Excellence in Shitlording

[DarthOne]

Nope. We got here because the government pushed that. There's a difference between tolerance and actively aiding.

Nope. Again, you are wrong. Its design was purposely set up to allow a lot of different people to behave differently, and limited the government a bunch to allow this. The US was set up to allow differences. Now, we have lost because the government keeps encroaching into private life. That's the issue.

This country had obscenity laws for most of its existence. Not covered under first Amendment. It only started getting lifted in the 1960’s. Combined with other factors that led to the decline of social standards, is it any wonder that society has gone to hell?

What’s next? ‘You can’t legislate morality’? That’s what laws DO.

 

[Abhorsen]

And why do you think they pushed it? And why do you think they were able to do so?

Because we tolerated it. Because we allowed it. Because we decided we all needed to live and let live when we shouldn’t have.

No, because government expanded. In fact, much of the reason it expanded was to stop degeneracy. Look at the ban on alcohol as a prominent example of this. And the war on drugs.

Yet the government has consistently shown that it isn't capable of actually stopping degeneracy. Instead, it will morph to oppose goodness instead, because that is easy.

This country had obscenity laws for most of its existence. Not covered under first Amendment. It only started getting lifted in the 1960’s. Combined with other factors that led to the decline of social standards, is it any wonder that society has gone to hell?

What’s next? ‘You can’t legislate morality’? That’s what laws DO.

They don't. Or more accurately, cannot do so successfully. People try to legislate morality all the time, but only cause more problems.

Also, laws aren't supposed to legislate morality in the US. They are intended to preserve rights. There's a difference between the two.

Finally, once you succeed at getting morality legislated, you do know that the left generally controls the culture, right? Those laws won't be used against your enemies, but against you. What you do will be called degenerate.

This is why the right is moronic: they always call for more government, not realizing that the left will always be better at the government game than them, and then whine when the left uses government against them. The second they get an ounce of power back, their first instinct is "Let's give more power to government!"

 

[King Arts]

And the fact you are willing to not allow freedom of expression shows that you dint believe in the foundation of this country

I mean you are wrong, but even if you aren't so what? I'm Christian first, the constitution and American tradition take a backseat to what is morally good and what will save my soul after death. I think Darth also agrees.

I don't worship the founding father's and early America do you? I believe in constitutional principles like the 2nd amendment because I, ME KING ARTS think they are good. Not because Thomas Jefferson, or Ben Franklin say it's good.

Let's give a hypothetical if we brought back the founding fathers to the modern day and they ALL said that the gun control people's arguments are correct and they did not intend to give a personal right to own fire arms but that it was a right for the militia or National Guard. Will you then be ok with gun control?

They don't. Or more accurately, cannot do so successfully. People try to legislate morality all the time, but only cause more problems.

Also, laws aren't supposed to legislate morality in the US. They are intended to preserve rights. There's a difference between the two.

Finally, once you succeed at getting morality legislated, you do know that the left generally controls the culture, right? Those laws won't be used against your enemies, but against you. What you do will be called degenerate.

This is why the right is moronic: they always call for more government, not realizing that the left will always be better at the government game than them, and then whine when the left uses government against them. The second they get an ounce of power back, their first instinct is "Let's give more power to government!"

I'm sorry Abhorsen this is illogical and makes no sense.

Laws DO legislate morality. You say the law protects property rights, I can't go to you kill you take your house and rape the women in your family. Because this is wrong. You believe you have a "right" to not have these things happen to you and yours. And if someone violates your rights it's morally wrong and should be stopped. And the government is putting in laws to enforce that.

That is legislating morality.

 

[Abhorsen]

Laws DO legislate morality. You say the law protects property rights, I can't go to you kill you take your house and rape the women in your family. Because this is wrong. You believe you have a "right" to not have these things happen to you and yours. And if someone violates your rights it's morally wrong and should be stopped. And the government is putting in laws to enforce that.

Technically yes, but when someone's talking about legislating morality, what they usually mean is stuff like outlawing porn, other religions, blasphemy, booze, drugs, homosexuality, etc. In otherwords, victimless crimes.

There's a difference between morality and rights. Basically leaving someone free to pursue what they want to do without interference, until they interfere with someone else.

 

[King Arts]

Technically yes, but when someone's talking about legislating morality, what they usually mean is stuff like outlawing porn, booze, drugs, homosexuality, etc. In otherwords, victimless crimes.

Ok, perfect now we are talking accurately.

Now YOU are the one who is saying porn, drugs, and homoseuality is victimless.

The argument you SHOULD be making is that those actions are not immoral(if you believe that) or that it is a minor moral indiscretion like being rude and should not be legislated. Not muh "Don't put morals in the law."

And then the other person would debate with you and say that those things are evil either less evil equally evil or more evil than other prohibited things like theft, murder, rape, etc.

 

[Abhorsen]

Now YOU are the one who is saying porn, drugs, and homoseuality is victimless.

Yes. The 'victims' consented.

This is what a victimless crime is.

"Victimless crime" is an idiom that, by definition, means one where either no one was harmed, or it was between all consenting adults. Sure, maybe the consenting parties are harmed, and that person could even arguably be called a victim, but it's still a "victimless crime". In otherwords, English is weird.

I'm saying that legislating morality is another term of art/idiom, which talks about making laws that regulate victimless crimes. This is in direct contradiction of what the founders designed America around.

Basically, English is weird. It's the same thing with antisemitism. Yes, Arabs are semites. But antisemitism means Jew Hatred because that's how the word is used.

 

[King Arts]

Yes. The 'victims' consented.

This is what a victimless crime is.

"Victimless crime" is an idiom that, by definition, means one where either no one was harmed, or it was between all consenting adults. Sure, maybe the consenting parties are harmed, and that person could even arguably be called a victim, but it's still a "victimless crime". In otherwords, English is weird.

Even if someone consents that doesen't make it "victimless."
Even with consent if I agree to let you kill me hell even if I ask for it, and you do it. That meets the definition you gave people won't call that a victimless crime. They will see it as a crime with a victim. Also this is a tangent since I was just giving you advice that you should say those actions are either not immoral or minor moral indiscretions.

I'm saying that legislating morality is another term of art/idiom, which talks about making laws that regulate victimless crimes. This is in direct contradiction of what the founders designed America around.

Basically, English is weird. It's the same thing with antisemitism. Yes, Arabs are semites. But antisemitism means Jew Hatred because that's how the word is used.

But it doesen't fit like that. Since there are people that are racist and bigoted towards Arabs. That's anti semitism also it's just that certain groups try to weasel out of that. Also this is another tangent.

 

[Zachowon]

I mean you are wrong, but even if you aren't so what? I'm Christian first, the constitution and American tradition take a backseat to what is morally good and what will save my soul after death. I think Darth also agrees.

I don't worship the founding father's and early America do you? I believe in constitutional principles like the 2nd amendment because I, ME KING ARTS think they are good. Not because Thomas Jefferson, or Ben Franklin say it's good.

Let's give a hypothetical if we brought back the founding fathers to the modern day and they ALL said that the gun control people's arguments are correct and they did not intend to give a personal right to own fire arms but that it was a right for the militia or National Guard. Will you then be ok with gun control?



I'm sorry Abhorsen this is illogical and makes no sense.

Laws DO legislate morality. You say the law protects property rights, I can't go to you kill you take your house and rape the women in your family. Because this is wrong. You believe you have a "right" to not have these things happen to you and yours. And if someone violates your rights it's morally wrong and should be stopped. And the government is putting in laws to enforce that.

That is legislating morality.

They won't because we have multiple papers they have made and written....
And thebfact they would outright call the dems dictators for abusing the power of the Constitution.

And the founding fathers would have gladly let everyone live in peace as long as you don't force things on others....

 

[King Arts]

They won't because we have multiple papers they have made and written....
And thebfact they would outright call the dems dictators for abusing the power of the Constitution.

And the founding fathers would have gladly let everyone live in peace as long as you don't force things on others....

You avoided the question, I’m asking IF the founding fathers said that would you change your position?

 

[Zachowon]

You avoided the question, I’m asking IF the founding fathers said that would you change your position?

They wouldn't. I won't play in your hypothetical

 

[King Arts]

They wouldn't. I won't play in your hypothetical

So you’re dodging the question? Just saying “they wouldn’t” in a petulant manner isn’t an argument.

I could make the argument that they would support gun control because early America did have gun laws that restricted the rights of the people heck in the Wild West there were even check in places because it was illegal to bring guns into those places.

I don’t think it’s a good argument and I do think the founding fathers would lean more towards the republican side. But again my beliefs don’t rely on them if they said the opposite I wouldn’t change. Would you?

 

[Abhorsen]

Even if someone consents that doesen't make it "victimless."

Again, a "victimless crime" is a term of art that means consenting adults. Yes, there can be a victim to a victimless crime, welcome to English, it makes little sense.

But it doesen't fit like that. Since there are people that are racist and bigoted towards Arabs. That's anti semitism also it's just that certain groups try to weasel out of that. Also this is another tangent.

No, it isn't. Because that's not how the term anti-Semitism is used. Parts of language are not lego bricks that can be moved about, they have context. Hatred towards arabs is either racism, or if because of their religion, islamophobia.

 

[King Arts]

Again, a "victimless crime" is a term of art that means consenting adults. Yes, there can be a victim to a victimless crime, welcome to English, it makes little sense.

No, it isn't. Because that's not how the term anti-Semitism is used. Parts of language are not lego bricks that can be moved about, they have context. Hatred towards arabs is either racism, or if because of their religion, islamophobia.

Are you not going to engage with the examples I gave if I asked you to kill me and you did is that a victimless crime?

 

[Abhorsen]

Are you not going to engage with the examples I gave if I asked you to kill me and you did is that a victimless crime?

Yes, that would be a victimless crime, assuming you were of more or less sound mind, not drunk, etc. And yes, there'd be a victim. Again, it's a term of art.

It's to save the constant rewriting of "crimes that all parties consented to" and "crimes that not all parties consented to".

 

[King Arts]

Yes, that would be a victimless crime, assuming you were of more or less sound mind, not drunk, etc. And yes, there'd be a victim. Again, it's a term of art.

It's to save the constant rewriting of "crimes that all parties consented to" and "crimes that not all parties consented to".

Do you think people colloquially use what I described as a victimless crime?

 

[Abhorsen]

Do you think people colloquially use what I described as a victimless crime?

Yes. In fact, they did. That's how Dr Kavorkian's euthanasia was called by some. Then others pointed to his victims. Then he got busted when he did a crime with a victim, as the victim couldn't consent.

Again, it's a phrase used to signal that all parties consented.

 

[Zachowon]

So you’re dodging the question? Just saying “they wouldn’t” in a petulant manner isn’t an argument.

I could make the argument that they would support gun control because early America did have gun laws that restricted the rights of the people heck in the Wild West there were even check in places because it was illegal to bring guns into those places.

I don’t think it’s a good argument and I do think the founding fathers would lean more towards the republican side. But again my beliefs don’t rely on them if they said the opposite I wouldn’t change. Would you?

I wouldn't either, but you are making a hypothetical when there isn't one.

We know what they said and wrote.

The idea of the US is personal freedoms

 

[The Whispering Monk]

Yes. The 'victims' consented.

Dude...the porn industry and 'sex workers' are full of victims that have been forcibly trafficked, addicted to drugs, threatened with abuse and death, then told to do whatever they have to for the next "John" to get their next hit.

Don't freekin' start with me about the Victimless bullshit.

 

[DarthOne]

Dude...the porn industry and 'sex workers' are full of victims that have been forcibly trafficked, addicted to drugs, threatened with abuse and death, then told to do whatever they have to for the next "John" to get their next hit.

Don't freekin' start with me about the Victimless bullshit.

Beat me to it. And thank you @King Arts.

 

[Abhorsen]

Dude...the porn industry and 'sex workers' are full of victims that have been forcibly trafficked, addicted to drugs, threatened with abuse and death, then told to do whatever they have to for the next "John" to get their next hit.

Don't freekin' start with me about the Victimless bullshit.

If they're forced, then it stops being a victimless crime even by my definition. Did you see the part about consenting?

Also, a large number do consent. In fact, tha majority do consent.

In fact, one of the ways sex trafficking thrives is the knowledge that victims can't go to the cops because cops will routinely arrest prostitutes, even unwilling ones, instead of a harder prosecution of pimps.

You are making the mistak of thinking that banning consensual use of X lessens the amount of nonconsensual X. Oh, X will certainly shrink, but usually become a lot worse.