BF2S Forums Illegal downloaders 'spend the most on music'

Uzique wrote:

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.

jord wrote:

FEOS wrote:

But if you believe that the law reflects the morality of a society, then why would you argue for the legalization of something society has deemed illegal, thus going against the moral tide of society?

If the facts were presented to society on recreational drugs and in particular Cannabis and a vote was held regarding its illegal status I think it would be legalised. There is no logical counter argument to it.

Politics...

Uzique wrote:

because there's a huge issue with the 'war on drugs' as an ineffective method- and subsequently a waste of taxpayer's money and resources. it's not a principled take against it so much as a huge call to rethink it because it has achieved so little in quantifiable terms of success since its devising in the 1970's (talking about the UK specifically, here). my own personal stance, furthermore, as a libertarian on the subject has little-to-nothing to do with the ACTUAL FACT of how the law works and on which fundamental principles it is based. i am telling john that he is categorically WRONG on his 'victimless crimes arent crimes!' claim... and all he can do to comeback is construe some vague and inane remark about my personal life. whether i choose to take drugs and what i think, incidentally, of the war on drugs... has NOTHING to do with legal theory. it's john doing his typical thing of stringing out a poor argument for 5 posts to just end on a throw-out-the-pram insult. does it with everyone. yawn.

Uzique wrote:

john you are such a fucking idiot. first of all you say my personal stance is in direct contradiction to the legal governing principle (re: morality)... which is irrelevant, but still. next thing i am "bowing down to the mob"? jesus fucking christ dude, you really don't think this through, do you... i am merely stating the official, factual, inarguable legal information here. get a brain.

JohnG@lt wrote:

Uzique wrote:

because there's a huge issue with the 'war on drugs' as an ineffective method- and subsequently a waste of taxpayer's money and resources. it's not a principled take against it so much as a huge call to rethink it because it has achieved so little in quantifiable terms of success since its devising in the 1970's (talking about the UK specifically, here). my own personal stance, furthermore, as a libertarian on the subject has little-to-nothing to do with the ACTUAL FACT of how the law works and on which fundamental principles it is based. i am telling john that he is categorically WRONG on his 'victimless crimes arent crimes!' claim... and all he can do to comeback is construe some vague and inane remark about my personal life. whether i choose to take drugs and what i think, incidentally, of the war on drugs... has NOTHING to do with legal theory. it's john doing his typical thing of stringing out a poor argument for 5 posts to just end on a throw-out-the-pram insult. does it with everyone. yawn.

Uzique, you've yet to post anything constructive in this thread. All you've done is insult me in a long winded manner.

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.

Right, and as I was saying, these are 'crimes' that shouldn't be crimes at all.

dill13 wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

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.

Right, and as I was saying, these are 'crimes' that shouldn't be crimes at all.

Ok the illegal gambling has bookies and gang involvement which often times results in people being hurt killed over money making them legal and regulated by the government makes these things mostly go away(people still get loans for gambling from gangs where its legal. Prostitution has "pimps" which force there "hoes" to do things they dont want to or get beat up killed,again legal prostitution like in Nevada gets rid of most of this but there is still illegal prostitution with "pimps". Drug law violations obvious gang involvement dangers of making certain drugs and some drugs that are very dangerous to the users health, again legalizing this gets rid of some of the problems. the homosexual acts thing is just plain stupid though. So my point is none save the last one are truly victimless even if legal but I see no victim in pirating music. They have just recently change the laws in canada so that if internet companies can detect illegal downloading they are supposed to report you so i have stop pirating files i have also not bought any music or movies since i bought firefly like 2 years ago.

Uzique wrote:

FEOS wrote:

It just seems to be inconsistent, based on what you've been saying to John.

I don't disagree that the War on Drugs hasn't been the most effective method at demand reduction, but that is a separate discussion from the morality in law discussion. For you to argue that a society's morals are rightly reflected in it's laws, then to regularly engage in and advocate for the legalization of something that your society has deemed illegal seems incongruous, to say the least.

you're making a hugely wrong assumption in the part i bolded. i was correcting john on the law's OFFICIAL stance.

my own personal beliefs have nothing to do with taking the time of the day to tell him he's factually wrong on those principles.

i never said it was "right" for the laws to reflect morality. i just said they do. that's the logical process of law's basic formation.

Uzique wrote:

modern laws align with modern SECULAR morality. at least in europe, anyway.

original, 10 commandment style laws... sure... the old codified laws are there: homicide, theft, bigamy etc. very old case-law.

but many areas of modern law are made according to public morality that has nothing to do with judeo-christian values.

i think you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that copyright law, libel laws, digital privacy laws etc. are based on biblical precedent...

to argue the relation between a (contemporary) culture/society and its religious roots, that's another matter, though.

Uzique wrote:

well their ambiguity is something not found in law... quite the opposite... to say they are anything more than a fundamental building-block would be to overly attribute modern law with religious undertones. there isn't a law that bans disrespecting your neighbour, or being jealous of your friend's possessions, for example. "the big 10" aren't the master blueprint for modern law, but are an historical precedent for many contemporary pieces of statute/legislation (e.g. Homicide Act).