- Joined
- Feb 9, 2011
- Messages
- 19,986
- Reaction score
- 7,365
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian
The law is not and should not be concerned with something as subjective as attitude.
Attitude and intent is very much a part of the consideration of law.
Ear piercings are specifically regulated by law.
Only if it is done in exchange for money. I can pierce my own ears, my kids' ears, even my friends' ears for free and not be doing so illegally. So, once again, regulating pro Dom(me)s is not a problem and runs a different set of standards just like the difference between professional sports and causal sports.
Sticking with the caveat that no given action is automatically reckless, I do agree that any reckless action could be illegal. Not all reckless actions necessarily need be. Not all risky action is reckless. Any given action, as a rule, may or may not be reckless. Calculated risky action with knowledge of the risk(s) is not reckless.So to be clear, you agree with consensual reckless endangerment being illegal?