Tigers X - Number one Source to Talk Auburn Tigers Sports
The Library => The SGA => Topic started by: Townhallsavoy on June 29, 2011, 10:01:47 AM
-
Should the government be responsible for defining and regulating morality?
I caught a bit of Michael Savage's show yesterday, and he was on some kind of tangent about legalizing prostitution. He allowed a caller to state that legalizing prostitution would destroy marriages because it would be too easy for men to sneak away to a brothel to have sex.
For one, this fails to prove that legalizing prostitution will cause marriages to be destroyed because a person has to make the decision to participate in the act.
Two, while prostitution may not be a common way to satisfy a sexual desire, it isn't that much different from watching pornography, attending a strip club, or engaging in an extramarital affair. If the wife doesn't want her husband doing those legal things and he does, it's going to destroy the marriage.
Again, that's on the husband. Not the legality of prostitution.
Is there another way to argue for the legalization of prostitution?
Well, maybe not for prostitution but more so for the natural rights of all people.
Why do we feel like the Law has to govern how we live our lives? Are we not capable of determining a personal, common set of morals on our own without the aid of the government?
The argument that this would lead to more girls engaging in money for sex fails on the same level as legal prostitution destroying marriages. A girl has to make the choice to become a prostitute. The "sad situations" we are worried about - girls in very rough neighborhoods who are basically forced to become prostitutes - are prostitutes any way without any protection from a union or law enforcement.
The government shouldn't be regulating the options. But then again, we do need to take more personal responsibility in educating about which option leads to the more profitable, productive, happy life.
This isn't just about prostitution. There are many other rules and regulations that seem arbitrary or condescending. The Law treats us like children. Like we wouldn't know any better.
And the more the government gets involved in our lives, the more like children we become. Expecting to be taken care of. Expecting to be given the answer and not have to think for ourselves.
The government should be concerned with protecting our borders from outside threats, protecting its citizens from being harmed by other citizens, and ensuring fairness for everyone in the economy.
:rant:
-
The government should be concerned with protecting our borders from outside threats, protecting its citizens from being harmed by other citizens, and ensuring fairness for everyone in the economy.
Taste the nanny state goodness.
Plus you do not pay a hooker for sex. You pay a hooker to leave.
-
The only response I wold have is to that argument is that you don't catch the clap from a porno. Since we will soon have government healthcare that will unduly increase the burden on taxpayers.
-
The only response I wold have is to that argument is that you don't catch the clap from a porno. Since we will soon have government healthcare that will unduly increase the burden on taxpayers.
So because of the risk of consequence, we should have an overseeing power elected by the people regulate the actions of those people?
The clap... syphilis...pregnancy...marriages - all irrelevant.
It's our decisions that matter. Our thoughts. Our actions. Our emotions.
We can control those intelligently and logically. And we don't need the government to be our intelligence or our logic.
-
We can control those intelligently and logically. And we don't need the government to be our intelligence or our logic.
Most can't. Most people are idiotic sheep.
You can stretch this same logical analysis to ANY law.
Why have a speed limit? Shouldn't we just expect people to be smart enough to know the danger? Why make stealing illegal? We should just trust people to know that they should keep their hands off other people's shit.
I do get what you're saying. But I see both sides.
The seatbelt law pisses me off. I don't like them and don't want to wear one. Should I be forced to? I'm not hurting anybody.
Smoking laws I like. Don't want to be subjected to somebody else's in a public place.
So I vote for selective enforcement. Enforce laws I agree with and not those I don't.
-
You can't legislate morality.....no matter how hard they try, you just can't do it. I used to think that some of the social issues that "Republicans" pushed was ok and I could get behind it. Now I can't, call it a change of heart, selfish or whatever, but I am now at that point where I don't care what someone else does to destroy their life as long as it doesn't infringe on my individual rights and freedoms. I don't care what anyone else does, I can only account for myself and my household.
Gonna respond in red.
Should the government be responsible for defining and regulating morality? <----- NO! At some point the individual has to become responsible for their actions and if they can't, then they need to face the consequences.
For one, this fails to prove that legalizing prostitution will cause marriages to be destroyed because a person has to make the decision to participate in the act.
Two, while prostitution may not be a common way to satisfy a sexual desire, it isn't that much different from watching pornography, attending a strip club, or engaging in an extramarital affair. If the wife doesn't want her husband doing those legal things and he does, it's going to destroy the marriage. <----- If the wife is ok with you doing any of the above, then cool, it won't be that big of a problem, if she is and you still choose to do so, then you are basically saying fuck it, I am going to do what I want. So you are right, it falls on the husband and goes back to him being responsible for his own actions and consequences.
Is there another way to argue for the legalization of prostitution? <-----The only way it could be argued in my mind is that if two people want to engage in sex, be it for money or whatever, then the gov't shouldn't be regulating someones moral compass and stay out of the way.
Why do we feel like the Law has to govern how we live our lives? Are we not capable of determining a personal, common set of morals on our own without the aid of the government? <----- We are capable for the most part, at least most people are. Then again some people have to have a structured set of rules. I don't have to have a law telling me that drinking a pint and then getting behind the wheel is a bad idea or dangerous, but then again some do. Not saying that DUI laws are bad and need to be taken off the books, they aren't and they don't, but you can't force someone to not do it. If we could, it would stop, but it hasn't. I don't know if some just aren't capable or what, but some people just can't seem to make the distinction of right/wrong, good/bad when it comes to making decisions
The argument that this would lead to more girls engaging in money for sex fails on the same level as legal prostitution destroying marriages. A girl has to make the choice to become a prostitute. The "sad situations" we are worried about - girls in very rough neighborhoods who are basically forced to become prostitutes - are prostitutes any way without any protection from a union or law enforcement.<----- The highlighted part says it all....choice, once that choice is made then reap the benefits or suffer the consequences.
The government shouldn't be regulating the options. But then again, we do need to take more personal responsibility in educating about which option leads to the more profitable, productive, happy life. <----- Couldn't agree more. I don't think the gov't needs to do the educating, that should be done at home when raising your children, but it would be nice if people would step up and do that.
This isn't just about prostitution. There are many other rules and regulations that seem arbitrary or condescending. The Law treats us like children. Like we wouldn't know any better.
And the more the government gets involved in our lives, the more like children we become. Expecting to be taken care of. Expecting to be given the answer and not have to think for ourselves. <----- Not going all Alex Jones here, but that is exactly what some want. Then they can tell you how to live your lives, how much they can take from you until eventually the people no longer have power. People should never trust the gov't to be looking for their best interest. Or at least I don't think so and they haven't done much of looking out for me in my lifetime.
The government should be concerned with protecting our borders from outside threats, protecting its citizens from being harmed by other citizens, and ensuring fairness for everyone in the economy. <----- Pretty much.
I'm also not advocating anarchy, but damn, the gov't oversteps it bounds too much. Which in turn makes me ill thinking about it.
-
Most can't. Most people are idiotic sheep.
You can stretch this same logical analysis to ANY law.
Why have a speed limit? Shouldn't we just expect people to be smart enough to know the danger? Why make stealing illegal? We should just trust people to know that they should keep their hands off other people's shit.
I do get what you're saying. But I see both sides.
The seatbelt law pisses me off. I don't like them and don't want to wear one. Should I be forced to? I'm not hurting anybody.
Smoking laws I like. Don't want to be subjected to somebody else's in a public place.
So I vote for selective enforcement. Enforce laws I agree with and not those I don't.
Why are they idiotic sheep? When did that happen?
Speed limit is different. The speed limit is supposedly determine by careful research, and going over the speed limit is endangering other people. That's a good law to have.
Two people engaging in sex for money? That doesn't harm anyone if they're both cool with it.
I guess my opinion is that laws that protect people from being harmed against their will are the only laws that should be implemented.
Smoking laws - protect me from 2nd hand smoke. That's a good law.
Marijuana law? How does that help or hurt me? It doesn't. But someone who wants to alter their state of mind with marijuana instead of alcohol should be allowed to do so.
-
Why are they idiotic sheep? When did that happen?
I think it started in 1969.
Speed limit is different. The speed limit is supposedly determine by careful research, and going over the speed limit is endangering other people. That's a good law to have.
Two people engaging in sex for money? That doesn't harm anyone if they're both cool with it.
Careful research has shown that legalized prostitution is harmful to youth and damages self-esteem. They endanger themselves and others with disease.
That said... if the production of pornography is legal in your state then so too should be prostitution. Actors are being paid to have sex. If people were smart, they would just register themselves with the actor's guild and hold "auditions"
I guess my opinion is that laws that protect people from being harmed against their will are the only laws that should be implemented.
Smoking laws - protect me from 2nd hand smoke. That's a good law.
Smokers will tell you that second hand smoke doesn't exist and laws that prevent them from engaging in their habit are a violation of their rights. Was at a golf course last week and they are no longer allowing smoking anywhere on the course. You leave a butt on the course and you're going to get booted out.
Marijuana law? How does that help or hurt me? It doesn't. But someone who wants to alter their state of mind with marijuana instead of alcohol should be allowed to do so.
Anything that alters the mind should be illegal.
-
I think it started in 1969.
When the Beatles broke up?
Careful research has shown that legalized prostitution is harmful to youth and damages self-esteem. They endanger themselves and others with disease.
But they're choosing to harm themselves. It also is the john's responsibility to know the risks before plowing a hooker.
Smokers will tell you that second hand smoke doesn't exist and laws that prevent them from engaging in their habit are a violation of their rights. Was at a golf course last week and they are no longer allowing smoking anywhere on the course. You leave a butt on the course and you're going to get booted out.
Smokers aren't the authority on the matter. 2nd hand smoke does exist and it does have consequences for those who are exposed to it.
I don't mean to outlaw smoking. I mean to outlaw anything that is harmful to me without my consent. If an experiment did prove that 2nd hand smoke was harmless, then I guess I'd have to put up with the smell.
I put up with the smell of raw sewage every time I go to downtown B'ham. Can't outlaw bad smells.
Anything that alters the mind should be illegal.
Sometimes I agree with this. Sometimes I don't. I like wine and some beer. A few drinks with liquor. But I don't like getting sloshed. But if someone wants to do this to themselves, they should know the risks and responsibilities that come along with it. Again, putting oneself in the position to harm others by altering the mind - that should be illegal.
-
So because of the risk of consequence, we should have an overseeing power elected by the people regulate the actions of those people?
The clap... syphilis...pregnancy...marriages - all irrelevant.
It's our decisions that matter. Our thoughts. Our actions. Our emotions.
We can control those intelligently and logically. And we don't need the government to be our intelligence or our logic.
I was joking. I don't much care one way or another.
Only "morality" issue that I care about is abortion. IMO that one is different because the one harmed doesn't have a say in the matter.
-
Most can't. Most people are idiotic sheep.
You can stretch this same logical analysis to ANY law.
Why have a speed limit? Shouldn't we just expect people to be smart enough to know the danger? Why make stealing illegal? We should just trust people to know that they should keep their hands off other people's shit.
I do get what you're saying. But I see both sides.
The seatbelt law pisses me off. I don't like them and don't want to wear one. Should I be forced to? I'm not hurting anybody.
Smoking laws I like. Don't want to be subjected to somebody else's in a public place.
So I vote for selective enforcement. Enforce laws I agree with and not those I don't.
THIS.
It becomes public concern when one is harming or has the potential to harm another with their behavoir hence your seatbelt and smoking examples.
-
The main reason for the seatbelt law, if I remember, is the same as the motorcycle helmet law. If you are FUBAR, and wind up in a vegetative state, that would be fine - you did it to yourself. Except that most people do not have the financial means to pay for that kind of care, and you wind up having your care paid for by the government, i.e., the taxpayers. The consequence of your stupid action is not limited to yourself.
Same as drinking and driving - if the only person to ever be harmed in any way was the drunk who made the choice to drive, or if the only property ever damaged was that of the drunk who made the choice to drive, then so be it. Roll the dice, take a shot and take your chances. But that is not the case, so the government sees a "for the public good" reason for regulating drinking and driving.
-
The main reason for the seatbelt law, if I remember, is the same as the motorcycle helmet law. If you are FUBAR, and wind up in a vegetative state, that would be fine - you did it to yourself. Except that most people do not have the financial means to pay for that kind of care, and you wind up having your care paid for by the government, i.e., the taxpayers. The consequence of your stupid action is not limited to yourself.
Same as drinking and driving - if the only person to ever be harmed in any way was the drunk who made the choice to drive, or if the only property ever damaged was that of the drunk who made the choice to drive, then so be it. Roll the dice, take a shot and take your chances. But that is not the case, so the government sees a "for the public good" reason for regulating drinking and driving.
no comparison there at all.
-
no comparison there at all.
Thank God you are here to keep us all straight.
-
The main reason for the seatbelt law, if I remember, is the same as the motorcycle helmet law. If you are FUBAR, and wind up in a vegetative state, that would be fine - you did it to yourself. Except that most people do not have the financial means to pay for that kind of care, and you wind up having your care paid for by the government, i.e., the taxpayers. The consequence of your stupid action is not limited to yourself.
That had a lot to do with it when the legislation was initially passed in many states. But after these types of laws were passed, there were several judicial challenges to it in different states. The courts noted that the seat belt laws, in theory, protected more than just the front seat passengers required to wear seat belts.
Several courts have rejected the argument Hartog raises, that is, that his unwillingness to use seat belts places only himself at risk. These courts point out that seat belt use enhances a driver's ability to maintain control of the car and avoid injuries not only to the driver but to others. Kohrig, 113 Ill.2d at 400-01, 101 Ill.Dec. at 656, 498 N.E.2d at 1164; People v. Weber, 129 Misc.2d 993, 996-97, 494 N.Y.S.2d 960, 963 (1985); State v. Swain, 92 N.C.App. 240, 241, 374 S.E.2d 173, 174 (1988); Richards, 743 S.W.2d at 749. Similarly, an unrestrained front seat passenger can interfere with the ability of a driver to respond to a collision. Kohrig, 113 Ill.2d at 401, 101 Ill.Dec. at 656, 498 N.E.2d at 1164. Several commentators in recent writings have agreed. See, e.g., Benguerel, Mandatory Seat Belt Legislation: Panacea for Highway Traffic Fatalities?, 36 Syracuse L.Rev. 1341, 1347-48 (1986); Note, The Seat Belt Defense and North Carolina's *858 New Mandatory Usage Law, 64 N.C.L.Rev. 1127, 1131 (1986).
Moreover, studies have shown that such an unrestrained passenger poses danger of injuries to other occupants through direct or indirect body contact brought about by occupant kinetics. For example, instances have occurred in which a person holding a small child has been thrown forcibly against the child, crushing the child to death. See Werber, A Multi-Disciplinary Approach to Seat Belt Issues, 29 Clev.St.L.Rev. 217, 228-29 (1980); Hulke, Sherman & O'Day, The Hazard of the Unrestrained Occupant, 16 J.Trauma 383 (1978).
-
That had a lot to do with it when the legislation was initially passed in many states. But after these types of laws were passed, there were several judicial challenges to it in different states. The courts noted that the seat belt laws, in theory, protected more than just the front seat passengers required to wear seat belts.
So if no one else is in the car?
I call BS on seatbelt laws. TW - using that logic creates a very slippery slope in regulating society. Where does it end? California with certain foods kids can bring to school? It can get messy and intrusive if you let it.
-
Unlike other areas of government intrusion, there is actual, legitimate, documented, scientific proof that seatbelts save lives. Not all people get the same result from eating bad foods. My friend Alicia eats McDonalds EVERY DAMN DAY and weighs less than 110 lbs. i can look at a Happy Meal and gain 3. But if we were in a car wreck, she and I both would be more likely to survive if we are buckled up.
-
Thank God you are here to keep us all straight.
Somebody has to.
-
Unlike other areas of government intrusion, there is actual, legitimate, documented, scientific proof that seatbelts save lives. Not all people get the same result from eating bad foods. My friend Alicia eats McDonalds EVERY DAMN DAY and weighs less than 110 lbs. i can look at a Happy Meal and gain 3. But if we were in a car wreck, she and I both would be more likely to survive if we are buckled up.
Well, damn. I was in a car wreck and would have died if I'd been wearing my seatbelt.
That trumps Alicia.
-
Well, damn. I was in a car wreck and would have died if I'd been wearing my seatbelt.
That trumps Alicia.
You are the exception to every rule.
-
You are the exception to every rule.
There. Fixed it.
-
So if no one else is in the car?
I call BS on seatbelt laws. TW - using that logic creates a very slippery slope in regulating society. Where does it end? California with certain foods kids can bring to school? It can get messy and intrusive if you let it.
If no one else is in the car, then their theory is that the seat belt allows you to maintain control of your car throughout an accident, at least moreso than if you were jolted away from the front seat and the car was allowed to continue onward without a driver.
In theory, I can see how that may happen, but I don't know that it occurs frequently enough to be a legitimate issue of concern.
-
helmet laws suck
-
helmet laws suck
Weeerrrrrd. When I'm riding my Hawg (Scooter) down to the Bar (Miss Lucille's) I want to be ridin' free and easy with the wind blowing through my hair (Balding dome).
-
If no one else is in the car, then their theory is that the seat belt allows you to maintain control of your car throughout an accident, at least moreso than if you were jolted away from the front seat and the car was allowed to continue onward without a driver.
In theory, I can see how that may happen, but I don't know that it occurs frequently enough to be a legitimate issue of concern.
That all sounds good, but seat belt laws are just another example of knee-jerk, reactionary, feel-good politics. Gubme't Goons, no smarter than any of us, think they're doing something good for the ignorant masses who are deemed too stupid to wear their seatbelt without a government mandate. It's a lot like smoking laws. In their minds, we're too stupid to live our own lives without the gubm'et telling us what to do...
-
Well, damn. I was in a car wreck and would have died if I'd been wearing my seatbelt.
That trumps Alicia.
I've seen people's brains in trees because they weren't wearing a seatbelt and were ejected. Had they been wearing a seatbelt, most of them would have been relatively unharmed. Six of one, half dozen of the other I suppose. I can go along with a seatbelt law, and helmet laws for motorcycles. I read an article the other day where there were some motorcyclists protesting New York's helmet law, and to protest they decided to ride around a town with no helmets. All was well until one of the guys hit his brakes too hard and flipped over the handlebars and died from head trauma. Of course, it's up for debate what is the exception and what is the rule.
I don't always wear my seatbelt, but I do believe they save lives. That's speaking from the standpoint of seeing 12 years worth of wrecks and working on patients involved in those wrecks. I mean, I'm allergic to Penicillin and it will fuck me up bad if I took it, but there are plenty of people that it helps. I guess that's how I look at that.
-
I always wear my seatbelt because I can't figure out which fuse to pull to make that stupid chime quit ringing.
-
I always wear my seatbelt because I can't figure out which fuse to pull to make that stupid chime quit ringing.
^^^THIS^^^
As a member of the US Armed Forces, if you die in a car wreck and weren't wearing your seatbelt, your life insurance doesn't pay. That is the only reason that I wear mine. I wouldn't want to rob my family of that money.