 |
| Register | Login | |||||
 |
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
|
| Register | Login | |||||
|
Main
| Memberlist
| Active users
| Calendar
| Chat
| Online users Ranks | FAQ | ACS | Stats | Color Chart | Search | Photo album |
|
| | ||
| 0 users currently in World Affairs/Debate. |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Victimless Crimes |
New poll |  |  |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
Should Crimes That Hurt Only The People Doing Them Be Illegal| Yes |
42.9%, 6 votes | No |
57.1%, 8 votes | Multi-voting is disabled. 14 users have voted.
| |
| User | Post | ||
Koryo Keese                 Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb I didn't say it was Christian only based, but it is largely Christian based. Once again, you are falling into the common mistake of calling things "common sense" and assuming they are universals. But people in the Muslim world or the Buddhist influenced world do things very differently. Like it or not, religion has a very large effect on people.
Your impression of Christianity is a bit disturbing. I can't say that you're alone, though. Many people view Christianity as a holdover from the dark ages. The fact remains, though, that a majority (about 80%) of people in the US are Christians, and a majority of people in the world believe in one god or another (many of them are even the supposedly same "God of Abraham.") Just because Europe thinks atheism equates with modernity and enlightenment doesn't make it true. |
|||
Arwon Bazu    Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| 1. What? I'm interested in the motive for making the "everything we hold dear comes from religion" argument, since usually it's an effort to marginalise and demonise atheists and attempt to appropriate some sort of moral high ground - "you didn't invent these things like human rights and rule of law, they come from God and religous people, therefore your opinion doesn't matter, stop trying to change our laws since we own them".
2. What's Europe got to do with anything here? 3. This is a thread about counterproductive moralist laws against things like hardline drug laws and prohibition of prostitution. What does the Christianity or otherwise of one's ancestors have to do with good laws? Why should the religious moralism of a section of the population serve as justification for bad, harmful laws? The point about separation of church and state is that "one religion says it's wrong" or "one religion says it should be this way" is not a sufficient justification for a law. That's why things like bans on sodomy are so abhorrent and have been overturned in most of the West, that's why the opponents of gay marriage are frustratingly wrong-headed. Smug pontification about how everyone used to believe in God so therefore anything they invented in the way of ethical or philosophical matters must be religious in nature and inspiration, matter not a jot here. The point is the moralism at play in the drafting of these laws should not just be irrelevant, but has been demonstrably counterproductive. The laws are bad and wrong regardless of where they came from. If it's your contention that it's Christianity and lingering religious sentiment that's responsible for the harm inflicted by pointlessly moralistic laws of the sort we're talking about, then I guess that's just one more reason to be glad I've forsaken the sacred historical roots of my civilisation and become a nasty secular atheist sabateur who just doesn't belong and isn't capable of ethics without God there to tell me right from wrong. Feh. And just to forestall the inevitable "but things are worse in the rest of the world" retort, I'll just say right now, that the sooner it's possible to sell double-ended dildos in Teheran because somebody can see the profit in it, the better off we're all going to be. |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo I think you're confusing your morals and ethics here. Basic concepts of right and wrong predate Christianity. Look at the Ten Commandments. Not only do they predate Christianity, the same teachings can be found throughout the Qur'an. Besides, Abrahamic religions, the scriptures Dharmic religions also stress basic concepts of right and wrong, such as don't steal or murder. Beyond that, many ethical concepts that are notably absent from Hebrew teachings, but present in Hindu (such as ethical treatment of women), have in recent history made their way into Western law, not because they're tenets of Hindu, but because they're right. There is some gray area between morals and ethics, but not much. Ethics are human ideals, not religious. Basing laws on religion is as bad for religion as it is for government. People need to adhere to the tenets of their religion because of their love and faith in their god(s), not because the government told them to. edit: Their, not there. (edited by emcee on 01-11-07 03:35 AM) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| And the ten commandments can arguably be said to be placed on the laws of Hammurabi. In the European sphere the idea of wergeld basically predated Christianity and did a lot of the things the 10 commandments told folk to do. | |||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by AlkisSo easy in theory, so impractical in reality. Do you really want to be compelled to personally vote on every single little issue that passes through government? What about the issues you don't care about? What about when you can't make it to the polls on that day? What about the fact that present American voting population is so dismally low, even in the case of such a major election as that of the president? The thing is, it's nice to think about having the ability to personally lend one's own voice to every going-on in one's own country, but it is simply unrealistic, both logistically (how much longer would it take for the government to make any sort of changes if they had to wait for the entire American population to decide on it first?) and otherwise. As far as I'm concerned, I'd rather have an "old man" who I elected making my choices for me - I don't know enough about the vast majority of what goes on in government to make an informed, intelligent decision about it, but it's that old fella's job to know about and vote on those issues. That doesn't mean he's always right, or that he'll always vote how I'd like him to, but I can promise he'd have a much better track record than I would. (And don't just say "we can outlaw dumb people from having a say," because I'm not dumb - I'm just politically apathetic.) |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I'm not exactly sure if Alkis knows what he is talking about. The last thig that you want is a society that is solely based on the dictatorship of the masses. The whole idea of respresentative democracy and even direct democracy allow for the minority in the political system to have some say and have a decent amount of protection. That is not to say that this protective measure has not been smashed down before. Many Western nations managed to sneak in some really repressive measures. | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Arwon Then you'll be disappointed. Originally posted by Arwon Because you seem convinced that Christians are some minority fringe group as opposed to the 80% majority in America. In Europe, however, the percentage is much lower. In Europe, people "used to be Christians", as you say. Not in America. Originally posted by Arwon Once again, 80% is not a "segment" of the population. Also, I've never said that a law should be enacted simply because it is a religious issue. I don't think the Supreme Court Justices should start regularly citing the Bible in place of the Constitution in their legal opinions and dissents. Still, where do universal moral absolutes come from if not from religion? Why is killing wrong categorically wrong? The best an atheist can say is "just because." But a religious person could say "it's wrong because the large bearded Jewish man in the sky loves all of his creations." I have no problem with atheists existing. I do, however, see little reason for them to believe in the things they do believe in. Why is it wrong to kill or steal. Just because? Why should we help the poor? Just because? Because it's "good" or "moral" or "ethical?" Without any religious system to go with it, that really means little. Still, that's not to say that atheists and other religions shouldn't be allowed in America. Originally posted by Arwon And here we are again. Most people "used" to believe in god(s)? That may be so in Australia or Europe (which is why I mentioned it earlier), but not here. I understand how good it sounds to say "just because one religion believes something is wrong doesn't make it so." It's also real easy for non Americans to harp about separation of Church and State. But many of the things that we think of as just plain old "right" these days has in fact come from a religious history. Why not kill? In some cases, it may be beneficial to a country to kill. Why not kill all the old people on life support, who are not contributing to the nation and are instead soaking up money needlessly? Why not kill the minority races who refuse to assimilate into the culture, and only cause the country problems. Does that sound familiar? Nazi Germany was a very "practical" government. If you weren't contributing to the country, you had to go. Why is that wrong? There is no logical and earthly reason not to kill such people. Sacrifice the few for the many, and make the rest of us stronger by removing the baggage that weighs us down. The only answer is that large bearded Jewish man in the sky (or whatever other deity you believe in). Also, on a side note, if a country's laws allow sodomy and, dare I say it, abortion, then perhaps throwing out religion is not such a good idea after all. Eh? 
Originally posted by eemcee I wouldn't want the government to force religion on anyone. However, if this supposedly enlightened secular (atheist?) ethical thought allows things like sodomy and abortion, is it really that good? Is religion really holding people back, if it would outlaw things like sodomy and abortion? I'm not suggesting we give the reigns of the country to a televangelist. But I would like people to stop pretending that Christianity is a small segment of the population when it is in fact the vast majority (in America, at least) and it is a religion practiced by the largest segment of the religious world, not simply a holdover from the dark ages. True, no one literally calls it a holdover from the dark ages, but it is easy to see the small comments (such as what I pointed out in Arwon's posts) that show you what they really think. I have a quick story, and I'll try to be brief. I once had a college history professor who was an atheist. He always referred to Christians with the pronoun "they", when his audience (class) was probably about 80% Christian, assuming they followed the national averages. He loved to make jokes about Christians, make fun of televangelists, and point and laugh at anyone with a Christian fish bumper sticker. He would transition seamlessly from giving a completely balanced, unbiased, non judgmental, and factual account of Islam, to saying that Christian were "stupid" and "silly" because they actually believed the world was going to end and Jesus would return to earth. Did he ever mention how "stupid" or "silly" it was that the Twelver Shiites believe the world will end and the Twelfth Imam will return to earth? Of course not. Because Muslims get angry when they are insulted, while Christians take it. But all of that is just meaningless talk that I could have ignored. Then came the mid term exam. I remember it well. Question number 44. "How did the first humans arrive in South America?" The answer, which was option A, was "early humans migrated across the land bridge between Russia and Alaska and then moved south through the Americas." I knew the answer and marked it right away. Options B and C were similar with slight variations. Option D, however, made me pause. "Humans in South America were put there by an intelligent creator." I did not mark option D. But it should never have been on there. After the exam was over, the professor read went over the answers. He made a special note to stop at question 44 and moke the "kind of people" who would answer "D." My position is simple. Deny the existence of god(s) if you choose. In a country like America, you should be free to do that. But don't pretend that you created something new, as a few people I've talked to do. Some people whom I've talked to would say "I like the commandments about not killing and steeling, so I think I'll keep those. But I don't like this one about no adultery. I like adultery. I want to have sex with whoever I want whenever I want. If I want to have sex with my sister, or my son, or a 10 year old, or a horse, that should be my right. So I think I'll keep the other 9 commandments, but I'll take out that pesky one about Adultery. I'll call it Enlightened Ethical Moralism. It's all the new rage." If I take the game of Baseball and remove the third base, and I can't claim this is a new game called Koryoball. And I certainly shouldn't run around pretending that people who still play Baseball are old fashioned. "Koryoball is the way to go. Baseball is just a holdover from the dark ages when they drove a nail through your head when you had smallpox." It sounds silly, but the comparison is accurate. So, if you want laws lowering the legal age of consent to 14 (oh wait, that already exist), I mean 10, or if you want laws allowing sodomy (North American Man Boy Love associate, anyone?), or if you think abortion is an issue of "choice" not an issue of "death", then I'll harp about Christianity all I like. As for laws that hurt only the person using them, I think they are wrong and wasteful. But, I don't consider drug use and prostitution to be in that category. Wearing your seat belt while driving, for instance, is a law in Michigan. I always wear my seat belt, but I wouldn't impose it on someone else. Refusing to wear a seat belt will not increase your chances of killing another motorist, only yourself. Thus, I don't agree with the law. Drug use and prostitution, however, are different. They have already been discussed in this thread, so I don't need to spend too much time there. But I will say this. When people call for drug legalization, they usually present the picture of a middle aged working man who smokes pot on the weekends and whose drug use does not interfere with his contribution or interaction with society. But that is simply not the case. Most drug users are not middle aged casual pot smokers. As it stands now, kids are hardest hit by drugs, even while those drugs are illegal. Legalize drugs, and the amount of drugs sold to kids will skyrocket. Drugs do not hurt only the person using them. Also, I believe it was already mentioned in this thread how prostitution quickly becomes slavery. We won't even let people sell their organs (which saves lives) for cash out of fear that they will start "selling their bodies." Now you want to allow people to literally sell their bodies? No. just no. IMHO |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Killing is wrong because it is an evolutionary compulsion. Remember, "thou shalt not kill" is often skirted by the Talmud and various commentaries in the New Testament. Killing ain't cool because it is COUNTER-PRODUCTIVE to the human race. Taht's why we are repulsed by it. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by KoryoEven something as seemingly clear-cut as this particular example might not be so simple. I mean, would failing to wear your seatbelt in the event of an accident not screw with everyone else's insurance rates? (I don't really know how this sort of thing works, so I could be wrong.) The point is, it's easy to point out crimes that are visibly harmful to only the perpetrator himself, but that have more subtle effects on other, inculpable people. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Emphasis mine. Perhaps you shouldn't come to class without doing your homework, then?
Reproducing is an evolutionary compulsion. Should we outlaw that?  Killing is also not always detrimental to the society. Quite the reverse, in fact. Killing the poor, sick, and inferm can benefit a country. Again, killing the few to benefit the many. And we do not find killing necessarily repulsive. Most of us find one form of killing or another to be acceptable. You might favor the killing of babies and the elderly (abortion and euthenasia), while I might favor the killing of criminals and terorists. Its still killing, though, and sometimes killing does benefit soceity, to say nothing of whether it is "right" or "wrong." |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| Many people often fail to recognize that laws are simply a creation of a value-based system, based off the social norms of a society. The idea that "killing is wrong" is in discord with a number of values: it violates human agency, demeans human wellbeing, and so on. That's why it is illegal, not because of religion. | |||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo...bro, I'm on your side. Chill out. You're beginning to sound no better than Ziff _¬. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo You see, I'm going to pick apart this argument. 1. Reproduction is an evolutionary compulsion. We don't outlaw it because of this. Revulsion to killing is the evolutionary compulsion. Not murder. I should've made it clear. 2. We still look down on that there "mass killing to benefit a country". Remember that there Holocaust? Killing them there Jews, Roma, Slavs and Commie Catholic anti-state pacifists really benefited everyone. This just in: 1945 - Eugenics officially uncool! 3. I'm not in favour of abortion or euthenasia. I believe that the choice should be open. edit:: thanks ss  (edited by Ziff on 01-11-07 03:27 PM) |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by ZiffNote the smiley . |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I noted it!
You kind of took care of that battle on your on footing there. Although it took a moment for it to sink in
Still, Koryo. I have no way to say this nicely. Don't be so much of a jerk to the other members here. |
|||
C`aos Porcupo  Since: 03-02-06 From: AB, Canada Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I'm in no position to debate whether or not any of the acts portrayed in this thread are illegal or not, but I think it's actually pretty silly to label any act as entirely victimless. Obviously anything anyone does has some kind of impact on people around them, regardless of how small of an effect that actually is. It's just a matter of how far people can take that before determining whether or not to fight back against it.
Joe stabs Bob. There lies a clear-cut indication of who the victim is. If Joe isn't wearing his seatbelt when his car gets t-boned, it creates a greater strain on his well-being and therefore the well-being of people that associate with him, be it his friends, co-workers, family, etc. Not to mention the paramedics are going to have a somewhat bigger mess to clean up than usual. The difference here is Joe can't clearly see who he's going to affect. So, many people see the damage that could be caused by an event like this and deem it a chargeable offense in the future. I hope I'm being clear here; if one person thinks their matters concern them and them alone, they may not always be right. It's a question of how extreme that after-effect is in other peoples' eyes that determines whether compensation is demanded. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Silvershield Originally posted by Ziff I see no jerkishness in my original comment. I'm not upset, only strict.
Originally posted by C'aos I agree that most actions have hidden consequences. However, we can't babysit stupid people. If someone is going to refuse to wear a seatbelt, he might also do other things like bungee jumping, diving into the shallow end of a pool, or trying to do back flips on the sidewalk, all of which have a fairly good chance of endangering his life. We can't follow these people around and make sure they don't do anything to hurt themselves. Now, some people think I sound mean in my posts, so I'd like you to know that I feel no animosity toward you, C'aos.
Originally posted by Ziff 1: Granted, with a caveat. Yes, we are repulsed by "murder." But we all have a different definition of murder, as I said earlier. You would consider stabbing a guy in a dark alley to be murder. I agree. But I also think that abortion is murder, where you don't. 2: Yes, We look down on what the Nazis did, but they didn't look down on it. They were a nation with a completely different set of "morals" than we have, even if they only had them for a short time. 3: Being in favor of "choosing" abortions is the same as being in favor of abortion. No one delights at the death of the unborn child, and thus no one is "in favor" of abortion in the sense that no one thinks its a great thing. But people call it "choice" to dodge the awkward truth. Abortion is killing. What's worse, abortion is primarily used as birth control these days. People want to have un protected one night stands, and our acceptance of the abortion option has removed the risk. If there is no risk, why not do something? Why don't I try backflips on the side walk? Because I'm afraid I'll break my neck. I'm afraid of the risks. Take away that risk, and I would try backflips on the cement. But abortion is slightly different. By doing backflips on the cement, I am risking only my own life. Having an abortion shifts 100% of the responsibility off of the irresponsible mother and father and puts it squarely on to the tiny shoulders of the unborn baby who is, by definition, not responsible for anything. But I understand that this is not an abortion thread. My point, as it relates to what we were previously discussing is this: humans don't universally abhor "murder", because we disagree on just what "murder" is. You claim you simply want people to "choose" whether they want an abortion or not. Why not let people "choose" to stab people in a dark alley? I would consider both of them murder, and you would not. Both of us would consider a eugenics program murder, but a Nazi would not. That's the danger of an "anything goes", "liberal", and "enlightened" approach to ethics. Now, I have one other question. If laws influenced by religion (not based on religion, but influenced by it) could prevent abortions and prevent people having legal sex at 14 (sorry, some of Europe already does that) I mean 12, that helps society, IMHO. So how does religion hurt society? Obviously, the religious laws in some Muslim countries are extreme, but none of those are anything like the religiously influenced laws in the US. I would say that Europe's laws (especially sexual consent laws) are far too liberal. Edit: no, I'm not angry at Ziff either. Edit edit: In case anyone is getting indignant, the answer is no, I wouldn't oppose abortion in the case of a rape, because that is not the fault of the mother. That's a completely different case. (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 08:18 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 08:20 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 08:23 PM) |
|||
Jomb Deddorokku  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| What people need is empathy for other human beings, not really religion, to let them know what is obviously right and wrong. I dont go around murdering people, but that has nothing to do with a "God", it has to do with having enough empathy to imagine what it would be like to be murdered myself and not wanting to inflict that on someone else. If the only reason you are'nt going around murdering anyone who pisses you off is because "God said it was uncool in his latest book", then you have serious problems and should seek help at once. Caring for your fellow humans is an evolutionary trait, any tribe that was into killing each other rather than helping each other would'nt survive long enough to pass on its genes. Now on the issue of who came up with the basic ideas of not killing, robbing, maming, raping, and generally treating each other like shit, we will never know. Most likely it was some distant ancestor of mankind, probably not even yet a modern man, because these principles make good evolutionary sense for any tool-using animal which lives in tight knit groups.
I believe there are some misconceptions floating around about what it means to be pro-choice or pro-euthanasia. This position does not mean you advocate aborting every unborn baby and euthanizing every elderly person. It simply means that you value the right of an individual to have the final say in such an important and weighty decision in their life, and respect whatever their decision may be. Who is using abortion as birth control? Are you? I'm not. What woman would want to go through a potentially complicated medical procedure and be ridiculed by rabid pro-lifers as a form of birth control, when the pill or other contraceptives are readily available (or should be in areas where they are not). This would be like suggesting that there are people who decide its quicker to just jump out the window rather than use the elevator, figuring they can just go to the hospital later and get patched up. The funny thing is that I've actually done back flips on the sidewalk before. And in the middel of the street. I was on the gymnastics team when i was younger. I never got injured doing it either. I see nothing wrong with people experimenting with sex at 14, as long as they are safe and responsible about it. Sex is a natural biological urge that is getting pretty strong right about then. No amount of laws are going to prevent 14 year olds from desiring sex. They sure as fuck did'nt stop me when I was 14. Sex ought to be more of a personal or family issue than something the state is involved in regulating. Except in cases of incest or force being used. I'd say that our laws regarding sexuality here in America are far too puritanical, rather than Europe's being far too liberal. I think they have it just about right over there. As for the US being an 80% christian nation, that is also misleading. clearly christianity makes up the greatest majority, I dont deny that, but you must take into account how many of the people said to be christians are actually apathetic christians at best who never attend church. Well below half of all the people I know attend church even on holidays, let alone regularly. But on a census they'd mark off christian because they vaguely remember being in a church once or twice in their lives and dont really understand or care to understand what an agnostic or atheist is. Most people in this country care about religion about as much they care about politics. At least thats how its been at the dozen or so locations around the nation I've lived at various times. (edit - Koryo posted while i was writing this. so i changed some things) (edited by Jomb on 01-11-07 08:58 PM) (edited by Jomb on 01-11-07 09:13 PM) |
|||
|
C`aos Porcupo Since: 03-02-06 From: AB, Canada Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| I suppose 'chargeable offenses' was a bad term to use... what I meant to say is that if someone's acts have what bystanders interpret as a damaging effect to themselves and others, they'll be more inclined to stop them, either by trying to deter them, threatening them by other means, or simply just getting out of the way.
Denoting certain acts to be crimes is a way of automating this, as people are more likely in everyday situations to leave their seatbelts off than leap off buildings - although in certain situations they have the same effect. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Jomb I think the baby who is being killed should have the final decision making power. Unfortunately, that's not possible. You're still making the mistake of talking about this as if its simply a major life decision like moving or changing careers. How would you like to have been aborted? I know I wouldn't. Originally posted by Jomb It's true that a lot of Christians don't attend church and can't quote scripture. But then, a lot of republicans or democrats don't attend party meetings, protest rallies, or donate money to their party. When it comes time to vote, though, is when it counts. Christians still believe in more traditional social behavior, such as not having sex at 14 years old. So if the issue of the age of consent was put into a national referendum, most Christians would oppose lowering it, regardless of whether they regularly attend church. |
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 | Add to favorites | Next newer thread | Next older thread |
| Acmlm's Board - I3 Archive - World Affairs/Debate - Victimless Crimes |
| |
