A moral too far ?

[Rat Faced]

Why not? One is more than enough usually though

Why Not? Why do we put animals down, but make humans suffer?

This is more than one question. You can drink at 5 years old in UK, but cant buy until 18.. whats the question?

This one doesnt work anywhere, i think that all these type of laws need to be looked at. A 17 year old sleeping with his 15 year old GF is a different thing than a 39 year old having a one night stand with a 15 year old.

That is linked to the above, and again.. doesnt work. When a girl has decided she will open her legs, there is no "Law" that is gonna stop her, and no shortage of volunteers for the offer. Education and peer pressure would make a better barrier than the Law ever will.

Ahh but if a 30 year-old fucks a 16 year-old consensually, it's against the law. Why?

An 18 year-old is deemed an adult (in the US) yet can't drink alcohol. Why?

In parts of the USA, which has possibly the highest "Age of Consent" in the free world

Thats why i said 15, as this covers the UK and most of the States... although not some other countries i can think of.

As to the alcohol, think yourself lucky... there was a time it was illegal altogether there (Its 18 to buy alcohol in UK, although perfectly legal to drink it from age 5 under supervision and if it wasnt bought specifically for you or in a licensed premises/public place)

[Busyman]

Ahh but if a 30 year-old fucks a 16 year-old consensually, it's against the law. Why?

An 18 year-old is deemed an adult (in the US) yet can't drink alcohol. Why?

In parts of the USA, which has possibly the highest "Age of Consent" in the free world

Thats why i said 15, as this covers the UK and most of the States... although not some other countries i can think of.

As to the alcohol, think yourself lucky... there was a time it was illegal altogether there (Its 18 to buy alcohol in UK, although perfectly legal to drink it from age 5 under supervision and if it wasnt bought specifically for you or in a licensed premises/public place)

What states? Must be the midwest.

Personal morals are "forced" upon all of us. It's sometimes called law. There usually is a consensus though.

[vidcc]

Now wtf? That's what everyone in this damn thread has been saying. Oh and now YOU say it. ....and you call me high? You deserve the NO SHIT award. :trophy: As I said, great post for the article. Other than that, moral values, even personal ones, make up most of our law.

I've been saying it from the very begining but because i said i don't like people trying to legislate their values on me I get accused of being anti free expression. Which is bull crap, eveyone dislikes having laws they disagree with forced upon them...lobbying is just a part of the whole process.

Originally Posted by vidcc
I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values,

Yes but no different than you saying you don't like the law and wish it were different and no different from you lobbying to try to counter their attempt.

Hmmm but values make up our laws.

And the ones that protect others such as murder are just because it invloves a victim.
One like the one in this thread is unjust because they wish to deny people medicine because they feel that promiscuity is a "moral crime"... but where is the victim?

A person in their own front yard may just be sitting in a chair naked and can be seen from the street. Why is this illegal?
You seem to agree with this nudity "as long there is a high fence."

Without the high fence you are inflicting your nudity on others..therefore a victim is involved.... you have the right to walk around naked if you wish but it has to be in private or you infringe on the rights of others. I don't understand what is so immoral about the human body, we all have one, some have better bodies than others. But some people are offended by it so you forcing them to see it is unjust. You would be denying them their choice not to see you naked.

Same with pornography...watch as much as you want, but if you have it playing on the tv in your teams bus so eveyone that passes or is driving behind you sees it...then you are creating a victim.

You have the right to have guns, you do not have the right to shoot at random people.

Marriage itself comes from moral values.
So does cursing in public.

So????

[JPaul]

The bottom line is that you see yourself as someone who is an advocate of freedom of expression and you are not.

You cannot deal with the idea that you must support everyone's rights, no matter how much you disagree with them.

This subject is an example of that. You cannot accept that the people who disagree with this vaccination have a right to try to get it banned.

[vidcc]

The bottom line is that you see yourself as someone who is an advocate of freedom of expression and you are not.

utter incorrect rubbish...

You cannot deal with the idea that you must support everyone's rights, no matter how much you disagree with them.

utter incorrect rubbish again

This subject is an example of that. You cannot accept that the people who disagree with this vaccination have a right to try to get it banned.

the bottom line is that you are a wrong. the bottom line is you ignored what was written again and again.

the homeless person with a dog was a fantastic example that you are what you accuse me of being...someone against freedom of expression.

[Busyman]

I've been saying it from the very begining but because i said i don't like people trying to legislate their values on me I get accused of being anti free expression. Which is bull crap, eveyone dislikes having laws they disagree with forced upon them...lobbying is just a part of the whole process.

Originally Posted by vidcc
I am denying them the right to force others to comply to their values,

Yes but no different than you saying you don't like the law and wish it were different and no different from you lobbying to try to counter their attempt.
What are you talking about? That is completely different. Not liking a law and denying rights are entirely different. You could not be a judge. You want to deny people's rights.

Hmmm but values make up our laws.

And the ones that protect others such as murder are just because it invloves a victim.
One like the one in this thread is unjust because they wish to deny people medicine because they feel that promiscuity is a "moral crime"... but where is the victim?
The people are perceived as victims.

A person in their own front yard may just be sitting in a chair naked and can be seen from the street. Why is this illegal?
You seem to agree with this nudity "as long there is a high fence."

Without the high fence you are inflicting your nudity on others..therefore a victim is involved.... you have the right to walk around naked if you wish but it has to be in private or you infringe on the rights of others. I don't understand what is so immoral about the human body, we all have one, some have better bodies than others. But some people are offended by it so you forcing them to see it is unjust. You would be denying them their choice not to see you naked.
Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

Same with pornography...watch as much as you want, but if you have it playing on the tv in your teams bus so eveyone that passes or is driving behind you sees it...then you are creating a victim.

You have the right to have guns, you do not have the right to shoot at random people.

Marriage itself comes from moral values.
So does cursing in public.

So????

So victims are perceived and all it takes is for enough people to think the same way to put a law on the books. I can say Jewhewgadoo but can't say vid is an lowmoralatheist bee0000tch without a passerby being offended. What if just Jewhewgadoo was just as offensive.?

People were offended by a dance called the Crip Walk and it was made into law that the dance was illegal. Was that just?

'As long as hurts no one' else doesn't work all the time. The UK thought so and banned guns. Why? Because every so often someone gets pissed and kills someone in a rage with one. Kids sometimes get a hold of one.

We've made doing PCP illegal. People sometimes go out and kill when they are on it. Kids sometimes get a hold of it.

18 year-olds can't legally drink liquor here. They are perceived as not being responsible enough to handle it yet are considered adults. They can vote and everything and even.

17 year-olds (nd under) are considered minors here. Our personal moral center deemed it this way and made it law. However, other countries may have different ages.

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still wouldn't deny them their rights like you would.

[vidcc]

What are you talking about? That is completely different. Not liking a law and denying rights are entirely different. You could not be a judge. You want to deny people's rights

.
what rights am i denying? Think about it.....

I am fighting for rights... by your definition you are denying rights because you seem to be saying that if you disagree with anything you are denying rights. I disagree with things. YOU disagree with things. Disagreeing doesn't mean denying

disagree: To have a differing opinion

deny: To decline to grant or allow.

I am disagreeing not disallowing.

The people are perceived as victims.

how? victims of what?

they make the choice to sleep around, they are not forced to and are not forcing anyone to sleep with them.

Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

No... I consider them victims because of THEIR basis of morality. Yes people can be offended by anything. Some in my opinion are offended too easily. They have every right to object by things in their face, but they shouldn't be stopping things that are not ( I realise you will now try to find some extreme counter).
In the gun debate you objected to the views that some had that you don't need or should be allowed to have your guns. Constitution aside you would object and fight any attempt to remove your guns.
Don't make yourself to be any different from me or anyone else. We ALL object to things.

to the rest of your post. How many other examples of "unjust" laws on the books are you going to post?
I already said we have too many unjust laws already.

Edit:

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still would deny them their rights like you would.

So you are against their rights?
How am i denying them... am i lobbying to stop the lobby? Am i putting a gun to their heads? how am i denying them? apart from not liking them doing it.

[Busyman]

.
what rights am i denying? Think about it.....

I am fighting for rights... by your definition you are denying rights because you seem to be saying that if you disagree with anything you are denying rights. I disagree with things. YOU disagree with things. Disagreeing doesn't mean denying

disagree: To have a differing opinion

deny: To decline to grant or allow.

I am disagreeing not disallowing.
Dude you are the one who talked about denying rights.

The people are perceived as victims.

how? victims of what?

they make the choice to sleep around, they are not forced to and are not forcing anyone to sleep with them.

Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

No... I consider them victims because of THEIR basis of morality. Yes people can be offended by anything. Some in my opinion are offended too easily. They have every right to object by things in their face, but they shouldn't be stopping things that are not ( I realise you will now try to find some extreme counter).
A person in their own yard is not in their face. I gathered that you personally would be offended.
In the gun debate you objected to the views that some had that you don't need or should be allowed to have your guns. Constitution aside you would object and fight any attempt to remove your guns.
Don't make yourself to be any different from me or anyone else. We ALL object to things.
Yes Captain Obvious. Don't make yourself different either. I'm sure you agree with some of these personal moral values that have been attached to law. If not then I'm sure you wouldn't object to the drinking age being lowered to 12, the age of minors lowered to 11, and since adults are now age 12 and up, so is consensual sex and gambling.

to the rest of your post. How many other examples of "unjust" laws on the books are you going to post?
I already said we have too many unjust laws already.
You consider them unjust.

People come up with these laws to curb further crimes. The home druggy may likely take his abuses outside the home. Prostitution may lead to organized crime (like gambling). Hightened sexual activity may lead to a wider spread of diseases. I know will probably say, "Let it go." I personally think it will lead to anarchy and ultimately a lower moral standard. (I don't agree with withholding medical treatment).

Edit:

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still wouldn't deny them their rights like you would.

So you are against their rights?
An obvious typo but you probably knew that. Consider it corrected.

How am i denying them... am i lobbying to stop the lobby? Am i putting a gun to their heads? how am i denying them? apart from not liking them doing it.

Dude you said the shit. That's why everyone was questioning your posts.

[vidcc]

.
what rights am i denying? Think about it.....

I am fighting for rights... by your definition you are denying rights because you seem to be saying that if you disagree with anything you are denying rights. I disagree with things. YOU disagree with things. Disagreeing doesn't mean denying

disagree: To have a differing opinion

deny: To decline to grant or allow.

I am disagreeing not disallowing.
Dude you are the one who talked about denying rights.



how? victims of what?

they make the choice to sleep around, they are not forced to and are not forcing anyone to sleep with them.

Then you perceive them as victims because of your basis of morality. The same goes for topless women. Men can show their chest; women can't. It is perceived as morally wrong and made into law by consensus. People can be offended by anything.

No... I consider them victims because of THEIR basis of morality. Yes people can be offended by anything. Some in my opinion are offended too easily. They have every right to object by things in their face, but they shouldn't be stopping things that are not ( I realise you will now try to find some extreme counter).
A person in their own yard is not in their face. I gathered that you personally would be offended.
In the gun debate you objected to the views that some had that you don't need or should be allowed to have your guns. Constitution aside you would object and fight any attempt to remove your guns.
Don't make yourself to be any different from me or anyone else. We ALL object to things.
Yes Captain Obvious. Don't make yourself different either. I'm sure you agree with some of these personal moral values that have been attached to law. If not then I'm sure you wouldn't object to the drinking age being lowered to 12, the age of minors lowered to 11, and since adults are now age 12 and up, so is consensual sex and gambling.

to the rest of your post. How many other examples of "unjust" laws on the books are you going to post?
I already said we have too many unjust laws already.
You consider them unjust.

People come up with these laws to curb further crimes. The home druggy may likely take his abuses outside the home. Prostitution may lead to organized crime (like gambling). Hightened sexual activity may lead to a wider spread of diseases. I know will probably say, "Let it go." I personally think it will lead to anarchy and ultimately a lower moral standard. (I don't agree with withholding medical treatment).

Edit:

Btw these same fuckers in your first post will probably want to block an HIV vaccine too (something which I feel extremely strong about, as do most) which will increase sexual activity (Fuckfest Millenium) but I still wouldn't deny them their rights like you would.

So you are against their rights?
An obvious typo but you probably knew that. Consider it corrected.

How am i denying them... am i lobbying to stop the lobby? Am i putting a gun to their heads? how am i denying them? apart from not liking them doing it.

Dude you said the shit. That's why everyone was questioning your posts.

Despite every post I made you haven't taken one word in. So fire up that brain cell and read.

I would deny them their wish to make a law such as the thread subject by opposing it. Because I don't want their values forced upon me
How do we oppose people who try to make laws such as this ?..... We fight the bill, we lobby against the bill. We make our opinions known so that others can see what these people are trying to do. That's how I will "stand in your way" and "deny your right"..it all there for you to see.

It's not rocket science.

[JPaul]

By denying someone you are forcing your values on them.

It cuts both ways.