This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Victimless Crimes
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
TheMediator - I can almost see your point... almost. But it doesn't hold up when applied to other situations. If I were to walk into an aerobics class naked and do a squat in front of the mirror, it wouldn't be everyone else's fault for being bothered. What if I took a crap on the floor, and them cleaned up my mess? What if I ate it? Other people's feelings have to be considered when dealing with society. You can't just go friggin CRAZY.
Post by
MyTie
No its not. If you're not fearful of them, then you shouldn't have any problem with someone feeling something towards you. You're just scared you'll feel some way back.
Can I make a bunch of false assertions about you too?
You like to paint bunnies on the bathroom walls and name them. You name them after your imaginary friends because you don't have any real ones. It's sad really.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Deepthought
So why is it inappropriate for men and women to shower together in the military?
Because it might be dangerous for them?
The drug laws have consequences to the quality of life of society as a whole, as well as economic reprocussions.
Hm yes if I grow weed in my back yard it's my fault the recession happens ok.
I'm saying that fear is not the biological response generally felt by people who oppose homosexuality. People don't start sweating and get scared at the sight of a gay man. A gay man walks into a department store and people don't tear out of emergency exits in terror.
'Homophobia' is ridiculous.
Racism is fear, but most racists that show their racism don't quake in terror at the sight of the race they are scared of. Fear manifests itself in different ways.
If I were to walk into an aerobics class naked and do a squat in front of the mirror, it wouldn't be everyone else's fault for being bothered.
Have you paid for this class?
What if I took a crap on the floor, and them cleaned up my mess? What if I ate it? Other people's feelings have to be considered when dealing with society.
That would be a health hazard and a reasonable concern, yes.
Post by
TheMediator
No its not. If you're not fearful of them, then you shouldn't have any problem with someone feeling something towards you. You're just scared you'll feel some way back.
Can I make a bunch of false assertions about you too?
You like to paint bunnies on the bathroom walls and name them. You name them after your imaginary friends because you don't have any real ones. It's sad really.
If I said that saying sociability isn't important, and that the only friends one needs are imaginary, you might have some evidence for that.
Also, there's a difference between pooping on someone else's floor, and pooping on your own floor.
Lastly, I'm sure having minorities able to join the military made some of the other soldiers fearful back when it was first done, but sometimes soldiers just need to overcome their own fears so that there can eventually be acceptance.
Post by
Squishalot
....
Not one person has even bothered to talk about the OP, what is it with you people, answer question THEN get off topic.
The idea is to not skip over the question and just vent.
Being openly gay is considered a victimless crime in the military (or up for dispute anyway).
The original point is about victimless crimes, not about drug crimes. If you want to talk about drug crimes, go create a drug crimes thread. Be more specific if you want to fight for your rights to use party drugs without infringing the law.
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Drugs are a victimless crime, I wanted to get people back onto the subject by talking about something that most people have an opinion on.
On the first page, you'll see people commenting that drugs have victims indirectly. So people have moved on from the idea that drugs are victimless crimes, because they're not.
Furthermore, who are you to say what I am allowed to talk about in my thread and what I meant when I created the thread.
Don't get Hyper started about freedom of speech again!
Furthermore, I'm not telling you what you can or can't say. I'm telling you that these guys are on track, no matter how you might protest. If you want people to talk about drugs, then create a thread about drugs. Drug usage has been determined by people not to be a victimless crime, and so it shouldn't belong in a 'victimless crime' thread, even if you created it. Would people abuse Laihendi if he combo-broke his own Pokemon thread? Absolutely.
I wanted people to list their beliefs on various victimless crimes and then discuss why they believe they are correct and why other beliefs are flawed.
And yet, no one has done this once.
They are, they're currently on the crime of being openly gay in the military.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Furthermore, who are you to say what I am allowed to talk about in my thread and what I meant when I created the thread.
6. User Contributions
All user contributions including but not limited to comments, forum posts and screenshots become property of WOWHEAD.com and may be used as they see fit.
It's not your thread.
Don't get Hyper started about freedom of speech again!
Wowhead is private property, so free speech doesn't apply lol :P
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Drug abuse is not a victimless crime, I think every sociologist in America would like to have a word with you...
With whom, might I ask, are you arguing?
Post by
165617
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Don't get Hyper started about freedom of speech again!
Wowhead is private property, so free speech doesn't apply lol :P
<derail> Not true, just an act occurs on private property doesn't necessarily negate the innate criminal nature of the action...<crash>
Post by
Squishalot
The term victimless crime refers to infractions of criminal law without any identifiable evidence of an individual that has suffered damage in the infraction. Typically included are traffic citations and violations of laws concerning public decency, and include public drunkenness, illicit drug use, vagrancy and public nudity. These laws (concerning public decency) are based on the Offence principle, as opposed to laws based on the Harm principle.
Wikipedia states that drug crimes are based on the Offence principle (as in, it would lead people to be offended). People in this thread are arguing that drug abuse actually indirectly results in harm, and so should not be classified as a victimless crime.
To say that drug abuse is victimless would be to say that financing terrorism is victimless - 'you don't harm anyone with the act of giving the terrorists money'. I dare you to say that like you believe it.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Wikipedia states that drug crimes are based on the Offence principle (as in, it would lead people to be offended). People in this thread are arguing that drug abuse actually indirectly results in harm, and so should not be classified as a victimless crime.
To say that drug abuse is victimless would be to say that financing terrorism is victimless - 'you don't harm anyone with the act of giving the terrorists money'. I dare you to say that like you believe it.
Funding terrorism is different. You are objectively causing harm (indirectly, yes, but it's still objective damage).
Doing drugs only causes subjective harm (direct in this case).
If direct/indirect harm was the standard of wrongness we'd be in pretty bad shape.
Post by
Squishalot
Wikipedia states that drug crimes are based on the Offence principle (as in, it would lead people to be offended). People in this thread are arguing that drug abuse actually indirectly results in harm, and so should not be classified as a victimless crime.
To say that drug abuse is victimless would be to say that financing terrorism is victimless - 'you don't harm anyone with the act of giving the terrorists money'. I dare you to say that like you believe it.
Funding terrorism is different. You are objectively causing harm (indirectly, yes, but it's still objective damage).
Doing drugs only causes subjective harm (direct in this case).
If direct/indirect harm was the standard of wrongness we'd be in pretty bad shape.
Not really. I'm not talking about self-harm, I'm talking about harm to the community.
Public drunkenness and drug taking is probably the primary correlating factor of late-night violent behaviour. That doesn't prove that it's causal, certainly, but I bet that the statistics show that a higher proportion of drugged up people cause violence on others than non-drugged up people.
In the same way - giving a property developer money to 'build a hotel' in the middle east might not seem that bad. But funding Mr. Imran Zakhaev to 'build a hotel' might be. Banks are required to jump through numerous hoops nowadays to make sure that no money gets through to terrorist cells, even if that restricts us from lending money to honest-to-goodness people, who appear to be linked. Would you want to try to legislate something similar on drugs for people with violent tendencies?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Would you want to try to legislate something similar on drugs for people with violent tendencies?
No.
Drugs are not the problem. It's actions done in conjunction with the drugs that cause harm.
Cars are not the problem. It's misusing cars that is. Are we going to ban cars because of misuse? No, we discipline people who have already misused them. The same should go for drugs.
Post by
276825
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
276825
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Would you want to try to legislate something similar on drugs for people with violent tendencies?
No.
Drugs are not the problem. It's actions done in conjunction with the drugs that cause harm.
Cars are not the problem. It's misusing cars that is. Are we going to ban cars because of misuse? No, we discipline people who have already misused them. The same should go for drugs.
And you demonstrate my point. Money isn't the problem, it's actions done in conjunction with the money that cause harm. So why is terrorism-financing considered horribly illegal and bannable, but drug-abuse not?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.