|
Post by dianaholberg on May 30, 2006 21:43:10 GMT -5
littlepea... from page 11: I mean that you are not looking for ways for our views to meet. You just dismiss everything I post as irrelevant, post the exact same question over and over, and refuse to provide any support for your position. And then you call me names, adding insult to injury. And from page 24: Where I believe you go wrong is right at the beginning -- in believing there is not an objective standard for morality. If we cannot agree that there is a certain level of "wrongness" that automatically categorizes behavior as so strongly undesirable as to make it a candidate for criminalization, we cannot agree. Hence, agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 31, 2006 10:44:14 GMT -5
kudos for finding those specific points in amongst all the drivel and bile, but i did not call you names in my last two posts, at least not unfairly. it is foolish to dismiss my arguments as not worth discussing if you understand what i'm saying but it seems more likely to me that you simply don't understand what i'm getting at. your last response to me was complete and utter nonsense (it actually made no sense whatsoever). i can't believe that that is how you think of this discussion, it's complete jibberish disguised with jargon ... surely your mind does not work like that?
you are correct when you say that we disagree that morality is an objective standard (normative, even), but even if it is objective it says nothing about what form the law should take. don't you agree?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on May 31, 2006 11:51:02 GMT -5
And criminalizing prostitution has stopped all that, right? Polytheist... from page 8: And from page 9: Yes, women should be protected from the evils of prostitution -- in part by laws that clearly direct them away from that behavior. No, prostitutes who are breaking the law should not be protected by the law -- they should be charged with the crimes they commit. Funny how you did not answer the question: And criminalizing prostitution has stopped all that, right? Not that I am surprised or anything.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 31, 2006 12:46:21 GMT -5
Polytheist, your question reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of the law. The law rarely serves to stop behavior -- all it does is identify behavior that the people have agreed is undesirable to the point that it will not go unpunished.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on May 31, 2006 12:47:35 GMT -5
kudos for finding those specific points in amongst all the drivel and bile, but i did not call you names in my last two posts, at least not unfairly. it is foolish to dismiss my arguments as not worth discussing if you understand what i'm saying but it seems more likely to me that you simply don't understand what i'm getting at. your last response to me was complete and utter nonsense (it actually made no sense whatsoever). i can't believe that that is how you think of this discussion, it's complete jibberish disguised with jargon ... surely your mind does not work like that? Ditto to you... I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying here. Yes, I agree. The people say what form the law should take. Last time I checked, I was among the people. All this ground has been covered. If there is nothing new, why do you keep posting?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on May 31, 2006 13:32:21 GMT -5
Polytheist, your question reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of the law. The law rarely serves to stop behavior -- all it does is identify behavior that the people have agreed is undesirable to the point that it will not go unpunished. Diana, you still have not answered the question.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on May 31, 2006 14:23:27 GMT -5
kudos for finding those specific points in amongst all the drivel and bile, but i did not call you names in my last two posts, at least not unfairly. it is foolish to dismiss my arguments as not worth discussing if you understand what i'm saying but it seems more likely to me that you simply don't understand what i'm getting at. your last response to me was complete and utter nonsense (it actually made no sense whatsoever). i can't believe that that is how you think of this discussion, it's complete jibberish disguised with jargon ... surely your mind does not work like that? Ditto to you... I can't make heads or tails out of what you're saying here. go back and read my initial response to the post that i'm talking about, i can't be bothered repeating myself word for word on this issue. so you finally admit that it is merely your opinion that complete decriminalisation is the best way to go? this is not an objective, 100% fully proven fact? because at times you talk a load of crap and i'm not going to let it go without comment, such as this: Polytheist, your question reflects a misunderstanding of the purpose of the law. The law rarely serves to stop behavior -- all it does is identify behavior that the people have agreed is undesirable to the point that it will not go unpunished. the criminal law is only a part of the bigger picture. if our main aim is to reduce the problem of prostitution (which i think it should be) then there's no reason why we should rule out decriminalisation just because some people feel that prostitutes should be punished.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 1, 2006 8:05:16 GMT -5
Diana, you still have not answered the question. I will help you understand my answer by restating it clearly. No, because that is not the goal of law.
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 1, 2006 8:07:29 GMT -5
so you finally admit that it is merely your opinion that complete decriminalisation is the best way to go? this is not an objective, 100% fully proven fact? Please show me where I stated that it is something other than my opinion, or where I stated that it is objective, 100% fully proven fact. Honestly, littlepea -- what is your problem? YES! Absolutely. And it has inherent value. Do you understand that at all?? Our main aim should be to protect the innocent.
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 1, 2006 10:55:55 GMT -5
Diana, you still have not answered the question. I will help you understand my answer by restating it clearly. No, because that is not the goal of law. What is the goal of the law?
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 2, 2006 9:53:50 GMT -5
To protect the innocent, of course.
|
|
|
Post by littlepea on Jun 2, 2006 16:34:02 GMT -5
so you finally admit that it is merely your opinion that complete decriminalisation is the best way to go? this is not an objective, 100% fully proven fact? Please show me where I stated that it is something other than my opinion, or where I stated that it is objective, 100% fully proven fact. Honestly, littlepea -- what is your problem? the problem is that you have stated soemthing along the lines of, "decriminalsation cannot be beneficial - fact", more times than i care to remember. do you really want to waste my time by requiring me to bring a load of quotations to your attention just for you to dispute what you meant and for me to state that the most obvious interpretation was mine etc. etc.? what exactly do you mean by "inherent value"? that is obviously important, though the over-riding goal for public policy in general (of which criminal law is only a part) should be what's best for society (which is not necessarily what the majority of people want, obviously).
|
|
|
Post by dianaholberg on Jun 2, 2006 18:02:30 GMT -5
the problem is that you have stated soemthing along the lines of, "decriminalsation cannot be beneficial - fact", more times than i care to remember. do you really want to waste my time by requiring me to bring a load of quotations to your attention just for you to dispute what you meant and for me to state that the most obvious interpretation was mine etc. etc.? No, I don't care to revisit any part of this discussion beyond what is required to respond to your questions. Suffice it to say that I never have expressed that my views are not my opinion -- though there are cases in which my views do correspond to what exists objectively. But since you have not stated any belief in an objective standard other than for murder, I don't expect you to agree. I mean what the words say. I know you have a dictionary, but I'll post the relevant definitions anyway as a possible start for discussion. Main Entry: val·ue Pronunciation: 'val-(")yü Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin valuta, from feminine of valutus, past participle of Latin valEre to be worth, be strong -- more at WIELD [...] 3 : relative worth, utility, or importance <a good value at the price> <the value of base stealing in baseball> <had nothing of value to say>
Main Entry: in·her·ent Pronunciation: -&nt Function: adjective Etymology: Latin inhaerent-, inhaerens, present participle of inhaerEre : involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : INTRINSIC Law inherently, intrinsically and by nature has value, worth, importance. It is not something that should be cast aside -- even in theory -- without due diligence. I am afraid that your response is not obvious to me. Why should not majority rule? You are the one who claims there is no objective standard -- if not, on what basis do you now claim that the people should not determine law? And if the people do not determine what is best for society, who does?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 2, 2006 22:27:21 GMT -5
To protect the innocent, of course. To protect the innocent from what?
|
|
|
Post by Mestemia on Jun 2, 2006 22:30:59 GMT -5
I am afraid that your response is not obvious to me. Why should not majority rule? Because it turns into a "two wolves and one sheep voting on what to have for dinner" scenario. Of course, those who are a part of the majority see nothing wrong with it. It is the minority who suffer and have to deal with the injustice of it.
|
|