Anything Forums

Spawned from this quote:

Bookworm wrote: I understand the dangers of trying to legislate morality, but I am also going to be uncomfortable with the idea of legalizing immorality.

It got me thinking, those of you who would prefer morality legislated in some way, or perhaps in this case denying immorality as you see it, what issues would you support, and why? And the big question, how do you justify doing what you think it right over what someone else thinks is right with no evidence or proof?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18641

MrSelf wrote: Spawned from this quote:

Bookworm wrote: I understand the dangers of trying to legislate morality, but I am also going to be uncomfortable with the idea of legalizing immorality.

It got me thinking, those of you who would prefer morality legislated in some way, or perhaps in this case denying immorality as you see it, what issues would you support, and why? And the big question, how do you justify doing what you think it right over what someone else thinks is right with no evidence or proof?

That's a real tough question, because as I said, the dangers lie with those trying to legislate morality, unless that morality also contains the "harm to others" factor. In the most basic sense, morality is simply the accepted standards of right and wrong. Public nudity is a morality issue that should be legislated in some way, but I wouldn't say private nudity is wrong, so circumstances can play a big factor in some issues. Community standards play a big role in the justification process. A small community in Utah would probably legislate morality differently than a big city in California. Since I am so strongly pro-life, I would have to say abortion is an issue I would legislate against because to me it fits right in with the "harm to others" aspect.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18742

Bookworm wrote: In the most basic sense, morality is simply the accepted standards of right and wrong. Public nudity is a morality issue that should be legislated in some way, but I wouldn't say private nudity is wrong, so circumstances can play a big factor in some issues.

Is public nudity really a matter of legislating morality??? As you said, it's not wrong to be nude in private? Isn't it the case that public nudity is more an act that offends people? It would be like putting a giant hand with an extended middle finger up on a billboard. It offends people and consequently causes them harm or distress because of it's offensiveness. You wouldn't want your children to see naked people walking around all day, right?

Bookworm wrote: Community standards play a big role in the justification process. A small community in Utah would probably legislate morality differently than a big city in California. Since I am so strongly pro-life, I would have to say abortion is an issue I would legislate against because to me it fits right in with the "harm to others" aspect.

When I think of "legislating morality" I think of constructing laws that prohibit or allow for certain acts or deeds that cause no harm or damage to anyone other than the person committing that act or deed. All other laws, though they might be morally supported, are primarily justified and defended by the fact that they cause damage or harm to another individual, group of people, or society as a whole. Examples of such legislation of morality would be laws against things like prostitution, euthenasia, the recreational use of some illegal drugs, or of course, homosexuality. You can probably think of more and when you do you should post them so we can discuss them. They are laws that have no other justification other than the fact or belief that the acts or type of behavior that they prohibit are wrong. I think you will find that most laws, when you think about them, are actually based on the idea of protecting others in society, and not necessarily enforcing what we determine to be 'right' or 'wrong.'

As for your statement on abortion, I think that would be the only example, depending on when you believe personhood begins, where we have legislated against morality rather than against immorality.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18754

shenbaw wrote: Isn't it the case that public nudity is more an act that offends people? It would be like putting a giant hand with an extended middle finger up on a billboard. It offends people and consequently causes them harm or distress because of it's offensiveness.

Yet someone argued with Red when he said homosexuality hurt a family member because they were offended by it. Which way do we want to go? Does offensiveness actually cause harm and distress?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18759

Bookworm wrote:

shenbaw wrote: Isn't it the case that public nudity is more an act that offends people? It would be like putting a giant hand with an extended middle finger up on a billboard. It offends people and consequently causes them harm or distress because of it's offensiveness.

Yet someone argued with Red when he said homosexuality hurt a family member because they were offended by it. Which way do we want to go? Does offensiveness actually cause harm and distress?

I find that illogical. Just because offensiveness can cause harm and distress does not mean it is justifiable. The gay - hurting family reference is equivalent to a child being hurt because a parent wouldn't let him/her play a video game. They both feel strongly that they are being hurt, however that doesn't mean that they should get their way. It's not a perfect analogy, but it shows that feelings don't always follow the way you would like.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18761

MrSelf wrote:

Bookworm wrote:

shenbaw wrote: Isn't it the case that public nudity is more an act that offends people? It would be like putting a giant hand with an extended middle finger up on a billboard. It offends people and consequently causes them harm or distress because of it's offensiveness.

Yet someone argued with Red when he said homosexuality hurt a family member because they were offended by it. Which way do we want to go? Does offensiveness actually cause harm and distress?

I find that illogical. Just because offensiveness can cause harm and distress does not mean it is justifiable. The gay - hurting family reference is equivalent to a child being hurt because a parent wouldn't let him/her play a video game. They both feel strongly that they are being hurt, however that doesn't mean that they should get their way. It's not a perfect analogy, but it shows that feelings don't always follow the way you would like.

But is the person who is offended by public nudity also like the child who feels hurt but really shouldn't get their way? When a person gets offended, do they not get offended because of their preconceived ideas? If a person gets offended by public nudity or by an extended middle finger and suffers the "harm or distress because of its offensiveness," are they not relying on their preconceived notions that such things are not proper? Homosexuality DOES offend some people. Using Shenbaw's logic, then, they ARE being harmed.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18768

But the questions is why are they being harmed. Would a person be harmed by homosexuality if they did not think it was wrong? I doubt it. [Mind you I'm not speaking I'm not talking about if a said person was married to or dating that someone who discovered their homosexuality, in which case you'd have to factor in a million and one other reasons a relationship could go bad as equally harmful or wrong] Back to the point, the harm is caused by a belief that something is wrong, not the act or sexual preference itself, so in a sense the person is hurting themselves, and you can't really blame another for the harm one may do to himself.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18774

Bookworm wrote: Using Shenbaw's logic, then, they ARE being harmed.

And you would be foolish to suggest, building on the logic you just based that on, that many people do not feel harmed by their offence of homosexuality, therefore making it a harm to themselves. People's perception of harm does not always, if ever, equate to the direct harm actually upon a person. These people honestly feel they are being harmed, just as much as someone who actually is being harmed, their biology has kicked in after that. So how do you fix that?



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18775

MrSelf wrote:

Bookworm wrote: Using Shenbaw's logic, then, they ARE being harmed.

And you would be foolish to suggest, building on the logic you just based that on, that many people do not feel harmed by their offence of homosexuality, therefore making it a harm to themselves. People's perception of harm does not always, if ever, equate to the direct harm actually upon a person. These people honestly feel they are being harmed, just as much as someone who actually is being harmed, their biology has kicked in after that. So how do you fix that?

My point all along, in this and other threads, has been that "harm" should not be the only deciding factor in determining whether something is right or wrong. Judging "harm" can just get too subjective. That being said, understanding Scriptural principles can seem subjective as well. Even those people who do not believe the Bible word-for-word can still try to live by its general principles and try to fashion laws that reflect those principles to the best of our human ability.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18785

Harm is only a small factor of why things are wrong. Woman in some countries don't harm people, but yet it is illegal for them to show their faces, like it used to be in afghanistan. It's a law simply because it is. I don't agree with it at all and hopefully no one else does, but it's a good example of something that is considered wrong by a country, but does in no way harm anyone.

Some of the things considered wrong in society are more globolized, such as murder, stealing, vadilism, sexual immorality and such. In this case yes, probably the main reason is because they harm people, but it's not the only reason. Vandalism, for example does not always harm people. If people spray paint stuff under a bridge, nobody will really be affected, unless the paint is super powerful and has a pH of 1, it won't affect the bridge's functionability. nobody really gets harmed in any way. But it's still wrong and if they get caught they may have to pay a fine, or clean it up, or both.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:18966

Bookworm wrote:

shenbaw wrote: Isn't it the case that public nudity is more an act that offends people? It would be like putting a giant hand with an extended middle finger up on a billboard. It offends people and consequently causes them harm or distress because of it's offensiveness.

Yet someone argued with Red when he said homosexuality hurt a family member because they were offended by it. Which way do we want to go? Does offensiveness actually cause harm and distress?

That's right , I forgot you have trouble understanding anything that's not printed in black and white.

Being offended by someone being gay is like being offended by someone being fat or ugly. Just because you disagree with the state in which they exist, doesn't give you the right to claim to know or be better. Nor does it give you the right to claim to be harmed or damaged by the way they choose to live or their choice in lifestyle.

Just because someone chooses to be intolerant doesn't mean that they can claim personal harm or distress whenever they are forced to tolerate something they would rather not. Can you imagine how many people I could sue if I could claim personal harm and distress as a result of everything I chose to be intolerant of in my life? A LOT. "Oh, I'm being harmed cause they're making me sit next to this fat person on the plane," or "Oh, I'm being caused distress cause they made me ride on the train across from a Muslim." Everybody'd be suing the people they don't like simply because they don't agree with who or what they are. Disagreement or intolerability does not equate to harm or damage.

This is not the case with public nudity, or as it is referred to in the legal world "Indecent Exposure." We have laws in our society to ensure the general decency of people. These laws include outlawing things like public nudity, public displays of vulgarity or offensive language (this includes hate speech), as well as things like threats to the general public or public displays of intimidation. These acts actually cause harm to people in that they expose poeple to indecent material or content and consequently inhibit their ability to live their life happily. By someone exposing themselves or screaming vulgarities in public, they are infringing upon the right of others to enjoy that same public space. In doing so, they have caused the people they effect harm.

You guys disagreeing with someone being gay is not the same thing as being offended by someone being gay. No matter how much they might feel like the same thing, they're not. When you think about it, there really is nothing offensive about someone being gay. If a gay person wouldn't stop hitting on you, that might be offensive, or if you saw two gay people making out in public, that might offend you. But the simple fact that someone is gay in no way causes any harm or damage to you or anyone else other than differing from your internal belief that you know better than the person you are judging. Other than effecting your internal sense of moral righteousness, it doesn't effect anything or anyone other than the gay person. That's what legislating morality is. Legislating acts that potentially cause no harm other than to the person taking that action and the morality of the people who think they know that it's wrong."

Oh and Red, just because something doesn't cause personal harm to an individual, doesn't mean it's not causing harm or damage. Simply becuase the city owns a certain piece of property (like that under a bridge) doesn't mean that that property can not still be damaged. Defacing property is still defacing and damaging that property even if an individual doesn't own it.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19012

Thanks for your attempts to differentiate what constitutes harm. Inhibiting someone's ability to live their life happily is harm, is it? Some people say that we Americans are rather prudish and shouldn't feel such harm in displays of public nudity. Wouldn't the harm felt by experiencing public nudity be to some degree a righteous indignation situation?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19075

Bookworm wrote: Thanks for your attempts to differentiate what constitutes harm. Inhibiting someone's ability to live their life happily is harm, is it? Some people say that we Americans are rather prudish and shouldn't feel such harm in displays of public nudity. Wouldn't the harm felt by experiencing public nudity be to some degree a righteous indignation situation?

First of all, I think you're pretty sad if you need someone to blindfold you to the harsher realities of life. If I had a pound note for every time someone told me to fudge off or to go fudge myself I'd be filthy stinking rich. Putting together the words f k u c does not cause your ears to grow cancerous tumors or kill kittens. Indignation? Live with it. If you burst into tears when you see the word "F U C K" something is wrong with you. The excuse "IT'S FOR THE KIDS SAFETY" is not a valid reply either because one: saying 'norty words" will in NO way ruin the kids life forever, nor will it kill them. Two: they hear it on the play yard all the time. It's no big.

Someone here told me we should value other people's feelings. Well, I'd rather someone tell me to fudge off than laugh with me while I'm around then plant a knife squarly in my back whilst I'm turned around. Americans like that sort of thing, so it seems. I don't. It's this silly fácade of happiness and joy that drives so many people off the wall, it is that same fácade that drives people to killing other by going postal. It's no wonder you people need so many antidepressants, what with this image of perfection and ultimate happiness that must be portrayed by all Americans.

It's all the same thing with nudity and sexuality. Red claims that gays are sinners. So what? They're not running after him and bumming him are they? Righto. As for nudity, seeing a penis or tits won't hurt you or harm you. Anyway, it's not like someone holds a .357 Magnum to your head and forces you to look at a nude lady. You have a choice to NOT look at pr0n or Playboy Mag if you don't like it. This is what the US is about isn't it? Choices! People should not have morals imposed upon them when it comes to such petty issues. Also, gays are not going to kill you in an alleyway or bum you. You need to look after your OWN business. Same as the gays.

Lastly, sueing someone over indignation is the most retarded thing I have ever heard. Again, you guys have indignated me very often and I don't jump on my high horse and threaten to sue. It's not that important and it is not a life-and-death matter.

/rant off

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19079

Bookworm wrote: Thanks for your attempts to differentiate what constitutes harm. Inhibiting someone's ability to live their life happily is harm, is it? Some people say that we Americans are rather prudish and shouldn't feel such harm in displays of public nudity. Wouldn't the harm felt by experiencing public nudity be to some degree a righteous indignation situation?

If I'm walking down the street and I see my four year old daughter staring at some guys wang as he's walking down the street and I become offended by that? No, that's not "righteous indignation." It's protecting and insuring what I feel is best for my child.

The same can be said for profanity, offensive language, or hate speech. Sure, most of it probably won't mentally or emotionally harm me (an adult), but if we allow it in public places we are essentially saying it's okay for our children to witness this type of behavior. Will, the point is not that it will "ruin a kids life forever" or "kill them." The point is that we as parents, have a right to determine what is appropriate behavior for our children to experience. Perhaps you think it's okay to tell your kids to "fudge off," but there are many parents out there who do not. If we allow public nudity, public profanity, public indecency of any kind, we are basically taking the parent's right to determine what is appropriate for their own children away from the parents. Is that really where we want to go???

And though it very well may come as a surprise to someone like Will here, some grown ups actually are offended and hurt or harmed by being told to "fudge off." Probably not many, but believe me, they're out there.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19087

So can we safely say that public nudity is a morality issue, for that matter, that legislating against things that personally offends people are moralilty issues?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19101

MrSelf wrote: So can we safely say that public nudity is a morality issue, for that matter, that legislating against things that personally offends people are moralilty issues?

Do you think so? I don't. I think I need to clarify something though. To me, there is a big difference between legislating against things that happen to have a "moral" justification as well as a deeper more driving "damage/harm to others" justification (this would basically include everything we legislate against. Murder, stealing, assault, etc. These are things that, though they may be considered immoral to most people, the reason we legislate against them is mainly because they cause harm to others and infringe upon another person's rights as a person) and legislating against things based solely on the fact that we consider them to be wrong, or based solely on a morals.

In this sense, I do not feel that public nudity is a moral issue. If it were a strictly moral issue, we would legislate against the act of being naked, not being naked in public. If the only thing motivating laws against indecency were morality, we would legislate against indecency. But we don't, we legislate against indecency in public. Why? Because it effects other people and their right to enjoy the public space. If the only thing motivating laws against acts that "personally offend people" were our morals, we would legislate against them in private as well as in public, but we don't. If you are in a room by yourself you are completely within your rights to blurt out any type of profane, racist, hateful, kind of language you can think of, and no one will care whatsoever. However, if you are in public and you say those type of things, you will likely get in a bit of trouble because others can hear you and the things you say or do can and most likely will effect the people around you.

In this way, most things we legislate against, though they very well may be considered wrong or immoral by many people, are in fact justified by the effects they have on or the damage they cause to other people by violating their rights. The things that I consider "moral issues" aren't things we legislate against that are "wrong" (one could argue that every law is made to outlaw something that is "wrong"), but rather are things we legislate against because of no other reason other than they are wrong.

I think this lack of distinction has been the cause of much of the confusion around this topic as of late. My appologies for that.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19112

I don't know, because in some places nudity, or partial nudity in public is okay. Do these people not care about thier children? Of course they do, but the people have decided that nudity is not an issue that causes harm with their children. I think it is a moral issue, for it's only an issue because some people believe that it causes harm to their children.

Back to the issue:
Let's do this - separate issues into moral issues or criminal issues(infringing on anothers rights)

List issues that belong in these groups, lets get some common ground.

(from above post)
Murder
stealing
assault

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19123

MrSelf wrote: I don't know, because in some places nudity, or partial nudity in public is okay. Do these people not care about thier children? Of course they do, but the people have decided that nudity is not an issue that causes harm with their children. I think it is a moral issue, for it's only an issue because some people believe that it causes harm to their children.

But what I'm saying is that in our society, it is not strictly a matter of morality. We have determined that it is a right of a parent in our society to be able to determine what their child can or can not witness or experience in their early years. If they want to let their children watch R rated movies at home, that's fine. If they want to let their children watch porn at home, that is absolutely fantastic! But what's not okay, is exposing another person's child to something they very well might have a problem with, without their permission. That would be violating that parent's right to determine or filter the material or content that their child witnesses. So you see, it can't be considered a "strictly moral issue" if there is an underlying and more pressing issue of a "person's rights." In this other place, where nudity is okay, if you live there, you obviously give up the right to filter your children from exposure to nudity since you would not be able to walk outside without being exposed to it. This other place has determined that nudity is not one of the things that people have a right to object to. Therefore, there would be no violation of rights if none existed in the first place. In our society however, parents are afforded that right. And for that matter, people are afforded the right to filter themselves from material we have determined very well may be indecent to many people and may cause some people a great deal of distress or offense.

MrSelf wrote: Back to the issue:
Let's do this - separate issues into moral issues or criminal issues(infringing on anothers rights)

List issues that belong in these groups, lets get some common ground.

(from above post)
Murder
stealing
assault

I'd have to say...

Strictly moral issues
Homosexuality
Same-sex Marriage
Prostitution
Euthenasia
Recreational use of marajiuana
Prohibition of alcohol
For many years legislating against things like interracial marriage
etc.

Criminal issues that violate someone's rights
All other crimes

I like this game. Hopefully others will help out.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19125

shenbaw wrote: snip

All well and true. However, it is the government that TRAINS you to associate the sexual organs as "naughty bits." If you feel the need to protect your child from normal, common parts of a human being please do so, but if, let's just say IF, the middle finger had to be covered up because it is used as an insultive gesture and may "offend" others, there would be an enormous ruckus from some, whilst others would be happy as pigs in crap.

we as parents, have a right to determine what is appropriate behavior for our children to experience. Perhaps you think it's okay to tell your kids to "fudge off," but there are many parents out there who do not. If we allow public nudity, public profanity, public indecency of any kind, we are basically taking the parent's right to determine what is appropriate for their own children away from the parents. Is that really where we want to go???

Therefore, we, as adults, should be restricted from doing perfectly normal and harmless things for the kiddies? I think not. You only make things a problem if you want them to be. If your kid sees a wang and you tell the kid it's a naughty bit and should be covered up, you are assigning the "sex" variable to a wang. If the kid did not know it was for sex before, hesheit knows now. Ditto for fudge and company. You as a parent are royally screwing your kid up without knowing it, therefore the need for filtering out content. Why should parents turn the world into a kid friendly, oh-my-gosh-instead-of-oh-my-god kind of place? If you want to preserve your child's innocence, lock them up inside a community only for parents of children, no nudity or sex or violence allowed.

If we allow public nudity, public profanity, public indecency of any kind, we are basically taking the parent's right to determine what is appropriate for their own children away from the parents

YES! It is our right as human beings. Speaking from a humanistic point of view, taking away our most basic rights, the right to curse, the right to walk around wearing nothing but a smile. Outlawing these things would be absolutely Nazistic and level to what Hitler did. Why should you force others to do what you think is best for your child? Only YOU need do that, we don't need to sacrifice our freedoms for your kid.

Assigning an offensive value to something makes it offensive.


Okay, next thing. Look at the muslims. Their idea of morality for women is to cover them up when they are married. I'm not even going to get into the amount of ruckus the feminist would raise if this idea became famous among nazi-whoops, parents like yourselves.

Now, let's imagine that some muslim dude comes up to the Queen or to President Bush and asks them to start covering up the women, he would get a resounding "NO!"

Giving a parent the right to block out things for their children has been a bad idea and always will be as long as people like you exist, people who would have us all saying, "Oh, fie! I do believe I dropped me pen!" instead of "F__knuggets, damn pen fell on the ground.".

Your morals are not the same as his.

Now, forcing your morals on someone else? That is a blatant violation of humanism. One of the things I like about the UK is the freedom to do things. To curse, to sex, to fart in public. Same goes for the US. Taking away this most basic of freedoms would be equal to flat out fascism. Just ask Red how he would like it if Christianity was deemed inappropiate for kids and was outlawed. He'd crazy go nuts.

I really, really hate people who are so immature as to yell "I DON'T WANT MY KID TO SEEHEAR fudge" when I speak about censorship. That's not really a valid argument. It would be like saying, "The human male's genitals are too constricted by tighty whities. Therefore, all men shuld wear boxes." It's not a valid point. And as I said before, you behave as if your child would be forced to see nudity or hear cussing. Don't like your kid hearing that? Keep them inside the house. It's almost as crazy an idea as removeing our basic rights so the kiddies won't be harmed. It just doesn't make sense!

Parents, get over it. Nudity is there, it ain't going anywhere. Same goes for the word fudge, and sexing. I won't allow you to undermine my rights simply so your little crotch cricket doesn't see a pair of tits.

Sometimes, it pains me to see how backward we are when it comes to these things.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19186

Yes Will, we're all aware that everyone in the world is "backwards" about nearly everything except for you. You obviously have a very clear-cut understanding of exactly how the world should be as well as the people within it. However, the world is not always what we think it should or should not be. Sometimes the world is the way it is and we have to accept it and attempt to understand it as such. I don't make the rules, I'm just talking about my understanding of why they exist. If you want to use vulgarity around and expose yours and others children (though I can't imagine you have any ) to nudity and other material that is deemed to be "adult content" by our society, good for you, I'm sure it will get you far in life. However, as I said numerous times in my last post, I know at least here in the states, there are many many people who would be pissed as hell if you took it upon yourself to decide what "adult content" their children can or can not witness. The reason, as I said before, is that we here in the states have these little things called rights.

Will wrote: Parents, get over it. Nudity is there, it ain't going anywhere. Same goes for the word fudge, and sexing. I won't allow you to undermine my rights simply so your little crotch cricket doesn't see a pair of tits.

You seem to be quite knowledgable and defensive about your rights Will, you should really be able to comprehend the fact that other people have them too. It is the undeniable right of a parent to be able to regulate the amount of "adult content" their child witnesses. Blah, Blah, Blah... I feel like I just said this. It would seem that you, Will, are the one who needs to "get over it," not the parents.

Will wrote: One of the things I like about the UK is the freedom to do things. To curse, to sex, to fart in public. Same goes for the US.

You can have sex in public in the UK??? Wow. When's the next flight? According to most of the legal studies classes I've taken on laws in the United States, having sex in public is in fact illegal here.

Will wrote: taking away our most basic rights, the right to curse, the right to walk around wearing nothing but a smile. Outlawing these things would be absolutely Nazistic and level to what Hitler did.

Again, I had no idea that public nudity was a "basic right" over there in the UK? So requiring people to wear clothing is equal to killing 5 or 6 million people??? Huh, who knew?

Anyway, good for you Will for having the clarity and omniscient viewpoint that the rest of us lack and for thinking it's okay to tell a four year old child to "F_ck off." I sincerely hope I'm never as smart as you are.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19195

shenbaw wrote: snip

Shenbaw, what the fudge are you babbling about? You're taking an entirely different line here. I NEVER, EVER stated that you should tell a four-year-old to fsck off.

Public nudity is illegal NOW, but some years in the future, it is possible those laws might be relaxed.

Now in your weird, nazistic future, let's experiment.
Meet mr. Hypothetical! And his four year old daughter! Now then, let's say Mr. Hypothetical walks down the street with his daughter and hears me telling one of my mates he should go fsck himself, he replies I'm a stupid fsck and then Mr. Hypothetical calls in the INTERPOL for a matter of National Security: a group of 14-year-olds uttered the word "fsck" within his daughter's hearing range. Orders are given to shoot all the offenders on sight.

I think you can guess where this is going.

Now then, Shenbaw, if you like this idea, I think you should see a headshrinker. I'm not saying you should allow a child to see porn or hear "bad wang-gwidge" but why should we, the common, adult citizens, be kept from doing so? Why can't we just peacefully tell each other, like sane, normal adults, to fsck off? Why can't we whip out the old man to pee in a secluded corner?

Shenbaw, I think something is wrong with you if you want people to be FINED for saying fudge in a public place, to another adult.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19252

This is interesting. This thread started with me being asked what laws, if any, I would consider appropriate if they were based solely on a religious viewpoint of morality. Then William gets on and describes an entirely opposite viewpoint of morality from mine (based in part on his belief in humanism, which, by the way, has been determined to be a religion), and Shenbaw ends up disagreeing with both of us extremists. What a riot.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19254

Anyway, back to the game. Would laws prohibiting or restricting gambling be primarily morality based laws?

If the prohibition of alchohol is strictly a moral issue, what about the prohibition of it for adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Aren't there some safety concerns as well for that age group?

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19255

Bookworm wrote: Anyway, back to the game. Would laws prohibiting or restricting gambling be primarily morality based laws?

If the prohibition of alchohol is strictly a moral issue, what about the prohibition of it for adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Aren't there some safety concerns as well for that age group?

In Britain(rule britannia)you can drink alcohol with your parent's permission at age 4.

Now, if you believed all the hype MADD told you, we would all be lepers with crusted over livers and irregular heartbeats. So, I shall disprove each myth one by one:

1. Alcohol damages a still-developing brain.

Fact: At age 21 your brain is STILL developing, so nuts to that. Also, if that were true, 90% of Grea Britain would be in a coma.

2. Alcohol damages the liver.

Yeah, it would. If you pickle yourself in it by drink an unholy amount of it. Other than that you're fine.

3. Alcohol damages the heart

See Number 3.



Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19260

Will wrote: Shenbaw, what the fudge are you babbling about? You're taking an entirely different line here.

Will, this entirely different line I'm taking, is the line of the thread. You should try it once in a while. I think I'm putting WW on ignore for a while. He seems to have trouble staying on topic. And when he does stay partially on topic, all he does is come up with stupid "hypotheticals" and accuse others of being in support of them. Will, there's a big difference between someone overhearing a conversation between you and your "mate" and directly verbally assaulting someone. I'm talking about the later, which I do believe should be regulated in some way. Do you?
Public Nudity? Again, I'm talking about the present Will. Not the "hypothetical" future you would like this discussion to revolve around. It's illegal. There are reasons it's illegal. That's what I'm talking about, nothing else. If you want to discuss the future or what should or should not be regulated in the future, perhaps we could start a different thread for that. Though I doubt anyone would participate because the whole thread would just be you ranting about how this world is so f-d up and how America is the cause of all of it's problems.

Bookworm wrote: Anyway, back to the game. Would laws prohibiting or restricting gambling be primarily morality based laws?

If the prohibition of alchohol is strictly a moral issue, what about the prohibition of it for adults between the ages of 18 and 20. Aren't there some safety concerns as well for that age group?

I would think gambling laws are primarily morally based, depending on the law. Many years ago when there were laws outlawing any type of gambling whatsoever, those were definitely morally based. For the most part, any law meant to protect the criminal or the person breaking the law from themselves to me would seem to be "moral laws." However, our current state of laws governing and limiting gambling to only reservation-run casinos and state operated lotery games (in Minnesota) would not really be "morally" based in my mind. The state has excepted gambling as a morally exceptable behavior and they are just trying to make sure that any and all profit from such behavior go to the places they want it to go. Those laws don't have much to do with morals in my opinion.

As for alchohol. I don't really think laws setting the legal drinking age at 21 are "moral" laws. I think they're more safety laws. When alchohol was under complete prohibition back in the thirty's, those were morally motivated laws because it was our government deciding that the consumption of alchohol is in fact "wrong." When the legal drinking age used to be 18, was it then right for people under the age of 21 but older than 18 to consume alchohol? No. It was just legal. Right now, is it necessarily "wrong" for a person who's 20 years old to drink alchohol? No. It's just illegal. It's actually legal for a person under 21 to drink alchohol under the supervision of their parents within their home. (I think) That right there would seem to be clear evidence that the act itself is not "wrong" just that our government has decided it's something they need to regulate. Kind of like the legal driving age of 16, it's not that it's morally wrong to drive before that (kids on farms do it all the time), it's just that that is the age our government has decided we're ready for the responsibility of driving a vehicle.

Archived topic from Anythingforums, old topic ID:1462, old post ID:19268