3 ms·

As I predicted, you are okay with prosecuting victimless crimes (ouch, I used a liberal catch phrase, 10 demerits for me), which is your opinion. In any case,

As I predicted, you are okay with prosecuting victimless crimes (ouch, I used a liberal catch phrase, 10 demerits for me), which is your opinion. In any case, we're on a slippery slope conditioning the masses for control. I marvel at it. I wonder what's next, jail time for prohibited speech and later prohibited thoughts? > You are entitled to your opinion of what should and should not be a crime, but it probably doesn't help discussing those to redefine the word "crime" to mean "thing that EdSharkey thinks should be a crime" and "pre-crime" to mean "actual violation of criminal law that EdSharkey doesn't think should be a crime". Am I really entitled to my opinion, though? It sounds like I probably shouldn't be entitled to an opinion due to my dangerous ideas. (BTW, you had a run-on sentence there. You probably want to break that up so that others don't nitpick you parenthetically, but I took your meaning. I want you to know that I empathize and figure you were probably writing that on-the-go and didn't have a chance to fully wordsmith it. I don't think lesser of you even when what you write has flaws.) Stepping away from my devil's advocate role for this thread for a bit ... IRL I have kids too, and I struggle with freedom issues like this. I have had crackups with distracted drivers that messing with cellphone, kids, and eating/smoking behind the wheel that I suspect are way more dangerous than your average drunk that can hold his drink and regularly drives. I was rear-ended on the freeway going freeway speed (not braking) by a guy screwing around on his cellphone. (Gasp, I used 'braking' not 'breaking'! English is hard! ;) What can you do? Life is so dangerous. How much freedom do you surrender before you feel secure?? Fear drives people into oppression.

dragonwriter 11y ago
> As I predicted, you are okay with prosecuting victimless crimes I've described what is a crime, not what should be a crime. > In any case, we're on a slippery slope conditioning the masses for control. Maybe, but essentially regulatory, preventive offenses like drunk driving aren't new, so its hard to describe a "slippery slope" based on their existence. I mean, that type of offense has been around in the systems from which the US systems descend longer than the US itself has been around; if its a slippery slope, where is the slipping? > I wonder what's next, jail time for prohibited speech and later prohibited thoughts? While there has been some mixed results, I think the long-term trend in the time that regulatory, preventive, offenses have been around has been toward greater protection for speech and conscience, not less. So I don't see those things as likely to be what's next -- though, certainly, they do get proposed from time to time, and have even been enforced. (The use of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act during the Red Scare, for instance.) > Am I really entitled to my opinion, though? Yes. > It sounds like I probably shouldn't be entitled to an opinion due to my dangerous ideas. "Sounds like" based on...what actual thing that's been argued in this thread? > (BTW, you had a run-on sentence there. You probably want to break that up so that others don't nitpick you parenthetically [...]) I don't mind parenthetical corrections, but I think if you go and diagram that sentence out you'll realize that its just long, not a run-on.
- EdSharkey 11y ago
  Mechanically thinking, you are right. There are drunk driving laws and you probably had a long sentence, not a run-on one. I wasn't mechanistic in my thinking though, you know what I'm saying? I was making a point, did you grok it?
  - BraveNewCurency 11y ago
    So if I shoot at you and miss, it's all good, right? No harm, no foul!

dragonwriter 11y ago

> As I predicted, you are okay with prosecuting victimless crimes I've described what is a crime, not what should be a crime. > In any case, we're on a slippery slope conditioning the masses for control. Maybe, but essentially regulatory, preventive offenses like drunk driving aren't new, so its hard to describe a "slippery slope" based on their existence. I mean, that type of offense has been around in the systems from which the US systems descend longer than the US itself has been around; if its a slippery slope, where is the slipping? > I wonder what's next, jail time for prohibited speech and later prohibited thoughts? While there has been some mixed results, I think the long-term trend in the time that regulatory, preventive, offenses have been around has been toward greater protection for speech and conscience, not less. So I don't see those things as likely to be what's next -- though, certainly, they do get proposed from time to time, and have even been enforced. (The use of the Espionage Act and the Sedition Act during the Red Scare, for instance.) > Am I really entitled to my opinion, though? Yes. > It sounds like I probably shouldn't be entitled to an opinion due to my dangerous ideas. "Sounds like" based on...what actual thing that's been argued in this thread? > (BTW, you had a run-on sentence there. You probably want to break that up so that others don't nitpick you parenthetically [...]) I don't mind parenthetical corrections, but I think if you go and diagram that sentence out you'll realize that its just long, not a run-on.

EdSharkey 11y ago
Mechanically thinking, you are right. There are drunk driving laws and you probably had a long sentence, not a run-on one. I wasn't mechanistic in my thinking though, you know what I'm saying? I was making a point, did you grok it?
- BraveNewCurency 11y ago
  So if I shoot at you and miss, it's all good, right? No harm, no foul!