those affairs that must cross state boundaries and fall into a federal medium.
    The gov is here to protect us from other people who would seek to harm us. From invading armies to criminal corporations that steal our money,
    and quite frankly, I believe we need to strengthen those safeguards that protect us from our own government, I feel they are a bigger threat to our way of life than any other country.

    but that's another discussion.

    later taters...............:O)

    Later taters.................:O)

  12. #12
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    However, as someone explained, I don't beileve any animal (besides humans) have the mental capacity to "give consent" of any kind. Like children, animals are taught to do what adults tell them to.
    Of course...animals do not have the same capacity as humans do. As such, the exact standards applied to humans cannot be applied to animals. The issue is whether the animal is hurt or not, and is this an act like any other that an animal engages in. ie...what's the difference between this act and the same thing w/ the animals actual counter-part (in the relational consent sense)?

    None. Of course it's wrong, it's disgusting, etc... But to state that it's wrong BECAUSE the animal gets hurt, or the animal is abused, is faulty reasoning. It simply isn't true.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  13. #13
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like
    that's the point I made with the donkey story...

    later taters................:O)

  14. #14
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    None. Of course it's wrong, it's disgusting, etc... But to state that it's wrong BECAUSE the animal gets hurt, or the animal is abused, is faulty reasoning. It simply isn't true.
    Fine. I have an idea - let's assume the animal doesn't get hurt but the human does. See how that reinforces my view? It's the same thing you're doing - you're asking for us to assume that my major point is false, and then asking me to defend my statement. Obviously, that's going to be hard. It's like me asking you to defend the validity of your religion, but assuming there is no God. So, while I agreed to make the assumption before, I no longer will.

    The gov is not here to protect me from me.
    So you oppose government mandated time in mental hospitals? Should we just shove them in jail if they're a threat, or just let them roam if they're not?

  15. #15
    Need to validate email

    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Life by the drop. I've come to understand just what that means.
    Posts
    3,625
    Post Thanks / Like
    So you oppose government mandated time in mental hospitals? Should we just shove them in jail if they're a threat, or just let them roam if they're not?
    "If they're a threat".....If someone is a threat they are a danger to their fellow citizens then of course they must be dealt with. And yes, let them roam if they are not, so long as they can function to the point of knowing how to eat. The streets are full of homeless people who are most certainly plum crazy. Living on the street though not a first choice, is still an independent choice. Are you old enough to remember when they used to lock up ALL the "crazies"? (of which many retarded people were misdiagnosed and sentenced). The institutions were horrid. In the 60's we passed a law that effectively made it illegal to confine a person simply because they are crazy. I truely know a couple (maybe I'm one...*g*) of people who indeed meet the criteria for "nuttier than a fruitcake", except for small problems due to social interactions (problems that were simply addressed as any problem would be) they do not cause anyone any harm. I absolutely know what is better for me than any idiot sitting in a capitol building somewhere. I don't need other people telling me what god wants me to do just as I don't need someone (usually younger than myself) in the gov, guiding me into old age.

    Does that mean I'm anti-government? That is what your statement really seems to be implying.....the answer is no, heck I joined the army at a very young age to serve our country in 1970. But since then I have learned what Jefferson meant when he said "Having a government is like keeping a fire. It is a warm and welcome servant when kept in check but a terrible master when left unattended."

    Clearly the gov does not protect me in anyway whatsoever.
    The constitution does, from the government even..

    Our government has become a self-serving servant that is hardly accountable to it's citizens it serves, or does not serve depending on which side of a fence one may be on. It is a fire, buring out of control and needs to be smothered back to manageable proportions. There are simply too many things we allow the gov to do that we could do better for ourselves. Including protecting ourselves...................:O)
    Last edited by Cyberclown; January 27th, 2004 at 07:50 AM.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    909
    Post Thanks / Like
    The institutions were horrid. In the 60's we passed a law that effectively made it illegal to confine a person simply because they are crazy
    "Confine" and "admit to a mental hospital" are two different things. And hospitals were horrid at one time too...should it still be illegal to send people to those?

    I absolutely know what is better for me than any idiot sitting in a capitol building somewhere.
    YOU do, but a crazy person might need some help. If the victim has a competent family, then they should decide what his care should be. If not, then I believe it is in the victim's best interest to have at least someone try to help him.

    Does that mean I'm anti-government? That is what your statement really seems to be implying
    I don't understand how my question implied that, but if that's the way you feel then: No, I am not saying you are anti-government.

    The constitution does, from the government even..
    The government is supposed to be based on the constitution. So, if the constitution is protecting you from the government, then obviously the government is wrong.

    Our government has become a self-serving servant that is hardly accountable to it's citizens it serves, or does not serve depending on which side of a fence one may be on. It is a fire, buring out of control and needs to be smothered back to manageable proportions. There are simply too many things we allow the gov to do that we could do better for ourselves.
    That may be, but I'm talking about what the gov should do, not what it is actually doing.




    I think we may have drifted off topic...CC, what do you think the basis of our laws should be?

  17. #17
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    wth is Booger?
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta
    Posts
    1,041
    Post Thanks / Like
    I think we may have drifted off topic...CC, what do you think the basis of our laws should be?
    I think it should be centered around the concept of maximizing happiness and minimizing unhappiness.
    Assume nothing. This includes assuming that you should not assume.

  19. #19
    Owner / Senior Admin

    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    19,394
    Post Thanks / Like
    I'm going to ban Booger if he doesn't enter this discussion.

    Actually, there is a convenient "chat box" that may proove useful for issues like this, to draw people's attention to where they may be needed. Perhaps I should install it...

    Anyway, if he doesn't respond w/i the next day or so, I'll pm him.

    While he is wrong about so many things :D , he knows his law pretty well.

    The required ACLU pagan rituals ensure that he is up to date on the latest 411 in the field of legaleeez.
    -=]Apokalupsis[=-
    Senior Administrator
    -------------------------

    I never considered a difference of opinion in politics, in religion, in philosophy, as cause for withdrawing from a friend. - Thomas Jefferson




 

 

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •