 |
| 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 | ||
Jomb Deddorokku                  Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6282 days |
| ||
Aborting an embryo is not killing a human being because an embryo has no capacity for sentient thought or awareness yet. This is because the brain has not yet developed. Once the brain has developed significantly I'd be on your side of this argument. I'm againt late-term abortions. This was discussed not to long ago in a different thread which me Silvershield and Arwon debated seemingly forever in 
Right, and most Americans by a large margin dont vote at all. More people did'nt vote, than voted on all candidates combined. As for not having sex at 14, i edited my last post about that. As for that being a Christian value, I'd find that very odd considering that the people who wrote the Bible were marrying girls who were generally 13-14. Mary was pregnant with Jesus in earlier versions of the bible at 14. So is God a rapist then? Until very recently people were commonly married and living their own lives at 14, especially in the middle ages in christian europe you spoke of earlier as an influence on the US. |
|||
Koryo Keese   Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| So would it be OK to kill a person who was born with such serious genetic birth defects that they are not capable of human level thought? Of course not. Abortion has nothing to do with science or brain development. It's only OK to kill babies because you can't see them. Out of sight, out of mind. If the doctors killed the embryo by taking it out of the mother and slicing it open with a scalpel right in front of you, then you would stop supporting abortions.
Editing large bits of content after other people have already posted after you causes confusion. I usually only edit to fix spelling errors. Sometimes I will leave a little note at the bottom of a post "Edit: xyz", but that's all I add. If I have a large amount of content to add, I save it for my next post. So: 14 year olds. I guess we disagree there. I think 14 year olds are too immature to make rational decisions about sex. They're probably going to end up doing things they regret later. And if a 14 year old gets pregnant, she almost always will have to have an abortion, because a 14 year old is usually not mature enough to carry and raise a child, either mentally or biologically. But I am especially against adults having sex with 14 year olds, which probably amounts to something more like rape with "coerced consent." The 14 year old isn't old enough to say no to drugs, they're not old enough to vote, they're not old enough to join the military, and they aren't old enough to have sex. (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 09:36 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 09:37 PM) (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 09:37 PM) |
|||
|
Jomb Deddorokku Since: 12-03-05 From: purgatory Last post: 6282 days Last view: 6282 days |
| ||
| If the person in question had no brain activity, and we knew they were going to be born that way, then I'd leave it up the parents what they want to do as far as euthanizing goes. It would be a painful decision either way. If someone is in an accident and becomes a vegetable with a miniscule chance of ever recovering, I'd also feel it is the family's tragic decision to make as far as euthanizing goes. If it were me who was brain-dead, I'd want to be killed as to not be a burden on my family.
It's not ok to kill babies, I'd be horrified if someone walked into the maternity ward and started butchering infants. An embryo is not a baby though. Big difference. I'd not want to watch any surgical procedure up close, but that does'nt mean surgery should be outlawed. Edit - I had to make this an edit because I cant post twice in a row
I used the edit because you posted while i was replying and i thought I'd edit it before you even read my reply... but you beat me to it! Most 14 year olds are'nt going to make rational decision about sex or dating. But thats part of life, sometimes mistakes are going to be made, and have to be made in order to learn. All we can do it try to teach them about safe sex, instill whatever our values may be into them, and make birth control available. Telling a 14 year old not to have sex is going to end with them laughing at you behind your back and doing it anyway. That's how it worked for me and many of my friends at 14 anyway. That said, there will be a some teenagers who genuinely can handle it and will make responsible decisions. Seems like its working out for them in Europe if teen pregnancy rates are any indication. I find it distasteful for someone much older to be having sex with a teenager (though there is a grey area in how much older is too much older). But, unless force, or threat of force, is being used, it comes back to people growing up and having to at some point be responsible for their own behavior. Life is sometimes the greatest teacher. When we make it a near capitol offense to have consentual sex with teenagers, we end with nightmare situations such as honest well-meaning 18-19 year olds who have sex within a committed loving relationship with their 15 year old girlfriends and get 14 years in a maximum security prison, plus a lifetime as a registered sex offender out of it. (edited by Jomb on 01-11-07 10:04 PM) (edited by Jomb on 01-11-07 10:09 PM) |
|||
SamuraiX Broom Hatter  Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
Originally posted by Koryo It's completely just to kill something that isn't capable of human thought because a person who cannot think cannot fulfill their function as a human being. And I'm pretty sure it would just be impractical to try to bisect an embryo. But I'm sure you're well versed in the ways of biology, so I'm not one to talk. As for the "80% people are Christians" contention, it's completely irrelavent, since the US is not a democracy, but a republic. Unless of course, you are trying to say that Christians will only vote for Christians. It's not as simple as a majority rule. Originally posted by Koryo It's very relavant. Or as Ziff said: Originally posted by Ziff Originally posted by Koryo That's a pretty big, and unfounded, assumption. And to reiterate, it is my firm belief that social norms, by leaps and bounds, predate established religions. And so... Originally posted by me I'm also pretty sure that the society needed to have social norms, existed before any established religions, for sure, Christianity. "Murder" in the sense that you use it, can be defined as the "unlawful premeditated killing of a human being by a human being." Originally posted by Koryo I searched for Koryo on Google and found hundreds of instances of meanness. |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
| @Jomb
You're trying to paint a better picture of abortion. You make it sound as if abortions are incredibly rare and met with days of rational, calculated, and intelligent consideration before actually being conducted. The reality is far less fluffy. Abortion, most of the time these days, is post-sex-birth control, pure and simple. This leads into the 14 year olds having sex. Life is a good teacher, but 14 year olds need not be taught in a sink or swim method. Lets say a 14 year old has sex with a 21 year old man. She gets pregnant, and immediately has an abortion. Will she ever look back fondly on her first time having sex, or those few days that she carried the baby for? No. Most likely she will have those dark memories all her life. 14 year olds do not need to learn the harsh realities of life this way. I also disagree with a 19 year old having a "sex within a committed loving relationship with their 15 year old girlfriends." Most 15 year olds are far less mature than 19 year olds. So much so that there is very little chance for a relationship based on anything but sex. Just because you can point to one or two examples doesn't make it acceptable. The exception does not prove the rule. The simple truth is that 14 year olds are not mentally mature enough to make life changing decisions. We shouldn't allow them to, and we shouldn't force them to. @SamuraiX America is a republic and a democracy (or at least the closest thing to it), just as Great Britain is a constitutional monarchy and a democracy. There simply are no countries where the people have absolute authority over every aspect of their government. It's not even that practical. You wouldn't want to spend your entire lie focusing on politics. While I don't particularly like how low our voter turn out is, this is still a free country where people are free to completely ignore the US political system if they so choose. You cannot point to a single "democracy" of the type that you fantasize about. So, for our purposes, the US, Great Britain, Canada, Australia, etc are democracies. I've never said that Christianity predates all morals and ethics. Christianity is by no means the oldest religion, and there are plenty of older religions that have since died out. However, how many American policy makers do you know who have been influenced by Buddhist morals? What about Zoroastrianism? The ancient Egyptian gods? Krishna, perhaps? It is not a "pretty big, and unfounded, assumption" that Christians believe in more traditional social behavior. It's not that difficult to prove or investigate for yourself. Who are the main opponents of gay marriage? I'm not arguing for or against gay marriage. I'm only using it as an example.
...I'm not aware that I'm on Google, much less my mean personality (I call him Jeff). |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| The reason that you cannot equate a republic with a pure democracy is simple. Were there to be a pure democracy, the minority would be at the mercy of the majority. There would not be any national referendum.
Read my post. Then re-read it. Since it's clear that you didn't read anything I said about the impact of values based on social norms. And the last part is a joke. You might want to look that up too. |
|||
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
| WE ALREADY HAVE A DOZEN ABORTION THREADS GO PLAY IN THOSE YOU GOONS.
Now. OK. We now have Koryo telling us that ethical behaviour is essentially not possible without belief in a God to keep you in line. How sad that one could have such a shallow respect for the lives of others that only the great punishment/reward system in the sky is keeping them from a life of bloodshed and cruelty. My response to that is that some people won't behave and be good without a parole officer, but that doesn't mean everyone can't. If anything, the taboo on killing could even be stronger among atheists since the belief that there's NOTHING waiting after death should make the act of killing an even graver act than if you believe in a Great Beyond that means you didn't *really* end anything. Do you know why we have the ethical systems against killing and hurting others that we do? It runs much deeper than any religious concept. All you need to be able to decide these things are wrong is basic Theory Of Mind, the ability to understand that other people are entities with thoughts and feelings too. From this flows the Golden Rule of reciprocity in behaviour, the ultimate basis of essentialy every code of ethics system both theist and nontheist. Christianity has the "do unto others" thing but it hardly invented it. Zoroastrianism, the original monotheistic religion had a version, as does Hinduism and Jainism, etc etc. Confucianism says "What you do not wish upon yourself, extend not to others" and Oscar Wilde, notable degenerate atheist homofaggot, said "selfishness is not living as one wishes to live, it is asking others to live as one wishes to live" and arch-post-modernist Jean Paul Sarte said it as "You should always ask yourself what would happen if everyone did what you are doing". It's what's called an obvious idea, THAT'S why it's old, not because it was necessarily derived from religion... if anything it's the converse.
Clearly you know different Christians than I do...
See, this is the crux of what I'm talking about. Moralist approaches to law being counterproductive and making the thing they're opposing more harmful. Someone criticises hardline drug policies such as jailing casual drug-users because it's a policy which makes drugs MORE HARMFUL, and the response doesn't go any deeper than "Drugs are bad and if you legalise them more people will do them". We don't necessarily NEED to legalise them, but nobody should EVER go to jail for mere personal possession or use of any substance. Fine them if it helps satisfy the puritans, but that's all. Decriminalisation is a better policy because it reduces the harm drugs do which is after all what we all WANT. But no, "drugs are bad" reflexive moralism keeps them more harmful than they otherwise would be. You win again, moral majority. Same with prostitution... it's a harmful and exploitative industry that can be made safer and less harmful if it's legal and regulated, but no, the people thinks SEX IS BAD (with various shades of naunce, naturally) and so unfortunate women continue to get abused, exploited and put at risk because they're afraid to access legal and health systems and bear the brunt of most anti-prostitution legislation. Don't even get me started on your apparent yearning for Sodomy laws, since we just can't have people engaging in wanton acts of oral and anal sex without punishment. Hmm.
I see what you did there. In the course of one paragraph you managed to tell us that the Christian rules for living are the One True Ruleset Of Life (as rigid as the laws of Baseball fer chrissake) and accused atheists of adultery, incest, bestiality and pedophilia. Wow. Between all that and the Reducto ad Hitlerum (I point out that law-making is a practical exercise and moralism can be counterproductive and you go "Nazi Germany was a "practical" government too"? What are you, an 8th Grade Debater?) arguments I'm not really finding much substance to work with here. Do you have any contentions other than "Atheists are immoral and have no ethics" to make, here? Ultimately, the mere fact that you feel it necessary to throw out a caveat like "that's not to say that atheists and other religions shouldn't be allowed in America." tells me more than anything you've said yourself. (edited by Arwon on 01-11-07 11:28 PM) |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| I think the problem occurs when people think that something is "wrong," instead of unfair, injust, unequal, or such other values. "Wrong" on the other hand, doesn't say much. (edited by SamuraiX on 01-11-07 11:29 PM) |
|||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiX And I ask you again, show me one of these "pure democracies." They don't exist. Originally posted by SamuraiX I did read it, and responded to everything I felt was relevant. Originally posted by SamuraiX As was mine, unless you thought Jeff is the name of my cat.
Originally posted by Arwon Obviously I do, since I live in America and you don't. I'm sure we have a mutual knowledge of certain famous American Christians, though. Some televangelists, perhaps? Originally posted by Awon I don't believe many people go to jail for casual drug use. In fact, I know many drug users who aren't in jail. People who deal drugs to kids, though, should go to jail. But again, I go back to the fluffy image of the middle aged casual drug user. That simply isn't the case. If every drug user did it in the privacy of his own home in a fashion that didn't interfered with his job and didn't affect anyone else, I wouldn't be upset. I could hardly view it as any different that someone who is addicted to video games. But you know very well, even if you pretend otherwise, that kids get the worst of it. It is kids (and minorities, for that matter) who are hit hardest by drugs. Everything we do to decrease the amount of drugs in the country, then, decreases the quantity that can be sold to kids. And as for prostitution, I find it slightly disturbing that I am the only one here who objects to people selling their bodies for sex. I suppose I'm also the only one who objects to 14 year olds having sex with each other (or worse, 18+ year olds). I guess I feel alone, but I'm proud to be the resident prude. 
I did overuse the word sodomy in that earlier post. I was going to come back and make an edit at the bottom of the post, but people had already replied without taking issue with it. I mean to say that I oppose child sodomy, not gay marriage.
I could tell you quite a bit about myself. Most of it would bore you, and some of it would probably upset you. What I said there, though, is true. No mater how religious-fundamentalist I may sound, I'm not trying to throw the non Christians out, or marginalize them. I understand what you're implying. You think that I wouldn't even post that unless I was thinking the exact opposite. Think what you like, but its not true. I have atheist friends, and I have a Wiccan friend, and I have black friends, and I have gay friends. I even have *gasp* democrat friends. The only friends I don't have are people from the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). (edited by Koryo on 01-11-07 11:53 PM) |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| We live in a republic, which is not a pure democracy. Figure out the difference, Koryo.
And you neglected to address my point, that social norms predate religion, and are the basis of laws. I'll leave the rest to Arwon, since you seem to have a ethos problem, and only address certain people. |
|||
|
Arwon Bazu Since: 11-18-05 From: Randwick, Sydney, NSW, Australia Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6280 days |
| ||
I'm afraid you believe wrong, as I'll show you below. Your middle class drug users do exist, but they're not the ones getting arrested and stuff. Hell, there are even stable, functional middle class recreational heroin users. You are're right, young people and minorities do cop the worst of drug related harms. But let's look at this for a moment and ask why they cop it so bad and how we could make them cop it *less* bad: "Of the $35 billion or so that the American authorities spend each year on tackling drugs, at least three-quarters goes not on prevention or treatment but on catching and punishing drug dealers and users. More than one in ten of all arrests—1.5m in 1999—is for drug offences. Some 40% of those drug arrests were for possessing marijuana. Fewer than 20% were for the sale or manufacture of drugs, whether heroin, cocaine or anything else. The arrests also sweep up a distressingly large number of teenagers: 220,000 juveniles were picked up for drug offences in 1997, 82% more than in 1993. " "America's prisons are crammed with drug offenders, who now account for roughly one in four of those in custody, and more than half of all federal prisoners. Most of these drug offenders are locked up for non-violent crimes: in only 12% of cases was any weapon involved. Almost all are from the broad bottom end of the drug-dealing pyramid. America's imprisonment rate for drug offences alone now exceeds the rate of imprisonment in most West European countries for crimes of all kinds." "Disturbingly, even though drug use is spread fairly evenly across different racial groups, three-quarters of those locked up are non-white (see chart). For example, most users of crack cocaine are white, but 90% of crack defendants in federal courts are black or Hispanic. White people, being generally richer, do their deals behind closed doors, whereas blacks and Hispanics tend to trade on the streets, where they can be caught more easily. A report by The Sentencing Project, a group lobbying for criminal-justice reform, notes that black people account for 13% of monthly drug users; 35% of those arrested for possessing drugs; 55% of those convicted; and 74% of those sentenced to prison." I'm taking this from the Economist because they're the guys with the numbers. Great harm is being done by a hard-line drug policy, for no benefit (drug usage in America wouldn't be lower than, say, the Netherlands or Switzerland). Particularly to the young and non-white. This harm wouldn't be done if the end-user was thoroughly decrminalised and simply fined or given other non-criminal penalties instead. It's counter-intuitive, but they way to make drugs stop hurting so many people so much is to lessen the criminal sanctions since they aren't working. PLUS, you can even focus on fighting the dealers and breaking their exploitative hold over users instead! Hell, decrminalising drug use and possession actually HELPS fight exploitation because junkies are less dependent on their criminal suppliers since they an access legal and medical facilities without fear. |
|||
|
SamuraiX Broom Hatter Since: 11-19-05 Last post: 6280 days Last view: 6281 days |
| ||
| Yes, social norms account for this predicament, do they not? They need not be actual laws, but in themselves have an effect. There's no law that says black druggies should be prosecuted, but it's a result of the preexisting system, and becomes "normal." Must I go into further explanation? | |||
|
Koryo Keese Since: 10-17-06 From: Michigan, USA Last post: 6289 days Last view: 6289 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SamuraiX I know the difference on paper. The difference in real life is not so clear cut. If you can point out one (just one) example of a functioning "democracy" (using your fantasy definition of the word) that exists today, then I will concede the point that the US is not a democracy. Since I don't expect you can do that, then I will continue to say that the US is a democratic country. Originally posted by SamuraiX Please do. I'm holding my breath. Originally posted by Arwon I never said "middle class" drug users (a rather inaccurate term) don't exist. I even said that, if they are the only kind of drug users, then I would not be so opposed to drug users. But they are far from the average drug user, and they are far from the majority of drug users. And the Economist seems to have answered one of your questions for you. Wealthy people can more easily conceal their drug use. And how can you know that drug users are "end users"? What makes you think they would never deal, and especially never deal to children? If you arrest anyone with drugs, then drugs are less likely to get into the hands of kids. I could accept that less jail time for drug users, though, would be OK, but I will not accept drug legalization. You put foreword a poor argument:
That's the same argument used earlier about prostitution, and its just wrong. Sure, illegal murder would never happen... if we legalize murder. Illegal theft would never happen... if we legalize theft. So people buy drugs illegally now. We could indeed make sure that no one ever buys drugs illegally again... by legalizing the sale of drugs. But if you do all of these things, you still have people murdering, stealing, and using drugs. I hardly think that would make society better off. Obviously, the first two examples are silly, but so is drug legalization. If drug use is legal, I guarantee you that you will see more kids being sold drugs. I love everyone. (edited by Koryo on 01-12-07 10:16 PM) |
|||
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| I'm all for the legalization of marijuana. Its addictive effects are minor and mostly psychological.
However, I'm not for the legalization of all drugs. True, a lot of the harmful effects are caused by the fact that it's illegal. If crack cocaine wasn't illegal, it would definitely be cheaper, and wouldn't reduce so many people to living on the street or committing other crimes to support their habit (such as theft and prostitution). But, on the other hand, legalizing drugs would make them more easily available, and greatly increase the chances of someone getting addicted in the first place. Its a shame that "the war on drugs" is more focused on punishing users than treating them. More money an resources should be devoted to rehabilitation, but that doesn't mean all drugs should then be legal. The penalties for use and possession should be reduced (It doesn't make sense to lock people up for being sick), however the the penalties for selling or transferring drugs should be greatly increased. |
|||
Silvershield   580  Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by emceeI'm not going to step in to the larger debate here, but I feel obligated to point out that this particular point is far oversimplified. I won't argue for a moment that addiction is not a terrible state to be subject to, but don't try to paint it as if these people are victims. You're going to be hard pressed to find a person who was given drugs at gunpoint, or who first used drugs without being aware of their addictive and harmful properties. Do addicts need help? Sure. But are they innocent victims? Not hardly. |
|||
|
Sinfjotle Lordly? No, not quite.  Since: 11-17-05 From: Kansas Last post: 6281 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Koryo: I'll answer for him, Greece. Happy? Good. (Ancient Greece I mean)
Also, decriminalization and legalization are two totally different things. Please look them up. Silvershield: Alcoholics are treated like victims even though it's their own damn fault. The facts about drugs are also heavily lied about, so many people really don't know the real effects of drugs. I honestly can't tell you the effects of cocaine, meth, or heroine, besides they're "bad", and that ex is a "party drug". I'm aware that the first three are addictive, but I have no idea about ex. If people fail their prime subjects, do you think they're really going to pay attention to what the police officer tells them? |
|||
|
Silvershield 580 Since: 11-19-05 From: Emerson, New Jersey Last post: 6291 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SinfjotleThe difference between an alcoholic and a drug addict, if such a difference exists, is that most hard drugs are universally addictive - anyone who uses them, with few exceptions, will become hooked - while alcohol is "safe" for most people. To play devil's advocate for a moment, an alcoholic is a victim because he possesses a certain genetic attribute or personality trait, beyond his control, that causes his addiction to a substance that is relatively harmless for most other people; a drug addict is not a victim because the substance he uses isn't safe for anyone, and in that way the addiction was initially totally within the control of the user. Originally posted by SinfjotleLied about by whom? The facts about the various effects a drug causes might be lied about by whomever, but it's undoubtedly common knowledge that those hard drugs are addictive. You know that using this drug will cause you to become addicted to it, and you are therefore responsible for that addiction when it inevitably occurs. Does that mean that you should not be given help? Of course not. But it means that you are not a victim. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Prison, for minor crimes like drug use, is not a way to reform people. Prison is often one of the worst experiences in a person's life and can cause them unimaginable psychological harm. | |||
|
emcee Red Super Koopa Since: 11-20-05 Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
Originally posted by SilvershieldOriginally posted by emceeI'm not going to step in to the larger debate here, but I feel obligated to point out that this particular point is far oversimplified. I won't argue for a moment that addiction is not a terrible state to be subject to, but don't try to paint it as if these people are victims. You're going to be hard pressed to find a person who was given drugs at gunpoint, or who first used drugs without being aware of their addictive and harmful properties. Do addicts need help? Sure. But are they innocent victims? Not hardly. Whether or not it was there own fault that they became sick is irrelevant to whether or not they're sick. Someone who has unprotected sex on a regular basis with random strangers will likely eventually get an STD, but just because it was their own fault doesn't make them any less sick. |
|||
|
Ziff B2BB BACKTOBASICSBITCHES Since: 11-18-05 From: A room Last post: 6279 days Last view: 6279 days |
| ||
| Yeah, playing the blame game will only summon the trump card of existentialist debate. Let us stay away from Satre, Hiedigger, Kiekkergard, etc. |
| 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 |
| |
