• 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!

Whos business is it?

Is it any of the governments business what consenting adults do with each other?

  • Yes

    Votes: 7 15.9%
  • No

    Votes: 37 84.1%

  • Total voters
    44
Not true.

See, there you go. Lying without realizing it again.

I don't on purpose. You can infer anything else you like, does not make it true.

Malaclypse the Younger: Everything is true.
GP: Even false things?
M2: Even false things are true.
GP: How can that be?
M2: I don't know man, I didn't do it.

I already pointed it out. You ignored it and cut it out of my reply to you.

I can infer from the fact that you are so reluctant to restate this fallacy that you have forgotten what it was, so I went back to look for it for you. The only formal fallacy you have attributed to me was in post 32, when you said that this:

This might go a long ways towards helping ensure that people don't take emotional advantage of other people by throwing around the "L" word just to get in their pants.

was a red herring. The red herring fallacy is a deliberate attempt to divert a line of inquiry away from the topic. This was not a red herring because the topic, (as has been stated before) is people (and government) sticking their nose where it doesn't belong, and my illustrative line of questioning did not divert from this topic.

At his point in the debate you had claimed that the government had legitimate business in dictating what sort of relationships between consenting adults were acceptable in the interest of ensuring that one party was not taken advantage of by the other.

The purpose of my line of questioning was to determine whether you were consistent in your assertion that the governments job was to keep people from taking advantage of each other when applied to sexual or emotional rather than financial arrangements. This is clearly pertinent to a discussion on whether such things are any of the governments business, and as such cannot be a red herring.

Your innocent mislabeling of a legitimate line of inquiry as a fallacy aside, this was a very small part of the debate as a whole, so your claim to not want to get involved in a debate "riddled in nonsensical fallacy's[sic] right off the bat" over a single perceived fallacy in a small portion of the debate three pages in seems somewhat disingenuous.

And that is your problem, and the lack of debate on the subject becomes self evident.

What is my problem? That I think consenting adults can enter into arrangements that don't involve sex? How naive of me.

*bows*

Please do. :roll:

Ask and ye shall receive! See above. I had much better retorts this time.
 
Probably.



Exactly what the title implies. I want to talk about whose business it is.



If you like.

I've got to hand it to you. Not just anyone would start a thread about anal sex to show why a Ronpaultopian economic system would be best. Goobieman would be proud. :lol:
 
Last edited:
I've got to hand it to you. Not just anyone would start a thread about anal sex to show why a Ronpaultopian economic system would be best. Goobieman would be proud. :lol:

hey, it could be about oral sex too
 
I've got to hand it to you. Not just anyone would start a thread about anal sex to show why a Ronpaultopian economic system would be best. Goobieman would be proud.

I try to be my best.:cool:

Care to opine on the topic at hand?

Do you believe that it is any of the governments business what two (or three or howevermany) consenting adults do with or to each other voluntarily?

Or do you believe (as many do) that it is none of the government's business so long as they are involved in gay sex or something else you approve of, but that it becomes the governments business as soon as they engage in something you don't approve of?
 
Last edited:
Do you believe that it is any of the governments business what two (or three or howevermany) consenting adults do with or to each other voluntarily?

Kinky butsecks - No, not the government's business.
Some sort of economic transaction - Maybe, maybe not. Depends what they're doing.

Panache said:
Or do you believe (as many do) that it is none of the government's business so long as they are involved in gay sex or something else you approve of, but that it becomes the governments business as soon as they engage in something you don't approve of?

Depends what they're doing. While I support some government regulation in the economic sector (as does anyone with a bit of common sense), that doesn't necessarily mean I don't approve of those transactions. For example, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about wanting to grow one's business and drive the competitors out of the market, but the government needs antitrust legislation to preserve competition. Capitalism ceases to work properly without it.

Conversely, there are some economic transactions that I *do* disapprove of which I don't necessarily think need government regulation. For example, I think it's immoral for snake-oil salesmen to sell homeopathic "medicines" to gullible consumers, but I don't think the government needs to regulate it unless they're actually making false medical claims.
 
Last edited:
Kinky butsecks - No, not the government's business.
Some sort of economic transaction - Maybe, maybe not. Depends what they're doing.

Kinky butsecks IS a sort of economic transaction. Economies don't require a monetized, quantifiable currency, they just require an exchange of value for value, which kinky butsecks is.

People get taken advantage of engaging in kinky butsecks just as much as they do engaging in any other human affair. If the government's job is to make life fair for everyone, what is so special about kinky butsecks that it should be made off limits in that regard?

Depends what they're doing. While I support some government regulation in the economic sector (as does anyone with a bit of common sense), that doesn't necessarily mean I don't approve of those transactions. For example, I don't think there's anything inherently immoral about wanting to grow one's business and drive the competitors out of the market, but the government needs antitrust legislation to preserve competition. Capitalism ceases to work properly without it.

So why don't you support some government regulation in the sexual sector? If alpha males are monopolizing the heterosexual female population, and making it impossible for the beta males to get any tail, don't you think there should be some legislation to preserve competition?

Conversely, there are some economic transactions that I *do* disapprove of which I don't necessarily think need government regulation. For example, I think it's immoral for snake-oil salesmen to sell homeopathic "medicines" to gullible consumers, but I don't think the government needs to regulate it unless they're actually making false medical claims.

Well, I suppose we shall just have to agree to agree in that regard.
 
Kinky butsecks IS a sort of economic transaction. Economies don't require a monetized, quantifiable currency, they just require an exchange of value for value, which kinky butsecks is.

That's quite a stretch (no pun intended :lol:). But even if you can make the argument that it's an economic transaction, it isn't an economic transaction that requires any government interference.

Panache said:
People get taken advantage of engaging in kinky butsecks just as much as they do engaging in any other human affair. If the government's job is to make life fair for everyone, what is so special about kinky butsecks that it should be made off limits in that regard?

Who says that it's government's job to make life fair for everyone?

Panache said:
So why don't you support some government regulation in the sexual sector? If alpha males are monopolizing the heterosexual female population, and making it impossible for the beta males to get any tail, don't you think there should be some legislation to preserve competition?

That is a poor analogy to antitrust legislation. What you are describing is merely a situation where one market participant is able to do things BETTER than its competitors (i.e. providing those heterosexual female customers with a product they prefer). That's very different than a market participant actually preventing anyone else from competing.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is NOT the total lack of government involvement in anything. The defining characteristic is competition, which is exactly why some government regulation is necessary. As Adam Smith himself wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
 
Last edited:
That's quite a stretch (no pun intended :lol:). But even if you can make the argument that it's an economic transaction, it isn't an economic transaction that requires any government interference.
Have to agree with this.

Who says that it's government's job to make life fair for everyone?
Too many people.

That is a poor analogy to antitrust legislation. What you are describing is merely a situation where one market participant is able to do things BETTER than its competitors (i.e. providing those heterosexual female customers with a product they prefer). That's very different than a market participant actually preventing anyone else from competing.
Excellent point.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is NOT the total lack of government involvement in anything. The defining characteristic is competition, which is exactly why some government regulation is necessary. As Adam Smith himself wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."
So Adam Smith was a conspiracy nut? j/k:mrgreen:
 
That's quite a stretch (no pun intended ). But even if you can make the argument that it's an economic transaction, it isn't an economic transaction that requires any government interference.

Ok. What makes it less deserving of government regulation than any other economic transaction?

Who says that it's government's job to make life fair for everyone?

I'm sure someone said it. In this case I was just being hyperbolic. Everyone is fine with metaphors, but you bring in any other literary devices and they start getting all uppity.:roll:

That is a poor analogy to antitrust legislation. What you are describing is merely a situation where one market participant is able to do things BETTER than its competitors (i.e. providing those heterosexual female customers with a product they prefer). That's very different than a market participant actually preventing anyone else from competing.

Explain to me the difference, because all I see is a bunch of consenting adults being prevented from voluntarily engaging in interactions that shouldn't be anyone's business but theirs.

The defining characteristic of capitalism is NOT the total lack of government involvement in anything. The defining characteristic is competition, which is exactly why some government regulation is necessary. As Adam Smith himself wrote, "People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public."

I am not particularly interested in the defining characteristics of capitalism. You may perhaps think that this thread is about capitalism, but as I said before, it is about people (and government) sticking their noses where they don't belong. If, as you say, people minding their own damn business will break capitalism, then "Down with the capitalist pigs!" shall be my battle cry.

I am far more interested in human agency than I am in a functional capitalistic economic system.
 
Ok. What makes it less deserving of government regulation than any other economic transaction?

Playing along with your premise that it *is* an economic transaction...
It's less deserving of government regulation than other economic transactions because 1) There are few or no market externalities involved, 2) It does not undermine the basic workings of our economic system, 3) There's no possible source of tax revenue unless it's prostitution, and 4) Regulations of this nature are highly unlikely to work at all.

Panache said:
Explain to me the difference, because all I see is a bunch of consenting adults being prevented from voluntarily engaging in interactions that shouldn't be anyone's business but theirs.

And that's all *I* see in your example too. Which is exactly why it's different than anti-competitive market behavior. If those alpha males had somehow PREVENTED the beta males from competing (as opposed to merely just offering a better product), then that would be a better analogy.

Panache said:
I am not particularly interested in the defining characteristics of capitalism. You may perhaps think that this thread is about capitalism, but as I said before, it is about people (and government) sticking their noses where they don't belong. If, as you say, people minding their own damn business will break capitalism, then "Down with the capitalist pigs!" shall be my battle cry.

So just to clarify, you're perfectly OK with a bureaucratic entity making your decisions for you, as long as you didn't elect it and it calls itself a corporation instead of a government. Personally I don't want ANYONE setting the price of bread nationwide - whether it's the Politburo or Monopolistic Bread Corporation. Market forces work so much better.

Panache said:
I am far more interested in human agency than I am in a functional capitalistic economic system.

Fine, except in the real world, the government focuses more on practical measures instead of philosophical purity, and rightly so.
 
Last edited:
Its difficult to say if your talking about general sex in whatever combination than no however for example very extreme physical pain should have some kind of government safe guard.
 
Playing along with your premise that it *is* an economic transaction...
It's less deserving of government regulation than other economic transactions because 1) There are few or no market externalities involved, 2) It does not undermine the basic workings of our economic system, 3) There's no possible source of tax revenue unless it's prostitution, and 4) Regulations of this nature are highly unlikely to work at all.

1)Like hell there aren't. When a gay dude has sex with another gay dude, it can affect his spouse, his children, other gay dudes who thought they were in a monogamous relationship with him, etc... These are all market externalities.

2)Sure it does. What if a bunch of gay dudes get together and form a cartel where they all agree not to have sex with anyone who doesn't have a Y chromosome? Cartels and refusal to deal presumably undermine our economic system.

Or what if one gay guy starts demanding that if another gay guy wants to purchase sex in exchange for sex, he has to purchase emotional baggage as well? In economic terms I believe that is called tying and is part of anti-trust legislation.

3)What on earth are you talking about? It's easy, just make a gay sex tax. Every time you have gay sex, you owe the government $2.50. There. Source of tax revenue problem solved.

4)If I wanted to make effective changes to policy I would go to makeeffectivechangestopolicy.com. The question is "whose business is it?" not "what would be a practical and effective uses of resources."

And that's all *I* see in your example too. Which is exactly why it's different than anti-competitive market behavior. If those alpha males had somehow PREVENTED the beta males from competing (as opposed to merely just offering a better product), then that would be a better analogy.

Yes, but that is all I see in either example, while apparently you see something different in the less sexual example, which is what I was inquiring about.

Outside of the direct use of force, companies can't PREVENT other companies from competing. They can make it more challenging surely, but they can't PREVENT it. Price fixing doesn't prevent competition. Cartels don't prevent competition. Tying doesn't prevent competition, neither does predatory pricing or refusal to deal. The only thing that prevents competition is a more appealing product at a lower price.

If I (being a consenting adult) have something you want, and am unwilling to sell it to you unless you also accept something you don't want, then you can accept both the wanted and the unwanted, or you can just go without. Why should it be anyone else's business?

It seems to me that people accept the bad with the good when it comes to sex all the time. Why is tying acceptable then?

So just to clarify, you're perfectly OK with a bureaucratic entity making your decisions for you, as long as you didn't elect it and it calls itself a corporation instead of a government. Personally I don't want ANYONE setting the price of bread nationwide - whether it's the Politburo or Monopolistic Bread Corporation. Market forces work so much better.

Now who's being hyperbolic? I am perfectly ok with consenting adults entering voluntarily into agreements with each other even if those agreements involve agreeing on what price they will sell their bread for.

First of all, they are placing themselves in a classic prisoner's dilemma, which is an innately unstable position, and will provide incentive for them to break off from the agreement before long.

Secondly, it just isn't possible for them to get every single breadmaker on the planet to join the pricefixing gang, so the pricefixers will lose business to the breadmakers providing bread at more competitive prices.

Thirdly, even if it were possible, I do in fact have an oven of my own, and could make my own damn bread. My desire to have my bread made for me by someone else takes no precedence over the basic human agency of consenting adult bakers to enter into voluntary agreements with each other.

Fine, except in the real world, the government focuses more on practical measures instead of philosophical purity, and rightly so.

As as a matter of practicality, if there is enough bigotry in their base, it is beneficial for politicians to try and make sexual unions between consenting gay adults part of the government's business. That doesn't imho make it right.
 
Its difficult to say if your talking about general sex in whatever combination than no however for example very extreme physical pain should have some kind of government safe guard.

So people shouldn't have the agency to consent to extreme physical pain?
 
See the problem with having such mad debate skillz is that pretty soon no one can come up with any rebuttals, and as a result, the thread dies...:(

Really? No takers? Someone should really come and put me in my place here...
 
See the problem with having such mad debate skillz is that pretty soon no one can come up with any rebuttals, and as a result, the thread dies...:(

Really? No takers? Someone should really come and put me in my place here...

What?

Debate skills?

Oh.

I just forgot about this thread.

What were we talking about?
 
What?

Debate skills?

Oh.

I just forgot about this thread.

What were we talking about?

Glad to have you back!:2wave:

I believe we were discussing people (and government) keeping their collective noses out of other people's business. In particular with regards to sexuality, economics and wage disparity so far... Other topics related to people minding their damn business are welcome.
 
See the problem with having such mad debate skillz is that pretty soon no one can come up with any rebuttals, and as a result, the thread dies...:(

Really? No takers? Someone should really come and put me in my place here...

Dude, the entire premise of this thread was comparing anal sex to corporate regulations, on the premise that something was being "exchanged" (i.e. bodily fluids) in both cases. Give me a freaking break. :roll:

Furthermore, by your own admission you don't care about what policies are actually practical. You only care about philosophical purity. Since we aren't even arguing with the same goal in mind (e.g. I want a competent government and a functional economy, whereas you want to be philosophically consistent) it's rather pointless to debate, as we will just argue around each other.
 
Last edited:
Dude, the entire premise of this thread was comparing anal sex to corporate regulations, on the premise that something was being "exchanged" (i.e. bodily fluids) in both cases. Give me a freaking break.

Glad to have you back too! I shall send that break to you right away. Do you prefer FedEx or UPS?

Also, the rebuttals which you were unable to address can be found 5 posts up. Feel free to give it a go if you think you are ready.
 
Furthermore, by your own admission you don't care about what policies are actually practical. You only care about philosophical purity. Since we aren't even arguing with the same goal in mind (e.g. I want a competent government and a functional economy, whereas you want to be philosophically consistent) it's rather pointless to debate, as we will just argue around each other.

What's wrong McFly? Are ya chicken?
 
What's wrong McFly? Are ya chicken?

Yep. Terrified. Petrified. Stupified...of you. :mrgreen:

If I wanted to make effective changes to policy I would go to makeeffectivechangestopolicy.com. The question is "whose business is it?" not "what would be a practical and effective uses of resources."

That sums up your point of view quite well, and illustrates quite clearly that we have little common ground from which to debate the subject.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, Panache, I have a bone to pick with you.

I would prefer, when you next want to point out the similarities between the same-sex marriage issue and the minimum wage issue, that you couch it in just those terms.

I dislike the method used, as no one knew what you were talking about at first.

I disagree with your opinion that since it’s none of our business what two persons do in bed, or when trading Pokémon cards, then it’s none of our business how much one person pays another, or what taxes are taken out of a given transaction.

I consider the two to be different.

Which is not to say that I entirely agree with the current minimum wage setup, or with the taxes we currently pay.

But in regards to taxes, what would you prefer as a tax system, if any?

And if none, what method of paying for national defense (and/or whatever other government systems) would you suggest?

Further, what are your thoughts on minimum wage standards, and their effect, or lack thereof, and it’s potential effect, if any?

I don’t consider these issues much, so I probably won’t be a good debate opponent.

But throw it at me anyway.
 
Last edited:
Anyway, Panache, I have a bone to pick with you.

I would prefer, when you next want to point out the similarities between the same-sex marriage issue and the minimum wage issue, that you couch it in just those terms.

I dislike the method used, as no one knew what you were talking about at first.

You don't have to like it. I'm sorry you weren't able to equate government minding its own business to anything but sex.

I disagree with your opinion that since it’s none of our business what two persons do in bed, or when trading Pokémon cards, then it’s none of our business how much one person pays another, or what taxes are taken out of a given transaction.

How exactly are pokemon cards different from any other form of capital? They exist. They have value. They can be exchanged for other things of value. They aren't just like capital, they are capital.

But in regards to taxes, what would you prefer as a tax system, if any?

And if none, what method of paying for national defense (and/or whatever other government systems) would you suggest?

I would suggest that we should be governed by a voluntary co-op. You want any say in how the government spends its resources? You have to contribute to those resources by paying your co-op dues. You want to take advantage of any programs or resources available to you through the government? You have to be part of the co-op.

Certainly it would be impractical to defend only the co-op members from an invading nation and not the people who chose not to join, but hey, thats not the fault of the people who choose not to join, so the co-op members should just accept that they will be benefitting people other than themselves for free.

Further, what are your thoughts on minimum wage standards, and their effect, or lack thereof, and it’s potential effect, if any?

How do you mean?
 
Yep. Terrified. Petrified. Stupified...of you. :mrgreen:



That sums up your point of view quite well, and illustrates quite clearly that we have little common ground from which to debate the subject.

So what you're saying is that you got pwned by post #62?:mrgreen:
 
You don't have to like it. I'm sorry you weren't able to equate government minding its own business to anything but sex.
That's not what I meant at all. I wasn't taking issue with your comparison, I was taking issue with the method you used to make it.

How exactly are pokemon cards different from any other form of capital? They exist. They have value. They can be exchanged for other things of value. They aren't just like capital, they are capital.

And I would bet you are taxed for buying them in most states, so like most capital, they are subject to some kind of tax. The act of trading them, however, is not taxable…yet.

I suppose we should revert to your comparison of government interference into our sex lives to minimum wage and taxes.
I can definitely agree with no government interference into our sex lives.

Further, in a perfect world, government would not interfere into anything at all. But we don’t live in a perfect world, and some things seem to me as necessary government interference.

I would suggest that we should be governed by a voluntary co-op. You want any say in how the government spends its resources? You have to contribute to those resources by paying your co-op dues. You want to take advantage of any programs or resources available to you through the government? You have to be part of the co-op.
Co-op government...interesting idea. Knee-jerk reaction is: I don't really like it. But then I don't know enough to decide either way, really.

Certainly it would be impractical to defend only the co-op members from an invading nation and not the people who chose not to join, but hey, thats not the fault of the people who choose not to join, so the co-op members should just accept that they will be benefitting people other than themselves for free.
Hmm… I still don’t like it. But, again, I don’t know enough about the various government system options to really know how to respond.

How do you mean?
I mean:
What are your thoughts on the current minimum wage standards in the US, and their effect on wages and job growth, among other things.

Also, what are your thoughts on removing/revising the current minimum wage standards in the US, and the effect of such on wages and job growth, among other things.
 
People tolerate government interference where they have been conditioned to allow it or forced. (or, when the government is actually operating within proper bounds, they consent to the intrusion as necessary)

Government is, apparently, not that interested in exploiting the sexual relationships of its citizens because the exchange is more personal than a typical exchange of labor for cash (and less portable and easy to exchange)--otherwise there probably would be an exploitative mechanism in place.

The currency that we exchange for labor and services is all the property of the federal reserve. By using it (accepting it in exchange for our labor, spending it, etc), we consent to paying the taxes associated with it. We have little choice in the matter.

Personally, I'd rather that there be no income tax and that currency have actual value beyond the full faith & credit of the US Gov't, but our government, economy, and even society is now built around this system, in which the govermnent--as a 3rd party-- has access to our labor, because people in the past have allowed the encroachment to happen.

that's my view.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom