Do you think any of these 'sins' (depending on perspective) are crimes or no? Non-religious reasons only pls, saying "because god" begs the question and that's not what this is for specifically. It's still related to religion of course as I want to see if y'all can give logical, cogent reasons that have nothing to do with religion (or tradition even) to justify classifying these as crimes. Of course, it's open to anyone, even atheists will have they're own individual stances.

You'll notice the lack of homosexuality, it's been done to death so we can ignore that for now. 3 is silly, I know, but I'll just leave it there.

My answer to all these is no. Edit: Simply because they're victimless.

If you can think of any other crimes that classify as victimless, or any other sins that should be crimes, lemme know.

Go

1. Narcotics

2. Bestiality

3. Blasphemy

4. Polygamy (both ways)


Edit, not sure how I forgot a favorite

5. Prostitution


Moar


6. Gambling

7. Assisted suicide

Good evening Wiegraf,

Hmmm...I guess you want us (Theists) to venture into 'battle' with our hands tied? Okay let's do it your way then.

1) Narcotics.

This is wrong cause of some of it's many side effects, especially its ability to blunt the senses. Just imagine a man with a gun (say police) and narcotics...this is a danger to the society we just cannot ignore.

2) Beastiality.

Hmmm...this might seem okay if you are not an animal "lover". I believe that animals at the minimum have some rights which should be respected. The Earth is not just for humans. If one can ignore the 'rights' of animals then why do we complain when our rights are trampled upon?

If a guy can get an animal to willingly accept his s*xual advances then let the fun begin.

Again, it is known that in some cases animals can't be held responsible for their actions. If one trains an animal in the act of having s*x with humans, there is a high possibility that these animals would want to practicalize what they were thought since it will become part of their instinctive response...just saying.

3) Blasphemy.
This is a bit unfair now wiegraf...not to bring God into this?...okay have it your way.

When one commits blasphemy we should understand that there is the human factor to this...consider a child whose peer insults his parents...I am sure that the response of each child would be different but the bottom line is there would be the sense of a wrong done, especially when that parent is loved. If some words offends another grievously then it is charitable not to use them when it can be avoided.

4) Polygamy.

Consider a situation where a man decides to get 3 wives and each of these wives decides to have 3 husbands of their own...that is anarchy! If a man has the right to marry more than one, why can't the wife or wives have the right to have more husbands?

If the above is not advised then it is wrong for the man to have more than one wife.


Thank you!

striktlymi: Good evening Wiegraf,

Hmmm...I guess you want us (Theists) to venture into 'battle' with our hands tied? Okay let's do it your way then.

1) Narcotics.

This is wrong cause of some of it's many side effects, especially its ability to blunt the senses. Just imagine a man with a gun (say police) and narcotics...this is a danger to the society we just cannot ignore.

2) Beastiality.

Hmmm...this might seem okay if you are not an animal "lover". I believe that animals at the minimum have some rights which should be respected. The Earth is not just for humans. If one can ignore the 'rights' of animals then why do we complain when our rights are trampled upon?

If a guy can get an animal to willingly accept his s*xual advances then let the fun begin.

Again, it is known that in some cases animals can't be held responsible for their actions. If one trains an animal in the act of having s*x with humans, there is a high possibility that these animals would want to practicalize what they were thought since it will become part of their instinctive response...just saying.

3) Blasphemy.
This is a bit unfair now wiegraf...not to bring God into this?...okay have it your way.

When one commits blasphemy we should understand that there is the human factor to this...consider a child whose peer insults his parents...I am sure that the response of each child would be different but the bottom line is there would be the sense of a wrong done, especially when that parent is loved. If some words offends another grievously then it is charitable not to use them when it can be avoided.

4) Polygamy.

Consider a situation where a man decides to get 3 wives and each of these wives decides to have 3 husbands of their own...that is anarchy! If a man has the right to marry more than one, why can't the wife or wives have the right to have more husbands?

If the above is not advised then it is wrong for the man to have more than one wife.


Thank you!

No vex, somethings come up

1. Guns on their own are dangerous, no need for alcohol or any drugs for one to use them to harm others, yet they remain legal in a lot of the developed world for good reason. Even if you do not agree with their stance on gun ownership, you have to acknowledge that so long as one's not harming anyone else no one has a right to force their will on him.

This is not like say banning countries from obtaining nuclear material of the quality that is used for nuclear weapons, as there's no other reason to acquire that type of material other than to build a bomb. It's just some folks using drugs to entertain themselves, and no one has a right to tell them how to do so. If one does use it irresponsibly and harms others then of course he should be held accountable.

Note, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And if someone is involved in an accident the alcohol really isn't to blame, the irresponsible driver is. Same with all drugs. This is one of the reasons alcohol is sold to adults only, they should be able to understand the consequences of their actions, no excuses. Government can always ensure that via tobacco warnings, drink responsibly labels, all manners of education etc

Also, as for direct violent crimes against citizens, do not forget the mess that is the prohibition era of the US. Now they're rid of the gangs and harmful contraband products, potentially lethal as well. Parts of europe are having similar success with marijuana laws. And as a bonus, the tax money acquired could be useful. Used to crack down on actual criminals rather than some dude who just wants to chortle
and is harming no one else

This does not mean no checks and balances. For instance if you go to a store with intention of buying enough ammunition to take on a platoon, just what do you want to do with all that? Also, social pressure is always welcome, just like one could scoff at say extremists or drunks. But to outlaw gun ownership or recreational drugs for the crimes of the few irresponsible users/owners is similar to say outlawing islam for the crimes of the terrorists.


2. This is more or else a security concern like the above. Then the owner is held responsible. For animals that are naturally aggressive or even just not domesticated, they would be dangerous with or without being trained to do the 'deed', probably illegal to just own in most cities even. But generally an animal misbehaves? Find the one responsible, the owner.

The valid concern here imo is the animals themselves. Then again we don't go around abattoirs arresting people, do we? You don't ask an animals permission before turning it suya. But yes, it has to be humane (even meat shops need some address imo, but that's another issue)

3. But not legally binding, in a manner of speak. Freedom of speech and the subjectivity of opinions. Slander is a different story though


4. No, both ways. Woman can have as many husbands/wives as she chooses. I do have 'security' concerns with this though, as it tends to result in slavery of sorts. In fact from what I can tell, that is more or else the norm; women becoming commodities. So some sort of management would be nice, but that's really rather tricky in this scenario. I could be justified in recommending outlawing it if I could show that it indeed does lead to modern day slavery in most cases. But if I can't I should just hold my peace



How do you do it....thanks!

wiegraf: Do you think any of these 'sins' (depending on perspective) are crimes or no? Non-religious reasons only pls, saying "because god" begs the question and that's not what this is for specifically. It's still related to religion of course as I want to see if y'all can give logical, cogent reasons that have nothing to do with religion (or tradition even) to justify classifying these as crimes. Of course, it's open to anyone, even atheists will have they're own individual stances.

You'll notice the lack of homosexuality, it's been done to death so we can ignore that for now. 3 is silly, I know, but I'll just leave it there.

My answer to all these is no. Edit: Simply because they're victimless.

If you can think of any other crimes that classify as victimless, or any other sins that should be crimes, lemme know.

Go

1. Narcotics

2. Bestiality

3. Blasphemy

4. Polygamy (both ways)

Good post to get people to think BUT Definitions and rules define life in games..ambiguity and vagueness leads no where..you have introduced three key words. "sin" , "crime" and "victimless" of which the "game" to be played revolves around without defining them.. if you want to be engaged properly and logically then im afraid you have to define your terms.

greatgenius: Good post to get people to think BUT Definitions and rules define life in games..ambiguity and vagueness leads no where..you have introduced three key words. "sin" , "crime" and "victimless" of which the "game" to be played revolves around without defining them.. if you want to be engaged properly and logically then im afraid you have to define your terms.

Really, if one can't decipher them then the person probably shouldn't be replying to the post. Anyways, these are clear enough except maybe 'victimless crimes', and even at that it's not terms themselves that could be problematic but rather who would qualify as 'victims', and the value of individual rights.

Sin is a traditional or religious taboo, not neccessarily harmful to the parties involved. Polygamy is a sin to a christian, not so to a muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

Crime are are acts that by the law of the land are illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

A victimless crime would be a crime that harms no one except maybe the perpetrator, regardless it would be an act the perpetrator willingly indulged in full well knowing the consequences (ie if it actually can cause some harm to her, like say some recreational drug use).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime

wiki:
A victimless crime is a term used to refer to actions that have been ruled illegal but do not directly violate or threaten the rights of any other individual. It often involves consensual acts in which two or more persons agree to commit a criminal offence in which no other person is involved. For example, in the United States current victimless crimes include prostitution, gambling, and illicit drug use. Edwin Schur and Hugo Bedau state in their book Victimless Crimes: Two sides of a Controversy “some of these laws produce secondary crime, and all create new ‘criminals’ many of whom are otherwise law abiding citizens and people in authority.” This is an issue in the United States where prison rates keep increasing even though it already has the highest prison population[1] out of any country. The term "victimless crime" is not used in jurisprudence[citation needed], but is rather used to cast doubt onto the efficacy of past, existing and proposed legislation; or to highlight the unintended consequences of the same. In politics, for example, a lobbyist might use this word with the implication that the law in question should be abolished.[2]

Like I said the only issue here could be who are the victims, our drug users family could claim to be victims, but do their issues come before her rights?

Wiki seems to be on it as well, to a degree

wiki:
The victim in "victimless" is inherently controversial. Laws are often purportedly intended to protect at least some people, so a criminal act is usually claimed by someone to cause someone or a group of people to be adversely affected to some degree, however abstract. There are four widely acknowledged distinct possible meanings of the term "victimless".

First, consensual crimes with (arguably) no material harm (such as sodomy laws in the United States, prior to Lawrence v. Texas).

Second, crimes in which the damage caused is overwhelmingly borne by the perpetrator, such as suicide or drug use. As the perpetrator has chosen to suffer the effects of these crimes, they are not a "victim" in the normal sense.

Third, crimes in which the cost is borne by an abstract society or group of people, without a clear, direct victim. This could be applied to driving without auto insurance (where mandated by law).

Fourth are crimes against non-"victims," or non-human entities, such as governments. These are victimless not because no harm occurs, but because the recipient of the harm is not properly considered a "victim." This is thus a question of the definition of victim, rather than a question of the effects of the crime.
Consent

An essential part of most victimless crimes is that the participating parties consent to the act, meaning they have the cognitive faculties and necessary information to make a proper decision. Children and the mentally disabled may be incapable of consenting to certain acts, as they may lack the cognitive ability to understand their effects and implications, but this is not universally accepted. The legal guardian of a ward may be able to give informed consent on behalf a child or person who is mentally disabled in some jurisdictions. Different jurisdictions have different interpretations and requirements for informed consent. With the requirement of consent, the fourth type of interpretation above would usually not fall under the definition of "victimless crime".

wiegraf:

Really, if one can't decipher them then the person probably shouldn't be replying to the post.

its not a matter of decipher its a matter of perspective. for instance differnet people have different views and definition for sin. what is a sin to you might not be a sin to another. what is considered a sin to a religious person might not be to a non religious person etc etc..same for "crime" and "victimless"..

Anyways, these are clear enough except maybe 'victimless crimes', and even at that it's not terms themselves that could be problematic but rather who would qualify as 'victims', and the value of individual rights.

exactly . in my view there are no victims. but depending on the standards or perspective i look at it i could also make a case that there is no such thing as "victimless crime"

Sin is a traditional or religious taboo, not neccessarily harmful to the parties involved. Polygamy is a sin to a christian, not so to a muslim.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sin

another reason why i asked you define your terms. most people look at sin from a religious prism so umless you define or broaden the term, people are only going to anwser you qestions from that perspective of sin..to me sin is simply to miss the mark/standard

Crime are are acts that by the law of the land are illegal
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime

good we are going to go with that definintion..

A victimless crime would be a crime that harms no one except maybe the perpetrator, regardless it would be an act the perpetrator willingly indulged in full well knowing the consequences (ie if it actually can cause some harm to her, like say some recreational drug use).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victimless_crime



Like I said the only issue here could be who are the victims, our drug users family could claim to be victims, but do their issues come before her rights?

Wiki seems to be on it as well, to a degree

ok so we are also going to go with that definition for victimless..

greatgenius: but depending on the standards or perspective i look at it i could also make a case that there is no such thing as "victimless crime"

I can't see what you mean, elaborate?

greatgenius:
to me sin is simply to miss the mark/standard

Mark or standard set by who/what? This seems a rather broad definition.

Btw, not read you post on the other thread. Once I do I'll have to commit, as my brain won't shut up about it. I have other things to take care of in the real world so I need to manage time more carefully. I'll get back to it when I do have time though...

wiegraf: Do you think any of these 'sins' (depending on perspective) are crimes or no? Non-religious reasons only pls, saying "because god" begs the question and that's not what this is for specifically. It's still related to religion of course as I want to see if y'all can give logical, cogent reasons that have nothing to do with religion (or tradition even) to justify classifying these as crimes. Of course, it's open to anyone, even atheists will have they're own individual stances.

You'll notice the lack of homosexuality, it's been done to death so we can ignore that for now. 3 is silly, I know, but I'll just leave it there.

My answer to all these is no. Edit: Simply because they're victimless.

If you can think of any other crimes that classify as victimless, or any other sins that should be crimes, lemme know.

Go

1. Narcotics

2. Bestiality

3. Blasphemy

4. Polygamy (both ways)


Edit, not sure how I forgot a favorite

5. Prostitution

This has absolute zero to do with religion. All the above are crimes in most of the countries atheists call home.

wiegraf: Do you think any of these 'sins' (depending on perspective) are crimes or no? Non-religious reasons only pls, saying "because god" begs the question and that's not what this is for specifically. It's still related to religion of course as I want to see if y'all can give logical, cogent reasons that have nothing to do with religion (or tradition even) to justify classifying these as crimes. Of course, it's open to anyone, even atheists will have they're own individual stances.

You'll notice the lack of homosexuality, it's been done to death so we can ignore that for now. 3 is silly, I know, but I'll just leave it there.

My answer to all these is no. Edit: Simply because they're victimless.

If you can think of any other crimes that classify as victimless, or any other sins that should be crimes, lemme know.

Go

1. Narcotics

2. Bestiality

3. Blasphemy

4. Polygamy (both ways)


Edit, not sure how I forgot a favorite

5. Prostitution

i am going to keep this simple and answer them from a right or wrong; victim or no victim perspective..

1. norcostics
the question i always ask myself in matters of right and wrong is "what if everyone did it". what will be the effect or consequences.. so now lets take a narcotic like heroin for insstance. what if everybody did heroin what will be the effect. well it'd be castastrophic to say the least to the individual and society at large. so narcotics definetey falls in the WRONG catergory.. the victim here will be both individual and society..is it a crime..yes.. should it be a crime..No becuase i believe people should be left to make their own decision as it concerns them. but since humanity is still highly uncivilized and still being governed by societal laws as the majority cannot be relied on to make right choices it is better to leave it as illegal for now..

2. beastiliaty
again what if everyone did it? well apart from the diseases and other ailments etc it is a sign of an un-civilized society.. so beastility falls in the wrong category..the victim in this case are the animals..it should definetly be a crime. humans are to evolve not devolve.
3.blasphemy
what if everyone did it. well sign of a disrectful society. falls in the wrong category. but is it a crime. absolutely not. there are slso no victims

4.polygamy
again what if everybody did it? well it will be a sign of a highly evolved and civilized society..and im afraid humans are not there yet.. i personally see nothing wrong with it. should not be a crime as well and no victims in this case unless of course the parties involved were forced into it.

5. prostitution
well waht if everyone did it? well it be an indication of a sexually liberated society. but what are the consequences.. well the effects will be a few harmful things of which a loveless society will be one.. there will be no such thing as sex made to celebrate love.. and where there is no love there is nothing but "problems".. so it falls in the wrong category.. and society is the victim in this instance

Good morning wiegraf,

Nice response! I was tempted to go about carrying placards and protesting vehemently for those things to be legalized but...

1)

wiegraf:

No vex, somethings come up

1. Guns on their own are dangerous, no need for alcohol or any drugs for one to use them to harm others, yet they remain legal in a lot of the developed world for good reason. Even if you do not agree with their stance on gun ownership, you have to acknowledge that so long as one's not harming anyone else no one has a right to force their will on him.

Yes for good reason...have you heard the slogan: "get the guns off our streets!"?...That came up for very good reasons and there is a growing call for a ban of the use of fire arms in those same countries that allowed it in the first place given the dire consequences that resulted because of the law.

Anyways, ownership of guns is not under scrutiny here but how do you explain to a mother whose child was killed by one who wields a weapon under the influence of narcotics? When the gun ish was allowed the saying was "no one will get hurt" but posterity proved them wrong...if we believe that legalizing narcotics won't result in some terrible crimes then we really are living in a dream world.

wiegraf:
This is not like say banning countries from obtaining nuclear material of the quality that is used for nuclear weapons, as there's no other reason to acquire that type of material other than to build a bomb. It's just some folks using drugs to entertain themselves, and no one has a right to tell them how to do so. If one does use it irresponsibly and harms others then of course he should be held accountable.

Well some nuclear materials can be put to good use like the generation of electricity...this is good but the use of these materials are striktly under the watchful eye of the international community. If we go by your argument then we can as well say that since the government of each country has the obligation of acting responsibly then each can go off to use these materials for the benefit of their people but this is not the case because it is better not to assume that everyone will act responsibly in the use of some sensitive things e.g narcotics.

wiegraf:
Note, guns don't kill people, people kill people. And if someone is involved in an accident the alcohol really isn't to blame, the irresponsible driver is. Same with all drugs. This is one of the reasons alcohol is sold to adults only, they should be able to understand the consequences of their actions, no excuses. Government can always ensure that via tobacco warnings, drink responsibly labels, all manners of education etc

Your argument above should give you an insight to how dangerous the use of narcotics really is. When you tell an adult not to drive when he has taken alcohol to a certain level, we are not necessarily telling the adult that he or she will definitely have an accident on the way but what we are saying is that there is a high risk of the driver causing harm to himself and the populace.

One needs not take excess narcotics to pose a danger to himself and the society...a little is more than enough to do the job. When one takes narcotics like I mentioned before...the senses become numb...how does one have total control of his or her faculty in that state? There is a potential threat here we just cannot ignore.

wiegraf:
Also, as for direct violent crimes against citizens, do not forget the mess that is the prohibition era of the US. Now they're rid of the gangs and harmful contraband products, potentially lethal as well. Parts of europe are having similar success with marijuana laws. And as a bonus, the tax money acquired could be useful. Used to crack down on actual criminals rather than some dude who just wants to chortle
and is harming no one else

Why get rid of the gangs when some of their activities are deemed okay by government? This is very simple...narcotics messes with the head and a man who is on drugs and at the same time wields a gun is never good for anyone.

wiegraf:
This does not mean no checks and balances. For instance if you go to a store with intention of buying enough ammunition to take on a platoon, just what do you want to do with all that? Also, social pressure is always welcome, just like one could scoff at say extremists or drunks. But to outlaw gun ownership or recreational drugs for the crimes of the few irresponsible users/owners is similar to say outlawing islam for the crimes of the terrorists.

Wiegraf do you honestly believe that there is such thing as a responsible use of narcotics? Even the best of people have been rendered "useless" because they decided to "use". The simple question I will ask you is: Will you be willing to have a Doctor who you know uses narcotics "responsibly" perform a major surgery on you?


2)

wiegraf:
2. This is more or else a security concern like the above. Then the owner is held responsible. For animals that are naturally aggressive or even just not domesticated, they would be dangerous with or without being trained to do the 'deed', probably illegal to just own in most cities even. But generally an animal misbehaves? Find the one responsible, the owner.

Dangerously aggressive animals do not belong in the society in the first place. Animals act according to their instinct. If an animal is aggressive then it is part of it's nature. But what about animals that usually are not aggressive? We teach them how to have s*x with humans and then what follows?...we take our non-agressive dog to the park and it tries to perform the bedroom dance on a minor? This is what it was taught to instinctively do and I bet the temptation will be too great ignore.

wiegraf:
The valid concern here imo is the animals themselves. Then again we don't go around abattoirs arresting people, do we? You don't ask an animals permission before turning it suya. But yes, it has to be humane (even meat shops need some address imo, but that's another issue)

At least there is a concern, just like the concerns that came up in the other items like narcotics. One major ish I have with humans is the level of disrespect we show our neighbours (Animals). It is bad enough that we mess up their habitat in the wild but to reduce them to mere s*x objects is very alarming...why can't a s*x crazed individual go out there to get a beautiful lady to have s*x with?

We should learn to follow the natural order of things. If we must kill an animal then let it be because we need it for food and sustenance like it is done in the wild and not because we want to satisfy our lust for s*x or "sports".

This is not victimless...the animals are the victims.

wiegraf:
3. But not legally binding, in a manner of speak. Freedom of speech and the subjectivity of opinions. Slander is a different story though

One's freedom ends when another's rights are infringed upon. "Name calling" alone has the tendency of leading some kids to commit suicide. I believe it is wrong for people to say things just because they have the freedom to...there should be some form of restraint and mutual respect.

wiegraf:
4. No, both ways. Woman can have as many husbands/wives as she chooses. I do have 'security' concerns with this though, as it tends to result in slavery of sorts. In fact from what I can tell, that is more or else the norm; women becoming commodities. So some sort of management would be nice, but that's really rather tricky in this scenario. I could be justified in recommending outlawing it if I could show that it indeed does lead to modern day slavery in most cases. But if I can't I should just hold my peace

Let's put aside the s*x slave ish for a bit. That is a wrong that can be committed without polygamy. Let's focus on those who are legally married now. Let me put my previous explanation in proper perspective:

Wiegraf falls in love with 2 ladies (to make it simple) and marries them...both ladies fall in love with 2 guys each and marries them too...that makes it a family of 7 without kids...these guys fall in love with 2 ladies each and the trend continues..."Victimless crime"? I believe if wiegraf is not a victim cause he might contract some unwanted disease the children at least would definitely be victims.

wiegraf:
How do you do it....thanks!

Lol!!!

wiegraf:

I can't see what you mean, elaborate?

what i simply meant is that ultimately there is no such thing as "victimless crimes".. it is an oxymoron

Mark or standard set by who/what? This seems a rather broad definition.

..The mark or standard set by the individual or society, and for religious individuals their "God".. it seems broad but that should be the correct definition. because something considered "sin" is a matter of perspective and thus relative.. my definition is integrative

Btw, not read you post on the other thread. Once I do I'll have to commit, as my brain won't shut up about it. I have other things to take care of in the real world so I need to manage time more carefully. I'll get back to it when I do have time though...

well that was probably my last response on there but you are welcome to respond..like i said open a thread about subjective and objective "truths" and we will discuss

WTF?

Beastiality? A victimless crime?


Are you ok?

davidylan:

This has absolute zero to do with religion. All the above are crimes in most of the countries atheists call home.

Did you read the op? Or do you think the only thing related to religion is singing hymns and sky daddies? And where do I state other atheists agree with me? I seem to remember asking for their contributions, no? Can you guess why?

greatgenius:

i am going to keep this simple and answer them from a right or wrong; victim or no victim perspective..

1. norcostics
the question i always ask myself in matters of right and wrong is "what if everyone did it". what will be the effect or consequences.. so now lets take a narcotic like heroin for insstance. what if everybody did heroin what will be the effect. well it'd be castastrophic to say the least to the individual and society at large. so narcotics definetey falls in the WRONG catergory.. the victim here will be both individual and society..is it a crime..yes.. should it be a crime..No becuase i believe people should be left to make their own decision as it concerns them. but since humanity is still highly uncivilized and still being governed by societal laws as the majority cannot be relied on to make right choices it is better to leave it as illegal for now..

2. beastiliaty
again what if everyone did it? well apart from the diseases and other ailments etc it is a sign of an un-civilized society.. so beastility falls in the wrong category..the victim in this case are the animals..it should definetly be a crime. humans are to evolve not devolve.
3.blasphemy
what if everyone did it. well sign of a disrectful society. falls in the wrong category. but is it a crime. absolutely not. there are slso no victims

4.polygamy
again what if everybody did it? well it will be a sign of a highly evolved and civilized society..and im afraid humans are not there yet.. i personally see nothing wrong with it. should not be a crime as well and no victims in this case unless of course the parties involved were forced into it.

5. prostitution
well waht if everyone did it? well it be an indication of a sexually liberated society. but what are the consequences.. well the effects will be a few harmful things of which a loveless society will be one.. there will be no such thing as sex made to celebrate love.. and where there is no love there is nothing but "problems".. so it falls in the wrong category.. and society is the victim in this instance

Hehe. Interesting perspective, but I don't think it flies. On a practical level, it may actually be a good solution sometimes but on paper, not so much. It's not necessarily the best approach either. It's a bit of taking the (ostensibly) easier route at the expense of people's freedom.

Take china for instance. They're crusade against religion is unquestionably hard to swallow, on paper. In practice quite a lot of chinese would tell you to mind your business. They do not see themselves as being mature enough to deal with charlatans, and dread the amount of disharmony it could engender. We actually have similar situations here at home, though most would not admit, for instance with labour and some of its forms that border on fringes of slavery, more or else (at the very least for the young).

Anyways, these solutions may be deemed necessary practical steps, but really, they're in a sense the easy way out, and mind that's not even guaranteed, at the expense of freedoms. For instance there are other countries that aren't so terribly mature that have done reasonably well despite zealous religiosity.

Wait, that's a bold faced lie, I can't think of any

Ok, ok, I kid, like say maybe brazil, india or turkey. Though the roots of modern turkey's successes are firmly planted in secularism, well actually a state religion built around a cult of personality with a focus on secularism, so turkey is debatable. Then again, just about any democracy has its founding heroes, I suppose the degree of deification is the issue. Anyways...

Do you think china is doing the right thing by repressing individual rights for the greater good? Sure, there are potential yusuf kones and a lot of other nonsense that can come with religion, but do you think those who need religion and would use it reasonably should have they're rights suppressed? What if they simply need to go through a phase, like teenagers, at the end of it all come back stronger, etc.

Are you happy with a benevolent dictatorship? (do note again, despite the use of the word 'benevolent, that may not be the actual case, it's not guaranteed success as well). If you are, then you are good to go.

wiegraf: Do you think any of these 'sins' (depending on perspective) are crimes or no? Non-religious reasons only pls, saying "because god" begs the question and that's not what this is for specifically. It's still related to religion of course as I want to see if y'all can give logical, cogent reasons that have nothing to do with religion (or tradition even) to justify classifying these as crimes. Of course, it's open to anyone, even atheists will have they're own individual stances.

You'll notice the lack of homosexuality, it's been done to death so we can ignore that for now. 3 is silly, I know, but I'll just leave it there.

My answer to all these is no. Edit: Simply because they're victimless.

If you can think of any other crimes that classify as victimless, or any other sins that should be crimes, lemme know.

Go

1. Narcotics

2. Bestiality

3. Blasphemy

4. Polygamy (both ways)


Edit, not sure how I forgot a favorite

5. Prostitution

u are joking, in many of d above d person who commited d 'crime' is d vitmin, nacotics 4 example, d person gradually distroys himself and God help him dat wen he is stoned he doesnt kill someone.

Logicboy03: WTF?

Beastiality? A victimless crime?


Are you ok?

so many pipo just love animals! With logicboy around i guarantee d animal are safe.
Besides i just finished reading a letter by "logicboy" on a nigerian news outlet. Are u aware of d letter?

Non of them is victimless. . .They are all crimes that affect others in one way or the other. . .

No vex, still distracted, my bahdt

striktlymi: Good morning wiegraf,

Nice response! I was tempted to go about carrying placards and protesting vehemently for those things to be legalized but...

This one is not so bad itself. It makes bestiality look justified as a crime, as is all animal cruelty.

striktlymi:
1)


Yes for good reason...have you heard the slogan: "get the guns off our streets!"?...That came up for very good reasons and there is a growing call for a ban of the use of fire arms in those same countries that allowed it in the first place given the dire consequences that resulted because of the law.

Yes, I note that, that's why I write 'whether we agree with them or not'. My point is there are also good reasons for supporting it.

Random;I personally don't think all guns should be legal, to be precise I think hand guns and any concealable weapons should be outlawed. If you own a gun, then what do you have to hide? And they unquestionably need better screening laws for purchases, laws against leaving weapons armed when you have minors in the house, limits on ammunition and how many guns one could own at any given time, etc etc. But that's just personal opinion

striktlymi:
Anyways, ownership of guns is not under scrutiny here but how do you explain to a mother whose child was killed by one who wields a weapon under the influence of narcotics? When the gun ish was allowed the saying was "no one will get hurt" but posterity proved them wrong...if we believe that legalizing narcotics won't result in some terrible crimes then we really are living in a dream world.

It was also that people wanted to protect themselves, and there are people who have used it for that purpose. It also still doesn't negate the fact that regular gun owners are not responsible for the actions of the minority. (Shades of islam here, but the situations are different really. Too much to get into though.) I assume most gun owners would actually support better regulation even, but I don't have any data to back that up

Knives, rat poisons, even the now popular codeine in 9ja weren't created to kill or get people high, yet quite a few use those tools for those purposes. We aren't going to ban those though. Heck, even cars aren't meant to kill people, but they do. Guns acquired for sport or self defense should fall into that category as well.

striktlymi:
Well some nuclear materials can be put to good use like the generation of electricity...this is good but the use of these materials are striktly under the watchful eye of the international community. If we go by your argument then we can as well say that since the government of each country has the obligation of acting responsibly then each can go off to use these materials for the benefit of their people but this is not the case because it is better not to assume that everyone will act responsibly in the use of some sensitive things e.g narcotics.

Most narcotics aren't that dangerous I'm afraid.


Random: you can ignore this bit as it's too long tldr; candidate.

Iirc, there are different types of material, and certain types are useless for nuclear reactors but good for bombs. So for that sort of material, yes, the only reason one would need those is to build a weapon. Regardless, you imply an interesting question, and I would say that each country should indeed have the right to build its own weapons, who made the west or xx.x the arbitrers? And sometimes they do try to acquire nuclear weapons, just without any support from rivals, enemies rtc.

Now, in the case of say iran, they certainly don't have many friends. I'm not sure of the details, but they've probably signed many agreements which amount to 'we won't make any such weapons'. If such a deal wasn't in place and they weren't rescinding on it, the best the international community could do is apply pressure, which is what is done in all these situations. If they still persist and manage to pull it off, then you could look to north korea and observe the consequences of that decision.

Iraq had already lost a conflict in which they were the aggressors, signed deals and what not indicating they won't be making any nuclear weapons (they'd already irresponsibly used chemical weapons), and ostensibly seemed to be making nuclear weapons. Well, to be fair, even a re.tard should have been able notice that they simply lacked the ability to pull it off if he went through all the evidence, but this is bush's excuse (or one of them) for the whole fiasco.

So, bottom line, by right, countries do have the right to make these weapons. They should be ready to face consequences of their actions though if they're aggressive or signed previous agreements. These would include at least ostracization from (sanctions, bans etc). And for the more aggressive, eg iraq which had attempted invading a neighbor before, they shouldn't be surprised if measures more drastic are used. Same thing with a heavy drug user vs society, I suppose.

striktlymi:
Your argument above should give you an insight to how dangerous the use of narcotics really is. When you tell an adult not to drive when he has taken alcohol to a certain level, we are not necessarily telling the adult that he or she will definitely have an accident on the way but what we are saying is that there is a high risk of the driver causing harm to himself and the populace.

True, and this is an excellent example of regulating use. Similar laws can be applied to all drugs. Note alcohol's arguably much more dangerous than say weed or the milder opiates.

When used unreasonably then narcotics become a great deal more dangerous to others. At that point the chance of potential victims becomes much greater, so much so it can't be ignored any more.

In strict theory though as long as he's not harming anyone perhaps he should still be allowed to do as he pleases even then. But again, when you consider that a very high percentage of users at that stage become dangerous, regulating use at that stage becomes reasonable. But by default and when not driving, etc, they aren't a danger to anyone.

striktlymi:
One needs not take excess narcotics to pose a danger to himself and the society...a little is more than enough to do the job. When one takes narcotics like I mentioned before...the senses become numb...how does one have total control of his or her faculty in that state? There is a potential threat here we just cannot ignore.

See above and below.

striktlymi:
Why get rid of the gangs when some of their activities are deemed okay by government? This is very simple...narcotics messes with the head and a man who is on drugs and at the same time wields a gun is never good for anyone.

The vast majority of users are harmless, even the few with guns. This is a bit like saying every car driver will hit someone.

striktlymi:
Wiegraf do you honestly believe that there is such thing as a responsible use of narcotics? Even the best of people have been rendered "useless" because they decided to "use". The simple question I will ask you is: Will you be willing to have a Doctor who you know uses narcotics "responsibly" perform a major surgery on you?

There is, and alcohol demonstrates that at say social functions. Heck, even codeine does so as pain relief. Then artists and creativity. In fact, some people perform their more mundane jobs better under the influence. For others, spiritual experiences even, hippies have a well earned reputation. Etc etc

As for the doctor, if heavily inebriated then he now qualifies as being irresponsible, so of course no I wouldn't let him. Same way you wouldn't let a drunk person drive. That does not mean that responsible users should be punished for his mistakes.

Random: Don't forget social pressure could and should be used to keep things in check, along with government education and regulation etc. But legal pressure? No

striktlymi:

Dangerously aggressive animals do not belong in the society in the first place. Animals act according to their instinct. If an animal is aggressive then it is part of it's nature. But what about animals that usually are not aggressive? We teach them how to have s*x with humans and then what follows?...we take our non-agressive dog to the park and it tries to perform the bedroom dance on a minor? This is what it was taught to instinctively do and I bet the temptation will be too great ignore.

Correct about dangerous animals. As for kids in parks, lol. Yes, that is a justifiable fear, but one could counter that dogs are trained to be aggressive by owners as well, virtually no different or more dangerous than training a dog to do the deed. When dogs are deemed over aggressive, the owners are held responsible, yes? You don't outlaw all dogs because of that, punishing the very vast majority of responsible owners. You setup regulations, restrictions etc

striktlymi:
At least there is a concern, just like the concerns that came up in the other items like narcotics. One major ish I have with humans is the level of disrespect we show our neighbours (Animals). It is bad enough that we mess up their habitat in the wild but to reduce them to mere s*x objects is very alarming...why can't a s*x crazed individual go out there to get a beautiful lady to have s*x with?

What they choose to screw is not the issue really, just the amount of harm they inflict on others.

I agree with you about the treatment of animals

striktlymi:
We should learn to follow the natural order of things. If we must kill an animal then let it be because we need it for food and sustenance like it is done in the wild and not because we want to satisfy our lust for s*x or "sports".

This is not victimless...the animals are the victims.

If I were following natural order I'd probably be out rap.ing or murdering at the moment.

Here though is where you and I agree. I suppose the animals really are victims, and just because we have to kill them doesn't mean we should be able to do as we please. Two wrongs don't make a right, etc. It is still a bit hypocritical, but I suppose we have to do what we have to.

Random: y'all should get out of sciences way though, so we can find reasonable alternatives to killing the poor suckers. I wonder if you could grow some meat that doesn't feel pain, like a cheap way to use *gasp* stem cells (silly idea maybe, but you get the point)

striktlymi:
One's freedom ends when another's rights are infringed upon. "Name calling" alone has the tendency of leading some kids to commit suicide. I believe it is wrong for people to say things just because they have the freedom to...there should be some form of restraint and mutual respect.

This is far too subjective an issue to be made to law though. I could deem your hippie talk about caring for animals as insulting to my religion, pikkiwokkism, which demands all animals be treated with contempt. Then what next? You get arrested?

Social pressure is the only solution I can see here as well. In cases of outright slander though, yes, I agree the law can be called in.

striktlymi:
Let's put aside the s*x slave ish for a bit. That is a wrong that can be committed without polygamy. Let's focus on those who are legally married now. Let me put my previous explanation in proper perspective:

Wiegraf falls in love with 2 ladies (to make it simple) and marries them...both ladies fall in love with 2 guys each and marries them too...that makes it a family of 7 without kids...these guys fall in love with 2 ladies each and the trend continues..."Victimless crime"? I believe if wiegraf is not a victim cause he might contract some unwanted disease the children at least would definitely be victims.

At the end of the day it was all consensual, wiegraf in this case is fully at fault for his folly. He was well aware of the risks before participating. If you go sky-diving without a parachute despite one being readily available to you, well, your fault. No one forced you



Again- thanks!! Lol

Logicboy03: WTF?

Beastiality? A victimless crime?


Are you ok?

What did you have for lunch today?

Only human victim I can think of is mr hands. Google him if interested, or google '2 guys 1 horse'

Ubenedictus: u are joking, in many of d above d person who commited d 'crime' is d vitmin, nacotics 4 example, d person gradually distroys himself and God help him dat wen he is stoned he doesnt kill someone.

But he does have the right to be a victim if he so chooses. Supposing you give all your 1st month salary to your church despite not exactly swimming in cash, as an atheist I could come in and say you're a victim, does that mean it should be a crime?

mazaje: Non of them is victimless. . .They are all crimes that affect others in one way or the other. . .

Yes they do, but they're not as important as the individuals rights. So long as all around its adults and consensual, no one should force they're will on them. Keeping with the religion theme, I see a muslim and I think to myself 'well, that's a waste of potential'. Doesn't mean being a muslim should be a crime though, even if it harms loved ones feelings

wiegraf:

What did you have for lunch today?

Only human victim I can think of is mr hands. Google him if interested, or google '2 guys 1 horse'

The animal cant give consent and so the animal is a victim of rape

Logicboy03:


The animal cant give consent and so the animal is a victim of rape

She's also a murder victim

wiegraf:

She's also a murder victim

Killing for survival isnt murder.


Killing to eat is natural. Lions eat antelopes but they dont hump cows

Logicboy03:



Killing for survival isnt murder.


Killing to eat is natural. Lions eat antelopes but they dont hump cows

You've never seen a dog try to hump a cat. Actually, they try to hump humans as well, all the time, no training needed.

What gives you the right to declare killing for survival isn't murder? I have a rival at work for instance, I suppose I should kill him after dinner

wiegraf:

You've never seen a dog try to hump a cat. Actually, they try to hump humans as well, all the time, no training needed.

What gives you the right to declare killing for survival isn't murder? I have a rival at work for instance, I suppose I should kill him after dinner

lol........consent defines rape. Animals cant give consent, sames as children.



As for your point....a dog will try to hump anything when desperately on heat for a long time without a partner. That is not natural but out of sexual frustration.


You wont die if you dont kill your rival at work. Humans need to eat to survive.

Logicboy03:


lol........consent defines rape. Animals cant give consent, sames as children.

If you're going to apply human laws to other animals in the case of ra.pe, then why do you ignore murder?

Heavily premeditated I might add, well planned with your pots cleaned, napkins washed and ingredients acquired well before time. You may have books with recipies all around the house or recorded cooking shows demonstrating the amount of research you put into killing your victim. So you can't even tell the judge it was manslaughter or an accident, yes?

Logicboy03:
As for your point....a dog will try to hump anything when desperately on heat for a long time without a partner. That is not natural but out of sexual frustration.

I don't think dogs understand the concept of frustration, they just climb whatever's closest when in the mood. And they do derive pleasure from it. They're not the only species that engage in inter-species loving as well. If they do it for pleasure then why not humans?

But regardless, again, why do we have to do only 'natural' things? Lots of animals eat their children, should we pick that up as well? Other animals don't read books, should we stop reading books then? It doesn't occur in nature after all

Logicboy03:
You wont die if you dont kill your rival at work. Humans need to eat to survive.

How do you know I won't die, are you really sure? I'm not prepared to take that chance.

And I'm assuming you've come across vegetarians before, yes?



I think there's an easier way for you to win this. But perhaps I could find a way around it if I tried

Good evening wiegraf

wiegraf: No vex, still distracted, my bahdt

No p on the above! A man's got to do what a man's got to do! You are free to respond at your own time.

wiegraf:
This one is not so bad itself. It makes bestiality look justified as a crime, as is all animal cruelty.

I guess we are in agreement on the bestiality bit so I won't dwell on this.

wiegraf:
Yes, I note that, that's why I write 'whether we agree with them or not'. My point is there are also good reasons for supporting it.

I agree totally with the bolded. The truth is, there is always good reasons for so many things. If one think hard enough there will be at least one good reason for murder. Whatever has a disadvantage must have some advantages. There is nothing like a totally bad thing...even the devil can be helpful in some cases ***looks round to see if any of my brethren are around*** I believe you get my point!

Random;I personally don't think all guns should be legal, to be precise I think hand guns and any concealable weapons should be outlawed. If you own a gun, then what do you have to hide? And they unquestionably need better screening laws for purchases, laws against leaving weapons armed when you have minors in the house, limits on ammunition and how many guns one could own at any given time, etc etc. But that's just personal opinion

I can relate with the above but I still don't understand why people would want to keep any gun...and don't say it's for protection

@bolded, one of such laws should be that the individuals should be able to demonstrate that they can have a reasonable control of their faculty which should imply a freedom from narcotics

It was also that people wanted to protect themselves, and there are people who have used it for that purpose. It also still doesn't negate the fact that regular gun owners are not responsible for the actions of the minority. (Shades of islam here, but the situations are different really. Too much to get into though.) I assume most gun owners would actually support better regulation even, but I don't have any data to back that up

I agree that it would be inappropriate in some cases to deprive the majority because of the actions of a few but there some peculiar cases where the greater good must be brought into play. Before anything is outlawed or accepted into law there should be a cost/benefit analysis. If the cost of a venture outweighs it's benefits then that venture shouldn't be undertaken. The ills of narcotics far outweighs it's benefits hence the need for it to be a no no for me.

Knives, rat poisons, even the now popular codeine in 9ja weren't created to kill or get people high, yet quite a few use those tools for those purposes. We aren't going to ban those though. Heck, even cars aren't meant to kill people, but they do. Guns acquired for sport or self defense should fall into that category as well.

Rat poison? People take all that stuff to get high? My argument is not that narcotics on their own kills people...this is far from it. I am more concerned about the effect it has on people and the potential threat it poses on the society who ultimately becomes the victim here.

Most narcotics aren't that dangerous I'm afraid.

On their own, No! but with human help, Yes! Like I mentioned the threat of using outweighs the advantages. Why have we suddenly given up on good ol' fashion cigarette?

Random: you can ignore this bit as it's too long tldr; candidate.

Iirc, there are different types of material, and certain types are useless for nuclear reactors but good for bombs. So for that sort of material, yes, the only reason one would need those is to build a weapon. Regardless, you imply an interesting question, and I would say that each country should indeed have the right to build its own weapons, who made the west or xx.x the arbitrers? And sometimes they do try to acquire nuclear weapons, just without any support from rivals, enemies rtc.

Now, in the case of say iran, they certainly don't have many friends. I'm not sure of the details, but they've probably signed many agreements which amount to 'we won't make any such weapons'. If such a deal wasn't in place and they weren't rescinding on it, the best the international community could do is apply pressure, which is what is done in all these situations. If they still persist and manage to pull it off, then you could look to north korea and observe the consequences of that decision.

Iraq had already lost a conflict in which they were the aggressors, signed deals and what not indicating they won't be making any nuclear weapons (they'd already irresponsibly used chemical weapons), and ostensibly seemed to be making nuclear weapons. Well, to be fair, even a re.tard should have been able notice that they simply lacked the ability to pull it off if he went through all the evidence, but this is bush's excuse (or one of them) for the whole fiasco.

So, bottom line, by right, countries do have the right to make these weapons. They should be ready to face consequences of their actions though if they're aggressive or signed previous agreements. These would include at least ostracization from (sanctions, bans etc). And for the more aggressive, eg iraq which had attempted invading a neighbor before, they shouldn't be surprised if measures more drastic are used. Same thing with a heavy drug user vs society, I suppose.

Sorry but I read everything up there Though I agree with a lot of ish you raised up there but I don't think countries should have the right to make their own nuclear weapons. All the world need is another 'mad man' to become the president of God know where with the ability of making nuclear weapons.

True, and this is an excellent example of regulating use. Similar laws can be applied to all drugs. Note alcohol's arguably much more dangerous than say weed or the milder opiates.

C'mon wiegraf, are you seriously comparing alcohol with narcotics?

When used unreasonably then narcotics become a great deal more dangerous to others. At that point the chance of potential victims becomes much greater, so much so it can't be ignored any more.

Wiegraf let's play a game! Mention one verifiable individual who used narcotics 'reasonably' and I will mention 10 who didn't. Okay, go...

In strict theory though as long as he's not harming anyone perhaps he should still be allowed to do as he pleases even then. But again, when you consider that a very high percentage of users at that stage become dangerous, regulating use at that stage becomes reasonable. But by default and when not driving, etc, they aren't a danger to anyone.


The vast majority of users are harmless, even the few with guns. This is a bit like saying every car driver will hit someone.

The potential for harm is great for those who are seemingly harmless while those who are already reckless will definitely have a swell time harming people under the influence.

There is, and alcohol demonstrates that at say social functions. Heck, even codeine does so as pain relief. Then artists and creativity. In fact, some people perform their more mundane jobs better under the influence. For others, spiritual experiences even, hippies have a well earned reputation. Etc etc

Random: y'all should get out of sciences way though, so we can find reasonable alternatives to killing the poor suckers. I wonder if you could grow some meat that doesn't feel pain, like a cheap way to use *gasp* stem cells (silly idea maybe, but you get the point)

I am for science!


Sorry I couldn't respond on all!


Thank you!

wiegraf:

If you're going to apply human laws to other animals in the case of ra.pe, then why do you ignore murder?

Heavily premeditated I might add, well planned with your pots cleaned, napkins washed and ingredients acquired well before time. You may have books with recipies all around the house or recorded cooking shows demonstrating the amount of research you put into killing your victim. So you can't even tell the judge it was manslaughter or an accident, yes?

Killing to survive isnt murder. I didnt just apply human laws to animals- I applied human laws to humans interacting with animals.


If you and I were in the middle of the ocean and there is a one-seater boat floating towards us......if I were to kill you in the process of fighting for the boat, no court of law will put me in prison.


There is a legal definition of murder. Murder isnt as easily defined as you think it is.

wiegraf:
I don't think dogs understand the concept of frustration, they just climb whatever's closest when in the mood. And they do derive pleasure from it. They're not the only species that engage in inter-species loving as well. If they do it for pleasure then why not humans?


But regardless, again, why do we have to do only 'natural' things? Lots of animals eat their children, should we pick that up as well? Other animals don't read books, should we stop reading books then? It doesn't occur in nature after all

Research your [size=14pt]assumptions[/size] in bold before we debate on "i think".


When I use the word "natural" in this case, I use it to mean "usual". It is quite unusual for a dog to hump you when it has a partner. Wolves or wild dogs never hump humans.


Eating/killing infants is natural in many animals. That is where you are wrong. It is a Darwinian mode of living- survival of the fittest. Rats kill their deformed babies for there to be resources for the healthy ones

However, the point is that I didnt mean "natural" as the homophobes use it to mean some law in nature when was referring to dogs

wiegraf:
How do you know I won't die, are you really sure? I'm not prepared to take that chance.

And I'm assuming you've come across vegetarians before, yes?



I think there's an easier way for you to win this. But perhaps I could find a way around it if I tried

You only need 3 things to survive...food, water and shelter.


Plants and animals are living things. Vegetarians still kill. There are even animals that can be both classified as plants/animals

Logicboy03:


Killing to survive isnt murder. I didnt just apply human laws to animals- I applied human laws to humans interacting with animals.


If you and I were in the middle of the ocean and there is a one-seater boat floating towards us......if I were to kill you in the process of fighting for the boat, no court of law will put me in prison.


There is a legal definition of murder. Murder isnt as easily defined as you think it is.

The bolded means little of value. How does that change anything? You assign the same amount of rights to the animal as you would a human, that is all that matters.

If we were in the middle of the ocean, but under the jurisdiction of a government, then many courts of law would at least try you for manslaughter or something similar. And note, like I said earlier, this is MURDER, planned out. You do not need to kill in order to survive, no matter how you dress it. You're not a carnivore.

And what's your definition of murder, or does it not involve intent? I did point out intent, yes?

Logicboy03:
Research your [size=14pt]assumptions[/size] in bold before we debate on "i think".

Interesting, you're complaining about my making assumptions? Hmmm. Like above where you claim you wouldn't be tried in any court of law, I see.

Logicboy03:
When I use the word "natural" in this case, I use it to mean "usual". It is quite unusual for a dog to hump you when it has a partner. Wolves or wild dogs never hump humans.

And wolves and wild dogs just happen to spend all day around humans. You've done field work on this sort of situations or researched your claims? What was that about assumptions?

http://scienceblogs.com/observations/2011/01/28/reverse-bestiality-when-animal/

There's even a nice video on there featuring a parrot.

Logicboy03:
Eating/killing infants is natural in many animals. That is where you are wrong. It is a Darwinian mode of living- survival of the fittest. Rats kill their deformed babies for there to be resources for the healthy ones

However, the point is that I didnt mean "natural" as the homophobes use it to mean some law in nature when was referring to dogs

Your point? They do eat their young, yes or no? Then a mother who was denied the right to abort or simply couldn't afford it should be allowed to eat her children if she can't take care of them as well, no? At the very least she should be allowed to eat them if deformed, yes?

What natural do you mean then? I have this nagging feeling what you deem as 'natural' is arbitrary, yes?

Logicboy03:
You only need 3 things to survive...food, water and shelter.


Plants and animals are living things. Vegetarians still kill. There are even animals that can be both classified as plants/animals

You don't necessarily need shelter. Another (conspicuously false) assumption. Or do you call the occasional shade shelter? And even at that, it's not entirely necessary.

Vegetarians don't have to kill. Removing roots, stems, leaves does not necessarily lead to a plants death, and said parts are easily replaced by said plants. Products like milk, eggs (the young aren't yet alive yet) are probably game as well as . This statement is clearly false.

And as for vegetarians that actually "kill" plants, well, really? Plants have no nervous system of any note, they cannot feel pain. Actually, they cannot 'feel' or 'think' in any capacity. Killing them is comparable to splitting a rock, same amount of pain and harm is inflicted (even 'psychological'). Try killing an animal with a nervous system and their ability to fell emotion (in some) and you'll notice you're explicitly inflicting pain on it.

Either ways, bottom line, you need food and water, correct. But you do not need to KILL. And frankly, I do not think killing plants can classify as a crime in any way, anywhere (except it was some rarity, etc, but not because you somehow inflicted pain and suffering on the plant)

You, my good friend, are a murderer.

@striktly

I'll have to get back to you good ser. I'll have to show you that alcohol is indeed rather dangerous, much more so than weed and even the milder opiates for one, along with a few other things. But your good post is all leading towards individual rights vs collective will imo, perhaps a few other things as well. So, when I've better time (soon actually I think), I'll be back with a fitting response

Thanks!!! (hey, it's not that bad a practice, I'm beginning to get used to it)

wiegraf:
But he does have the right to be a victim if he so chooses. Supposing you give all your 1st month salary to your church despite not exactly swimming in cash, as an atheist I could come in and say you're a victim, does that mean it should be a crime?

by d same rule u use then suicide isnt a crime!