euklyd Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 1 minute ago, Magnificence Incarnate said: best response[citation needed] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 god why is it so hard to superscript on this new software Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Refa Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 overrated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted February 10, 2017 Share Posted February 10, 2017 27 minutes ago, Refa said: overrated Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen Posted February 11, 2017 Author Share Posted February 11, 2017 discourse - you might think that's unreasonable, and it is, but i have an irrational hate for that word and that word only!! i hate it!! QOTD 1140 - Have You Watched Spice and Wolf? submitted by Captin Karnage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Falchion Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 last question: couldn't remember a specific one so I'll just generalize and most of them current: nope! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 no, but I was current on the mango at one point if I were to continue I'd read the LNs anyways Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnd Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 s1 only economics Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renne Posted February 11, 2017 Share Posted February 11, 2017 no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koneko Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 nah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Balcerzak Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 It was spicy and wolfy, and I wish I had more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen Posted February 12, 2017 Author Share Posted February 12, 2017 nope but i own the first light novel QOTD 1141 - If you were a ruler of a kingdom, what would your punishment for infidelity be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Nothing. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 1 minute ago, Rezzy said: Nothing. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Popcorn for whoever is sadistic enough to take it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 17 minutes ago, Rezzy said: Nothing. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluedoom Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 49 minutes ago, Rezzy said: Nothing. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Yup, nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Julius Nepos Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 2 hours ago, Rezzy said: Nothing. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. I don't think this statement is correct. Legislating morality is a major point in criminal law. Certain acts are forbidden by law because we consider them "bad", "harmful", "unjust". What is "bad", "harmful", "unjust" is defined by our morality. A society's morality is what makes its criminal law. The reason why a lot of countries don't have laws on infidelity (anymore) is because they consider fidelity and infidelity as belonging to people's private spheres, and they believe the right to privacy to be a human right. That said, I personally agree that fidelity and infidelity are part of people's private spheres and as such should be protected by a right to privacy. So if I were the ruler of a kingdom, I would have no punishment for infidelity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tryhard Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 you people are boring, a thousand lashes of course I'm allowed to have as many wives as I want as ruler :^) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fly_or_Die Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 10 hours ago, Rezzy said: Nothing. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. A valid viewpoint, but keep in mind this attitude also strikes down a huge number of other laws: laws against incest, polygamy, public indecency, etc. and even -- if your interpretation of "legislating morality" is broad -- laws against drug use, mandating seat belt usage, and so on. As for the question, adulterers would be forced to get a small tally-mark tattoo on their hand. Multiple violations = multiple tattoos. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 8 hours ago, Hattusili I said: I don't think this statement is correct. Legislating morality is a major point in criminal law. Certain acts are forbidden by law because we consider them "bad", "harmful", "unjust". What is "bad", "harmful", "unjust" is defined by our morality. A society's morality is what makes its criminal law. The reason why a lot of countries don't have laws on infidelity (anymore) is because they consider fidelity and infidelity as belonging to people's private spheres, and they believe the right to privacy to be a human right. That said, I personally agree that fidelity and infidelity are part of people's private spheres and as such should be protected by a right to privacy. So if I were the ruler of a kingdom, I would have no punishment for infidelity. "Victimless" crimes would be ones to do away with, as would ones where the only harm is hurt feelings, but no injury or loss of property. Cheating on somebody is a terrible thing, but the line has to be drawn somewhere, and that does not cross the boundary. 3 minutes ago, Fly_or_Die said: A valid viewpoint, but keep in mind this attitude also strikes down a huge number of other laws: laws against incest, polygamy, public indecency, etc. and even -- if your interpretation of "legislating morality" is broad -- laws against drug use, mandating seat belt usage, and so on. As for the question, adulterers would be forced to get a small tally-mark tattoo on their hand. Multiple violations = multiple tattoos. I think all of the above: incest and polygamy should be legal between consenting adults. Adults can take whatever drugs they want. The decision to wear a seat belt or not is up to whether the adult wants a higher chance of surviving a crash. Public indecency is the only gray area, since that's a pretty broad term. Is it someone just stumbling around drunk or a massive public orgy? The former would be tolerated, the latter, not so much. That sounds like "The Scarlet Letter". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 11 hours ago, Rezzy said: Nothing. It's not the government's job to legislate morality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.