U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 03-27-2009, 10:12 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,788,921 times
Reputation: 4539

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
Like driving? Or ...what's another good example: Reading...can you imagine how much money the government would save if it didn't teach people to read:
Reading teachers,
Classrooms
Books,
Signs,
Ballots
Web Sites
on an on...it would be a big money saver.
Driving is necessary due to the lack of public transportation and the widespread suburbia in our country. I can think of only one city in the U.S. (NYC) where driving is not an actual necessity. Driving causes more good than harm. The state restricts and regulates driving by requiring licensing, banning speeding, etc. Unsafe driving is what is dangerous...not simply driving.

In this example, we were talking about use of illegal drugs. Almost everyone would agree that use of these substances causes more harm than good.

As far as reading, do you really think that teaching reading causes problems? It may cost money sure, but I think we could all agree that the benefits FAR, FAR, FAR outweigh any costs. I hope that was sarcastic.

Neither allowing driving nor teaching reading is a valid comparison to allowing the use of addictive, dangerous substances. Yes, they all three may cost the government money to deal with so called "consequences." But there is a difference between allowing a necessity and allowing a non-necessity.

 
Old 03-27-2009, 10:18 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,723,824 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by joey2000 View Post
Apparently you equate "direct" harm as physical harm only. I quite disagree.

And this is the problem with the libertarian mentality: looks great on paper at first glance, but it falls apart in the glare of reality, for various reasons. One is that everyone draws their lines in different places. Another is that it's overly simplistic and such a topic is anything but. Basically a person's actions have consequences, and not just for themselves, but the people around them, and in some cases, the public in
general and the gov't. The addiction thing is a perfect example. People think "I should be allowed to do whatever I want" but ignore that if they do stupid things like become drug addicts/etc they put a burden on society one way or the other.

In other words, "so long as it doesn't harm anyone else" becomes so rare that the very idea becomes an idealistic joke, for the most part.
I give up--I now agree wiyh you--let's criminalize all human actions that COULD hurt anyone else. Ever.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 10:22 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,723,824 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
Driving is necessary due to the lack of public transportation and the widespread suburbia in our country. I can think of only one city in the U.S. (NYC) where driving is not an actual necessity. Driving causes more good than harm. The state restricts and regulates driving by requiring licensing, banning speeding, etc. Unsafe driving is what is dangerous...not simply driving.

In this example, we were talking about use of illegal drugs. Almost everyone would agree that use of these substances causes more harm than good.

As far as reading, do you really think that teaching reading causes problems? It may cost money sure, but I think we could all agree that the benefits FAR, FAR, FAR outweigh any costs. I hope that was sarcastic.

Neither allowing driving nor teaching reading is a valid comparison to allowing the use of addictive, dangerous substances. Yes, they all three may cost the government money to deal with so called "consequences." But there is a difference between allowing a necessity and allowing a non-necessity.
My post wasn't about drugs nor about driving...It was about a previous poster's nuuty thesis that government should not allow anything that costs money--

Pay attention, old chap.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 10:24 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,788,921 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcashley View Post
My post wasn't about drugs nor about driving...It was about a previous poster's nuuty thesis that government should not allow anything that costs money--

Pay attention, old chap.
You quoted me. I suggested that it was irresponsible for the government to condone unnecessary behavior that is likely to create consequences that the government will have to pay for.
 
Old 03-27-2009, 10:27 PM
 
Location: Under a bridge.
3,196 posts, read 4,723,824 times
Reputation: 976
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
You quoted me.
Yeah--I guess I did....
 
Old 03-27-2009, 11:08 PM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,788,921 times
Reputation: 4539
Regarding the "victimless" crimes (not specifically referring to incest, but to others)...I'd suggest those of you who support eliminating them look into the concept of "broken windows" policing.
 
Old 03-28-2009, 01:09 AM
 
Location: Downtown Los Angeles
141 posts, read 236,374 times
Reputation: 132
No, cool with me.
 
Old 03-28-2009, 10:27 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,734,744 times
Reputation: 35899
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
You quoted me. I suggested that it was irresponsible for the government to condone unnecessary behavior that is likely to create consequences that the government will have to pay for.

I saw a movie on cable last night, which exhibited several different forms of antisocial behavior in ways that could influence people to emulate. It is irresponsible for the government to condone this unnecessary movie which is likely to create consequences that the government will have to pay for. Therefore, producing such movies ought to be illegal, a felony, with a 20-year prison sentence. Stressing your words, this movie seemed pretty unnecessary. Not only does the government have a right to ban all such unnecessary movies (and imprisoning those responsible for them) but it ought to, by your argument.
 
Old 03-28-2009, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Texas
14,969 posts, read 13,788,921 times
Reputation: 4539
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtur88 View Post
I saw a movie on cable last night, which exhibited several different forms of antisocial behavior in ways that could influence people to emulate. It is irresponsible for the government to condone this unnecessary movie which is likely to create consequences that the government will have to pay for. Therefore, producing such movies ought to be illegal, a felony, with a 20-year prison sentence. Stressing your words, this movie seemed pretty unnecessary.
The movie is constitutionally protected in most cases. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects your "freedom" to have intercourse with your daughter. The state clearly has an interest to prohibit this conduct for the reasons I have previously outlined.

Last edited by Reads2MUCH; 03-28-2009 at 10:50 AM.. Reason: inappropriate language
 
Old 03-28-2009, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Victoria TX
42,668 posts, read 71,734,744 times
Reputation: 35899
Quote:
Originally Posted by afoigrokerkok View Post
The movie is constitutionally protected in most cases. Freedom of the press, freedom of speech, etc. There is nothing in the Constitution that protects your "freedom" to have intercourse with your daughter.
First of all, not it is not constitutionally protected. That movie cannot be shown on over-the-air TV without severe cutting, bleeping and editing, because there is very limited actual freedom of expression. I have more personal freedom to f*** a consenting partner of my choice, than of public speech.

Second, this is not about the Constitution, it is about what ought to be permitted, as a matter of personal freedom, not constitutional interpretation.

But the real issue here is just how far the government ought to go. How much of our nation's police, prosecution and corrections resources ought to be directed at imprisoning incestuous citizens? How much surveillance are you prepared to tolerate in your home to enable authorities to be certain that this horrific and heinous crime is not being committed there? Assuming that the ridiculously conservative estimate of one-percent is anywhere near reliable as the incidence of incestuous households, where will you incarcerate these additional three million prisoners?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Great Debates
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top