• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Rules There's No Constitutional Right to Consensual BDSM Sex

Paleocon said:
The law is not and should not be concerned with something as subjective as attitude.
Click to expand...

Attitude and intent is very much a part of the consideration of law.

Ear piercings are specifically regulated by law.
Click to expand...

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.

So to be clear, you agree with consensual reckless endangerment being illegal?
Click to expand...
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom