> I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and

> I've heard this argument applied before to many different things in many different situations before and I view it to be just as much of an intellectually and morally bankrupt position to take, as when I first heard it. I don't think you're even able to comprehend my position. Let's imagine manslaughter was legal (as it has been in the past, to some degree) and I would be here arguing that it should be illegal because you can't trust people not to kill each other merely because there's a court of public opinion. Would that be morally bankrupt, or just common sense?