Julius Nepos Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 5 hours ago, Rezzy said: "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. It's still colored by morality. Why should the law protect from physical harm but not from mental harm? Why should criminal law protect individual victims of crimes rather than public order, legal peace, government's authority? Where do you draw the lines on what should and shouldn't be criminalized and how do you decide on those lines? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Knight Falchion Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 Add me to the no punishment group Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melissa Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 (edited) Make people play the CD-i Zelda games Edited February 12, 2017 by CountessGardy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 32 minutes ago, Hattusili I said: It's still colored by morality. Why should the law protect from physical harm but not from mental harm? Why should criminal law protect individual victims of crimes rather than public order, legal peace, government's authority? Where do you draw the lines on what should and shouldn't be criminalized and how do you decide on those lines? Because she'd be the ruler of the kingdom and that's what shr wants :p Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 38 minutes ago, Hattusili I said: It's still colored by morality. Why should the law protect from physical harm but not from mental harm? Why should criminal law protect individual victims of crimes rather than public order, legal peace, government's authority? Where do you draw the lines on what should and shouldn't be criminalized and how do you decide on those lines? For morality based crime, there has to be a victim that is deprived of something tangible. Theft or murder deprive a person of possessions or life respectively. For adultery, the person being cheated on is not losing anything tangible, expect trust. A person's genitals are theirs to do with as they wish. A spouse does not own their partner's penis/vagina or vice versa, so if their spouse cheats, they aren't being robbed of something that is rightfully theirs. Spouses make a commitment to each other not to cheat, but that is a commitment that should be based purely on mutual love and trust, not the edict of government. It is one of the worst betrayals to be sure, but it's not something that should be protected by law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Renne Posted February 12, 2017 Share Posted February 12, 2017 death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 8 hours ago, Rezzy said: "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. 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". 1. Let's say that there's a kid that's conceived as a result of cheating. Now what? 2. Not wearing a seat belt isn't always a victimless crime. When a car suddenly decelerates, everything that isn't bolted down becomes a projectile - including people. There have been instances where non-belted adults have killed children by smashing into them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rezzy Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 23 minutes ago, eclipse said: 1. Let's say that there's a kid that's conceived as a result of cheating. Now what? 2. Not wearing a seat belt isn't always a victimless crime. When a car suddenly decelerates, everything that isn't bolted down becomes a projectile - including people. There have been instances where non-belted adults have killed children by smashing into them. 1: It would the responsibility for the biological parents. 2: That's a possibility, but such a freak incident that it's not prevalent enough to be considered in making the law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eclipse Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 37 minutes ago, Rezzy said: 1: It would the responsibility for the biological parents. 2: That's a possibility, but such a freak incident that it's not prevalent enough to be considered in making the law. 1. Government does have a say in both finances, as well as child support payments. 2. That was to show that not wearing a seat belt isn't exactly victimless. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NinjaMonkey Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Do people who have a so-called "open marriage" and have sex with people other than their partner qualify as "adulterers" under this? Edited February 13, 2017 by NinjaMonkey Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 17 minutes ago, NinjaMonkey said: Do people who have a so-called "open marriage" and have sex with people other than their partner qualify as "adulterers" under this? And what about people who have already separated, but not officially divorced? What about people who use it as a way to escape an abusive marriage (either the abused cheats, because until they have someone giving them emotional/financial support they don't have the confidence, or the abuser cheats and that's the catalyst/excuse the abused party needs to leave)? What about people who were going through a rough patch, and the infidelity is genuinely forgiven and the marriage strengthened as a result? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zanarkin Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) For infidelity? None. There is no necessity for a law against it. For the case Eclipse brings up, I think that can be covered under other laws, such as "Biological parents should take care of their kids" or something of the sort (with clauses that would make it ok for leaving the kid for adoption, etc.). This would mean the non-biological but presumably cheated on partner would not have to pay child support for the little bastard. Edited February 13, 2017 by SlayerX Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 18 hours ago, Tryhard said: you people are boring, a thousand lashes of course I'm allowed to have as many wives as I want as ruler :^) QOTD 1142 - Is it okay to kill another person in any circumstance? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maybe Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 this is a bad question, not because of the question itself, but because of what will come of asking it here also yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chen Posted February 13, 2017 Author Share Posted February 13, 2017 i saw what happened with the last question =) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kinumi Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 if you kill me ill kill you Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nobody Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) Self defense, or to protect someone else from a violent crime. Edited February 13, 2017 by Nobody Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Res Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Yes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEnd Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 it's never really okay Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Envoy of the Beginning Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 In any circumstance? No. In certain ones? Yes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freohr Datia Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 (edited) I like to think there are much better methods to solve a problem that people either don't feel like putting enough effort into doing or just haven't thought of (and don't want to put the effort into thinking of it or just don't have enough time to think about it), but I don't just know every situation that would happen in the world. Maybe in some cases it could just be considered the "correct" thing to do I feel like I wouldn't do it personally, I'd probably go as far as to severely cripple if there's somebody who's real trouble to others (and even that would probably be really really painful for me to do because living life crippled doesn't sound fun at all but I will try to convince myself that they brought that on themselves), but I don't think I'd kill somebody. Meanwhile there are probably cases where if somebody else decided they needed to kill someone, I might just accept it on occasion. It's just typically something I refuse to agree with, though. oh I guess there's also putting someone down if they ask for it because they were in some torturous pain that would kill them slowly anyway... idk how I really feel about that either aside from that's probably among the more acceptable situations I suppose. But again I don't think I'd be able to do that, myself. I'd just let the professional doctors take care of that >u> Edited February 13, 2017 by Freohr Datia Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
euklyd Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 It's never okay, but it's possible for it to be the least bad option available. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 It's not ok to kill for any circumstance Though for certain and very desperate circumstances? Yes it is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 Yes. There are many circumstances where killing someone is the best solution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makaze Posted February 13, 2017 Share Posted February 13, 2017 1 hour ago, Euklyd said: It's never okay, but it's possible for it to be the least bad option available. I would say this, but if I'm honest, I would like to kill someone at least once, given the opportunity by moral standards. 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.