4 ms·

> I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. You don't have to. That's easy to 'solve' at least a few different ways, depending on how

> I've never accepted some behaviour to be criminal without a victim. You don't have to. That's easy to 'solve' at least a few different ways, depending on how you prefer to look at it. (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences.

cies 8y ago
> (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. > (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky. > (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences. See 1. Let's say some family members take great offense from one member being gay. They feel victimized. Poor them. Because they are delusional. They are no victim. If they, e.g., excommunicate the gay, the gay person is a victim of a non-punishable offense in my opinion. Not the other way around.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Unfortunately they don't come knocking on our doors to inform us of this fact. Instead they settle for the sadly-suboptimal solution of electing representatives to represent their perspectives while they go about their own businesses. If you're genuinely suggesting such people are nonexistent, well, I'm not going to continue entertaining this further. > So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky. I can't parse this sentence. > See 1. [....] See response to 1. Also note that dealing with drug users (medical care or however else) costs people's money which is not exactly a subjective or delusional thing to concern oneself with.
  - inflatableDodo 8y ago
    >there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use This is not a situation where the criminal and victim are the same person, is it? >If you're genuinely suggesting such people are nonexistent, well, I'm not going to continue entertaining this further. They obviously aren't suggesting that. >I can't parse this sentence. Here is some added punctuation that may help; 'So in case of medical insurances for all, the public is the victim. For every person's action is remotely risky.'
  - cies 8y ago
    > Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Please come up with examples. And if possible stay clear some people merely taking offense.
rocgf 8y ago
All those apply to eating from McDonald's, as an example. Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact? Later edit: Actually, banning is not a huge problem, the problem is incarceration for choosing to do something that hurts nobody, except maybe yourself.
- mehrdadn 8y ago
  > Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact? No, we should use weigh the negatives against the positives and avoid making strawmen of these arguments.
  - rocgf 8y ago
    This is not strawmanning, this is showing you that your definition of what constitutes a victim is completely wrong and very easy to twist and abuse. A fast-food hamburger, alcohol and skydiving all fit your three criteria, but locking people in a cage for any of them is something that no sane person would ever agree on. You can try to educate people, regulate, disincentivize through various means, but you shouldn't jail someone for an activity that is only dangerous at the tail end.

cies 8y ago

> (1) The victim is the same as the criminal. One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. > (2) The victims are those who have to pay for that guy's legal/medical/whatever bills later. So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky. > (3) The victims are nearby/associated families who have to deal with the consequences. See 1. Let's say some family members take great offense from one member being gay. They feel victimized. Poor them. Because they are delusional. They are no victim. If they, e.g., excommunicate the gay, the gay person is a victim of a non-punishable offense in my opinion. Not the other way around.

mehrdadn 8y ago
> One has to identify as victim. It's not up to someone else to decide if I was a victim at some point. Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Unfortunately they don't come knocking on our doors to inform us of this fact. Instead they settle for the sadly-suboptimal solution of electing representatives to represent their perspectives while they go about their own businesses. If you're genuinely suggesting such people are nonexistent, well, I'm not going to continue entertaining this further. > So in case of medical insurances for all the public is the victim for every persons action is remotely risky. I can't parse this sentence. > See 1. [....] See response to 1. Also note that dealing with drug users (medical care or however else) costs people's money which is not exactly a subjective or delusional thing to concern oneself with.
- inflatableDodo 8y ago
  >there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use This is not a situation where the criminal and victim are the same person, is it? >If you're genuinely suggesting such people are nonexistent, well, I'm not going to continue entertaining this further. They obviously aren't suggesting that. >I can't parse this sentence. Here is some added punctuation that may help; 'So in case of medical insurances for all, the public is the victim. For every person's action is remotely risky.'
- cies 8y ago
  > Yes, and there certainly do exist people who identify as victims of others' drug use. Please come up with examples. And if possible stay clear some people merely taking offense.

rocgf 8y ago

All those apply to eating from McDonald's, as an example. Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact? Later edit: Actually, banning is not a huge problem, the problem is incarceration for choosing to do something that hurts nobody, except maybe yourself.

mehrdadn 8y ago
> Should we ban everything that has a negative health impact? No, we should use weigh the negatives against the positives and avoid making strawmen of these arguments.
- rocgf 8y ago
  This is not strawmanning, this is showing you that your definition of what constitutes a victim is completely wrong and very easy to twist and abuse. A fast-food hamburger, alcohol and skydiving all fit your three criteria, but locking people in a cage for any of them is something that no sane person would ever agree on. You can try to educate people, regulate, disincentivize through various means, but you shouldn't jail someone for an activity that is only dangerous at the tail end.