4 ms·

> Many people believe that banning disliked things is not what laws are for Surely some laws are for exactly that? Like: murder, rape, theft, etc? I'm taking

> Many people believe that banning disliked things is not what laws are for Surely some laws are for exactly that? Like: murder, rape, theft, etc? I'm taking your statement a bit out of context, and I don't have much involvement in this overall issue being discussed, but that statement on its own seems pretty off to me.

LoganDark 3y ago
Those things being disliked doesn't mean a law shouldn't be made about them. They are much worse than merely being disliked, which is why there are laws.
- interroboink 3y ago
  I feel like that just moves the goalposts. Instead of deciding what should be law or not, now we are deciding what constitutes "mere dislike" vs "something worse." It's ultimately the same issue, no?
  - LoganDark 3y ago
    I once fell and hit my head, sliced it right open. It was traumatic. Not any of the aftermath like having to go to the hospital or so on. Just my head being hit. I could have died. I could have died. It took me days to process this. There was something in my head for days preventing me from thinking properly, from feeling emotions properly. There was no concussion, no actual cranial damage. It was all psychological trauma. Imagine if it wasn't an isolated event but if you knew there's someone out to get you, and who continues to be a risk to your well-being. Say, domestic abuse. SA. Something like that. Try saying there's nowhere to draw the line between that and "mere dislike". No one should have to suffer that. That's why there are laws against things like rape and murder.
    - interroboink 3y ago
      I didn't mean to say there's nowhere to draw a line. I meant to say that the question of where to draw the line is open to discussion, in both cases. To be honest, I don't entirely understand your example, since in the first case you're talking about an accident, and we can't exactly pass a law saying "accidents are not allowed." But in the second case, you can pass a law against SA and such. So in my mind, the difference there is in realistic enforcement options, not on the merits themselves. If we could somehow magically pass a meaningful law against accidents, then maybe we'd consider it. Accidents are things that just about everybody dislikes, after all. Of course, we can't meaningfully make that law, but only for mere technical reasons, not because it's undesirable. In that imagined world, I could see people saying: "no one should have to suffer accidents" and using that as rationale for supporting the law. You may not agree with them, and I may not either. But that was my point — where to draw the line is up for discussion.
      - LoganDark 3y ago
        > I don't entirely understand your example, since in the first case you're talking about an accident I was using it as an example of trauma, that's all. Traumatizing people is bad, right? Sure, you can't really make accidents against the law, but you can stop people from causing trauma intentionally.
  - Thorrez 3y ago
    It seems to related or possibly even identical to: what things should the government regulate vs what things should be left unregulated (or left to be regulated by a more local government). The founders of the US were very interested in deciding what are the responsibilities of the federal government vs what will be left up to the states to decide. They wrote entire essay series on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
  - lobocinza 3y ago
    Vice Are Not Crimes https://archive.org/details/SpoonerVicesCrimes1875 https://archive.org/details/SpoonerVicesCrimes1875

LoganDark 3y ago

Those things being disliked doesn't mean a law shouldn't be made about them. They are much worse than merely being disliked, which is why there are laws.

interroboink 3y ago
I feel like that just moves the goalposts. Instead of deciding what should be law or not, now we are deciding what constitutes "mere dislike" vs "something worse." It's ultimately the same issue, no?
- LoganDark 3y ago
  I once fell and hit my head, sliced it right open. It was traumatic. Not any of the aftermath like having to go to the hospital or so on. Just my head being hit. I could have died. I could have died. It took me days to process this. There was something in my head for days preventing me from thinking properly, from feeling emotions properly. There was no concussion, no actual cranial damage. It was all psychological trauma. Imagine if it wasn't an isolated event but if you knew there's someone out to get you, and who continues to be a risk to your well-being. Say, domestic abuse. SA. Something like that. Try saying there's nowhere to draw the line between that and "mere dislike". No one should have to suffer that. That's why there are laws against things like rape and murder.
  - interroboink 3y ago
    I didn't mean to say there's nowhere to draw a line. I meant to say that the question of where to draw the line is open to discussion, in both cases. To be honest, I don't entirely understand your example, since in the first case you're talking about an accident, and we can't exactly pass a law saying "accidents are not allowed." But in the second case, you can pass a law against SA and such. So in my mind, the difference there is in realistic enforcement options, not on the merits themselves. If we could somehow magically pass a meaningful law against accidents, then maybe we'd consider it. Accidents are things that just about everybody dislikes, after all. Of course, we can't meaningfully make that law, but only for mere technical reasons, not because it's undesirable. In that imagined world, I could see people saying: "no one should have to suffer accidents" and using that as rationale for supporting the law. You may not agree with them, and I may not either. But that was my point — where to draw the line is up for discussion.
    - LoganDark 3y ago
      > I don't entirely understand your example, since in the first case you're talking about an accident I was using it as an example of trauma, that's all. Traumatizing people is bad, right? Sure, you can't really make accidents against the law, but you can stop people from causing trauma intentionally.
- Thorrez 3y ago
  It seems to related or possibly even identical to: what things should the government regulate vs what things should be left unregulated (or left to be regulated by a more local government). The founders of the US were very interested in deciding what are the responsibilities of the federal government vs what will be left up to the states to decide. They wrote entire essay series on the topic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers
- lobocinza 3y ago
  Vice Are Not Crimes https://archive.org/details/SpoonerVicesCrimes1875 https://archive.org/details/SpoonerVicesCrimes1875