That is very subjective. What controlled substance, and by whom is judging you? Which is why it should be left at that.jord wrote:
Elaborate please. Are you sugggesting my example is immoral?Phrozenbot wrote:
Morally unacceptable. There.JohnG@lt wrote:
Ahh, well the point I was trying to make is that we have laws on the books that create victimless crime when there shouldn't be any. For a crime to be a crime, there needs to be a victim. When there is no victim it is a mislabeled moral stance.
Uzique wrote:
uzique im not going to get into some big argument and 3-page long-quote train with you because you can't stand to be wrong.. recognise that you don't know everything.
"Victimless" Crimes: Offenses involving a willing and private exchange of goods or services that are in strong demand but are illegal(for example, gambling, prostitution, drug law violations, and homosexual acts between consenting adults).
From my Criminal Justice textbook.
From my Criminal Justice textbook.
Shrooms for example then. It's the season for them here. Is me going and picking some naturally occuring fungus for recreational use immoral in your opinion?Phrozenbot wrote:
That is very subjective. What controlled substance, and by whom is judging you? Which is why it should be left at that.jord wrote:
Elaborate please. Are you sugggesting my example is immoral?Phrozenbot wrote:
Morally unacceptable. There.
And at what point do you stop tracking the victims? When it comes to an illicit drug, you having it may not be harming anyone, but the manufacture and transport of it may very well have, thus making it not so much of a victimless crime.Phrozenbot wrote:
That is very subjective. What controlled substance, and by whom is judging you? Which is why it should be left at that.jord wrote:
Elaborate please. Are you sugggesting my example is immoral?Phrozenbot wrote:
Morally unacceptable. There.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
john is all hung up on this revanchist principle that law should seek to redress the balance of 'an eye for an eye' and should punish people that have incurred harm against another. what he doesn't realize is that massive areas of legislation and legal structure apply to areas of every-day society that have nothing to do with the category of 'victim crimes' or rather, 'offences against x' (x being property, people, etc.) law is there to regulate and provide a supporting framework to many areas of civilian life-- contract law, corporate law, laws on libel, competition law etc. are all laws that don't necessarily try to 'protect' any one individual from a certain crime/offence against him/her, but rather to make sure that fair practice is followed throughout and to make sure that everybody has full legal and statutory rights.13/f/taiwan wrote:
"Victimless" Crimes: Offenses involving a willing and private exchange of goods or services that are in strong demand but are illegal(for example, gambling, prostitution, drug law violations, and homosexual acts between consenting adults).
From my Criminal Justice textbook.
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
You're mainly talking about narcotics, marijuana, etc. They are all illegal and the market is regulated by criminals. Drug dealers don't ID and sell to those under 18, people are murdered, extortion occurs, theft, etc is all common place in those black markets. If they were legal and open, especially regulated and taxed by the government, you could seriously see less violence surrounding those drugs.FEOS wrote:
And at what point do you stop tracking the victims? When it comes to an illicit drug, you having it may not be harming anyone, but the manufacture and transport of it may very well have, thus making it not so much of a victimless crime.Phrozenbot wrote:
That is very subjective. What controlled substance, and by whom is judging you? Which is why it should be left at that.jord wrote:
Elaborate please. Are you sugggesting my example is immoral?
But the question posed to Jord about the subjectivity is, even someone having a beer after work could be considered immoral by a Muslim, yet a Christian or atheist may not care.
Of course it depends on which specific narcotic. The heroin business is obviously going to involve far more violence than a guy growing some plants in his basement and selling them.Phrozenbot wrote:
You're mainly talking about narcotics, marijuana, etc. They are all illegal and the market is regulated by criminals. Drug dealers don't ID and sell to those under 18, people are murdered, extortion occurs, theft, etc is all common place in those black markets. If they were legal and open, especially regulated and taxed by the government, you could seriously see less violence surrounding those drugs.FEOS wrote:
And at what point do you stop tracking the victims? When it comes to an illicit drug, you having it may not be harming anyone, but the manufacture and transport of it may very well have, thus making it not so much of a victimless crime.Phrozenbot wrote:
That is very subjective. What controlled substance, and by whom is judging you? Which is why it should be left at that.
But the question posed to Jord about the subjectivity is, even someone having a beer after work could be considered immoral by a Muslim, yet a Christian or atheist may not care.
People find lots of things immoral, I'm generally apathetic to such judgements. I was curious as to your opinion though after your post I quoted on the previous page.
how the hell did you guys get on to discussing the morality of private drug-use in a thread about music piracy
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Victimless crimeUzique wrote:
how the hell did you guys get on to discussing the morality of private drug-use in a thread about music piracy
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I've seen wierder derails.
Well I was also wondering what substance you were talking about. I assumed weed and if it was brought up I missed it.jord wrote:
People find lots of things immoral, I'm generally apathetic to such judgements. I was curious as to your opinion though after your post I quoted on the previous page.
My faith says to abstain from substances that alter the mind. If weed does this for you, I suppose, but you are also free to do what you wish, as long as no one's liberties are infringed.
Videofiles? Does that even exists? But seriously I disagree, everyone downloads, your mum, your GF, your friends and I doubt all are "audiophiles".Harmor wrote:
Music downloaders are Audiophiles. This make sense.
I wonder if this is the same for movies?
We could probably turn this into an Israel/Palestine thread in less than a page...jord wrote:
I've seen wierder derails.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
it's kinda impossible to strictly be an "audiophile" with downloaded digital content....Sup wrote:
Videofiles? Does that even exists? But seriously I disagree, everyone downloads, your mum, your GF, your friends and I doubt all are "audiophiles".Harmor wrote:
Music downloaders are Audiophiles. This make sense.
I wonder if this is the same for movies?
unless you have the equipment, of course, to perfectly encode it to 45rpm vinyl!
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I have no doubt that you do drugs precisely because you are so absurdly unlikeable that it is the only thing that makes you socially tolerable. Zoned out in a corner keeps you from opening your mouth and pissing off every single person you come into contact with.Uzique wrote:
john im not going to get into some big argument and 3-page long-quote train with you because you can't stand to be wrong or lacking a clue on any given subject (we have all seen it many, many times in D&ST...). im just saying to you "read a book" before you come out with all this quasi-authoritative bullshit: "laws without a victim should NOT be a law AT ALL"- yeahhhhh NO... shut up. recognise that you don't know everything and just go do a cursory wikipedia search or check a relevant legal journal. at the end of the day, it's not a great deal of effort to spend in order to prevent yourself from looking like a bellend.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Right, and as I was saying, these are 'crimes' that shouldn't be crimes at all.13/f/taiwan wrote:
"Victimless" Crimes: Offenses involving a willing and private exchange of goods or services that are in strong demand but are illegal(for example, gambling, prostitution, drug law violations, and homosexual acts between consenting adults).
From my Criminal Justice textbook.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
You kind of missed the point. Phrozenbot, like me, thinks morality should be stripped out of law. What you do in your own home shouldn't be the business of anyone else. Drug laws are built on morality, they create no victim, and thus have no real place in a society built on reason.jord wrote:
Of course it depends on which specific narcotic. The heroin business is obviously going to involve far more violence than a guy growing some plants in his basement and selling them.Phrozenbot wrote:
You're mainly talking about narcotics, marijuana, etc. They are all illegal and the market is regulated by criminals. Drug dealers don't ID and sell to those under 18, people are murdered, extortion occurs, theft, etc is all common place in those black markets. If they were legal and open, especially regulated and taxed by the government, you could seriously see less violence surrounding those drugs.FEOS wrote:
And at what point do you stop tracking the victims? When it comes to an illicit drug, you having it may not be harming anyone, but the manufacture and transport of it may very well have, thus making it not so much of a victimless crime.
But the question posed to Jord about the subjectivity is, even someone having a beer after work could be considered immoral by a Muslim, yet a Christian or atheist may not care.
People find lots of things immoral, I'm generally apathetic to such judgements. I was curious as to your opinion though after your post I quoted on the previous page.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Morality of drug use>morality of killing in wartime>example of israeli soldier killing a civilian>post about israeli soldiers have no right to be there>retort about hamas provacationFEOS wrote:
We could probably turn this into an Israel/Palestine thread in less than a page...jord wrote:
I've seen wierder derails.
I think it'd be possible to do it in less steps.
i have no doubt that, yet again, you have no idea what you're talking about so you're resorting to the only thing you know how... personally insulting people in the most inane, baseless and puerile ways . don't get all pissy-fitty with me, john, because i can't be bothered to get into another dilbert-style education of your ignorant self. go read a fucking wikipedia article on 'victimless crimes', hell you'll be impressed many of those big names you love to quote have written on it in legal theory and key principles. seeing as only a page ago you were decrying "victimless crimes ARE NOT crimes!" in the most authoritative of manners, i can only assume that you'd voraciously eat up any genuine research that is available on the area.JohnG@lt wrote:
I have no doubt that you do drugs precisely because you are so absurdly unlikeable that it is the only thing that makes you socially tolerable. Zoned out in a corner keeps you from opening your mouth and pissing off every single person you come into contact with.Uzique wrote:
john im not going to get into some big argument and 3-page long-quote train with you because you can't stand to be wrong or lacking a clue on any given subject (we have all seen it many, many times in D&ST...). im just saying to you "read a book" before you come out with all this quasi-authoritative bullshit: "laws without a victim should NOT be a law AT ALL"- yeahhhhh NO... shut up. recognise that you don't know everything and just go do a cursory wikipedia search or check a relevant legal journal. at the end of the day, it's not a great deal of effort to spend in order to prevent yourself from looking like a bellend.
or you could just reply again to me in the same manner that you did to dilbert when he poked holes in your absolute lack of knowledge on any given subject: "yeah, well dilbert! not my fault a priest molested you when you were young!!!!" - "yeah, uzique, i bet you just do drugs cause you're an outcast!" hahaha . what a shame that in trying to construe a ridiculously desperate 'insult', you only show YET AGAIN how little you know about these things...
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
I don't think people can handle such a move. Especially with regards to animal cruelty, but let's no go there lest I be accused of being a serial derailer.JohnG@lt wrote:
You kind of missed the point. Phrozenbot, like me, thinks morality should be stripped out of law. What you do in your own home shouldn't be the business of anyone else. Drug laws are built on morality, they create no victim, and thus have no real place in a society built on reason.jord wrote:
Of course it depends on which specific narcotic. The heroin business is obviously going to involve far more violence than a guy growing some plants in his basement and selling them.Phrozenbot wrote:
You're mainly talking about narcotics, marijuana, etc. They are all illegal and the market is regulated by criminals. Drug dealers don't ID and sell to those under 18, people are murdered, extortion occurs, theft, etc is all common place in those black markets. If they were legal and open, especially regulated and taxed by the government, you could seriously see less violence surrounding those drugs.
But the question posed to Jord about the subjectivity is, even someone having a beer after work could be considered immoral by a Muslim, yet a Christian or atheist may not care.
People find lots of things immoral, I'm generally apathetic to such judgements. I was curious as to your opinion though after your post I quoted on the previous page.
Insult is still an insult. Cant believe you enjoy doing it so much even if it is written in a superior way than other's.Uzique wrote:
the only thing you know how... personally insulting people in the most inane, baseless and puerile ways
Because I went out of my way to piss off a troll? Dilbert is the troll of DST.Uzique wrote:
i have no doubt that, yet again, you have no idea what you're talking about so you're resorting to the only thing you know how... personally insulting people in the most inane, baseless and puerile ways . don't get all pissy-fitty with me, john, because i can't be bothered to get into another dilbert-style education of your ignorant self. go read a fucking wikipedia article on 'victimless crimes', hell you'll be impressed many of those big names you love to quote have written on it in legal theory and key principles. seeing as only a page ago you were decrying "victimless crimes ARE NOT crimes!" in the most authoritative of manners, i can only assume that you'd voraciously eat up any genuine research that is available on the area.JohnG@lt wrote:
I have no doubt that you do drugs precisely because you are so absurdly unlikeable that it is the only thing that makes you socially tolerable. Zoned out in a corner keeps you from opening your mouth and pissing off every single person you come into contact with.Uzique wrote:
john im not going to get into some big argument and 3-page long-quote train with you because you can't stand to be wrong or lacking a clue on any given subject (we have all seen it many, many times in D&ST...). im just saying to you "read a book" before you come out with all this quasi-authoritative bullshit: "laws without a victim should NOT be a law AT ALL"- yeahhhhh NO... shut up. recognise that you don't know everything and just go do a cursory wikipedia search or check a relevant legal journal. at the end of the day, it's not a great deal of effort to spend in order to prevent yourself from looking like a bellend.
or you could just reply again to me in the same manner that you did to dilbert when he poked holes in your absolute lack of knowledge on any given subject: "yeah, well dilbert! not my fault a priest molested you when you were young!!!!" - "yeah, uzique, i bet you just do drugs cause you're an outcast!" hahaha . what a shame that in trying to construe a ridiculously desperate 'insult', you only show YET AGAIN how little you know about these things...
Sigh, you obviously don't get the point I was trying to make. You chose to attack the messenger instead.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
it is the theoretical and principle aim of the law of any country to recognize its contemporary morality and to reflect the attitudes, morals and ethos of the people in codified legislation. saying "the law should be stripped of morality" makes ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY ZERO SENSE. if the law didn't build on pre-existing, populist moralities... then how would we have a categorical definition of 'murder'? after all, without the formal legislation and statute/case-law... what says and defines murder as a 'wrongful' act? MORALITY. honestly i wish you'd even read a paragraph of legal principles and fundamental theory... i feel like im back in my law class, age 16, surrounded by MORANS.
err, john... you are not making a point. other than a point of how little you understand the machinery of law.
err, john... you are not making a point. other than a point of how little you understand the machinery of law.
Last edited by Uzique (2010-09-09 16:02:21)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
Ahh, but the animal is the victim in that casejord wrote:
I don't think people can handle such a move. Especially with regards to animal cruelty, but let's no go there lest I be accused of being a serial derailer.JohnG@lt wrote:
You kind of missed the point. Phrozenbot, like me, thinks morality should be stripped out of law. What you do in your own home shouldn't be the business of anyone else. Drug laws are built on morality, they create no victim, and thus have no real place in a society built on reason.jord wrote:
Of course it depends on which specific narcotic. The heroin business is obviously going to involve far more violence than a guy growing some plants in his basement and selling them.
People find lots of things immoral, I'm generally apathetic to such judgements. I was curious as to your opinion though after your post I quoted on the previous page.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat