View Poll Results: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

Voters
47. You may not vote on this poll
  • Everything should be permitted that doesn't "harm others"

    32 68.09%
  • We should have some societal standards based on morals

    10 21.28%
  • We should have more standards than what we have now

    4 8.51%
  • Other

    5 10.64%
Multiple Choice Poll.
Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 147

Thread: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

  1. #81
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Then the government has no business paying for the consequences of said action. So if these people die on the streets, let them. They ought to get ZERO financial help from the taxpayer, or frankly, from private insurance except that which they pay for entirely out of their own pocket.

    You want to be stupid, foot your own bill.
    The more absolute the sentiment, the more absurd the sentiment.

    If somebody were to "die on the street", would you leave them there to decay and cause very real potential harm to YOU and and your family in the form of disease from the unsanitary conditions? Or, would you rather the taxpayer kick in something for the common good and at least properly dispose of the body?


    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    I would assume that the spouse entered into that relationship willingly, thus his/her victim status would rest on his/her shoulders. If an individual is doing drugs, and being abusive to the other spouse, then the one being abused can either leave or stay willingly. As for the offspring of said relationship, if they are in danger, then remove them from the home.
    Danger? What danger? They're not victims, right?

    Why would you advocate the government step in for something that MIGHT happen, but stand back after it has happened?

  2. #82
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post


    Danger? What danger? They're not victims, right?

    Why would you advocate the government step in for something that MIGHT happen, but stand back after it has happened?
    You are the one who called them victims, not I. I was responding to your own assumptions.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  3. #83
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by the_recruit View Post
    But it's not the actual consumption of the drugs that's hurting anyone.

    These negative effects you're talking about - the same exact thing can be said of alcohol. Alcoholics can be absolutely brutal to their loved ones. But that doesn't mean drinking alcohol in and of itself victimizes someone. If someone quietly and responsibly sips a drink in the privacy of their own home while relaxing, what would you call that if not a victimless crime?

    That is what is meant by victimless crime. That is the difference between, say, smoking weed and stealing someone's wallet. By definition, theft necessarily victimizes someone. Smoking pot does not necessarily victimize someone.
    When you qualify it, I don't disagree. In fact, when qualified like this, I absolutely agree. Most people, however, take the phrase at face value. Huge mistake, and short-sighted. I don't know everybody in the world well enough to know if they know the difference or not, without said qualification. I get leery of people who like to speak in absolutes.

  4. #84
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by lizzie View Post
    You are the one who called them victims, not I. I was responding to your own assumptions.
    No. Words have meaning. Your words meant the same thing, even if not the specific word "victim" was used in your post.

    You also edited out my disclaimer regarding that point.

    ETA: Oh, and since we're down to debating semantics, it's safe to say we've found common ground... so to speak.
    Last edited by radcen; 03-22-12 at 12:15 AM.

  5. #85
    Sage
    lizzie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    between two worlds
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    28,581

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    No. Words have meaning. Your words meant the same thing, even if not the specific word "victim" was used in your post.

    You also edited out my disclaimer regarding that point.
    But you are the one who brought up victimhood. I did not. I said that I could let people make their own bad choices, then clean up their own problems that they created. You brought in the victimhood issue.
    "God is the name by which I designate all things which cross my path violently and recklessly, all things which alter my plans and intentions, and change the course of my life, for better or for worse."
    -C G Jung

  6. #86
    Guru
    the_recruit's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    4,178

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    Finish the evening then we can say if there was a victim or not.
    right you are. The victim is ME. Because i have to pay almost $200 for an 8-ball of bunk. I have to foot the enormous overhead cost that comes with running an international illegal smuggling operation and a product that is grown in a different ****ing hemisphere.

  7. #87
    Uncanny
    Paschendale's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    New York City
    Last Seen
    03-31-16 @ 04:08 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    12,510

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    While on paper it sounds like a good idea, you'd quickly establish an underground prostitute slave culture where powerful pimps keep women in forced prostitution, either with threats of violence, drugs or blackmail. I'm sure there is a way to significantly reduce illegal prostitution and improve the lot of women involved voluntarily, but the criminal element isn't going to just go away and get decent jobs just because you legalize it.

    Likewise, you can't just legalize everything and the criminal element that now makes it's living off of soft drugs will just move on to harder drugs. Designer drugs, things that are horrible addictive and destructive, would be just as much of a problem as the soft drugs are today. Criminals aren't going to go away because we want them to.
    You got any proof for these assertions? You have anything to actually back up the idea that the people who are purchasing the services of prostitutes or purchasing these drugs won't go almost exclusively to the legal options? Prostitutes suffer violence from their pimps because they have no legal protection. If they go to the law, they'll get put away as well. If a prostitute is brutalized by a client, she can't go to the cops. Right now, the only choice when acquiring sex for hire or drugs is to deal with criminals. Given the choice, almost anyone would choose a safe, legal, and regulated route. If you want to claim otherwise, you'll need some pretty compelling evidence.
    Liberté. Égalité. Fraternité.

  8. #88
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by DiAnna View Post
    I hate being at the bottom of a page. Nobody ever reads my stuff and tells me how brilliant it was.
    My god that's brilliant!
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  9. #89
    Educator partier9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    A town in a country, on a planet
    Last Seen
    05-23-13 @ 11:05 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    972

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    While on paper it sounds like a good idea, you'd quickly establish an underground prostitute slave culture where powerful pimps keep women in forced prostitution, either with threats of violence, drugs or blackmail. I'm sure there is a way to significantly reduce illegal prostitution and improve the lot of women involved voluntarily, but the criminal element isn't going to just go away and get decent jobs just because you legalize it.
    Doesn't that already exist? Last I checked pimps do all of those things already. I think what legalizing it would allow a lot of women to go to the police because they themselves won't have to worry about being arrested. Of course there are still going to be criminals and evil pimps, by legalizing it I feel you would reduce a lot of the criminal element involved in it especially as time passes.
    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    Likewise, you can't just legalize everything and the criminal element that now makes it's living off of soft drugs will just move on to harder drugs. Designer drugs, things that are horrible addictive and destructive, would be just as much of a problem as the soft drugs are today. Criminals aren't going to go away because we want them to.
    Agreed
    If I had a billion dollars?

  10. #90
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 08:06 AM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,413

    Re: Moral question: Should we permit everything that doesn't "harm others"?

    Quote Originally Posted by partier9 View Post
    Doesn't that already exist? Last I checked pimps do all of those things already. I think what legalizing it would allow a lot of women to go to the police because they themselves won't have to worry about being arrested. Of course there are still going to be criminals and evil pimps, by legalizing it I feel you would reduce a lot of the criminal element involved in it especially as time passes.


    Agreed
    Legalizing would help, I agree, but I also agree with Cephus that legalizing would not eliminate abuse/crime completely. I do think it would lessen, though.

Page 9 of 15 FirstFirst ... 7891011 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

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