|
Like where does the line get drawn? Is being a brony something we can eventually jail people for? Conspiracy is a crime, but it's basically minority report "thought crime". Can we arrest them on beastialty/ pedophillia conspiracy? In tribal Africa I bet they don't give a poo poo if you gently caress horses. Here? You go to jail. So is loving horses wrong? Depends on who you ask. If you ask my cousin Todd he'd tell you there's nothing wrong with it. Donald Trump feels the same way. Obviously there are more examples out there other than loving horses. The question I'm asking is "Just because something offends someone should it be illegal?" Another example: Back in the day if your baby was born retarded they would just kill it to save the effort and misery. In our modern world you'd go to prison for first degree murder. Both situations the same thing is happening, however due to the time period they are considered different on a scale of morality. So then at what point does a law need to be written? Is there some sort of standard for how repulsive something needs to be before it's made illegal and not just "kinda hosed up, man". I would imagine it has something to do with how many people do whatever the action is, without regard for its legality.
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Yes
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
It's less a line drawn in the sand than a trench dug out with a shovel
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:20
|
|
|
beat bronies with shovels
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:21
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:Is there some sort of standard for how repulsive something needs to be before it's made illegal and not just "kinda hosed up, man". much like youre posting
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
no, windows 98, assaulting someone with a shovel is always going to be immoral and illegal
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
I thought prohibition taught us that you can't legislate morality. Kill all bronioes.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:22
|
|
|
What's the deal with obscenity laws?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
Jerry Mumphrey posted:much like youre posting damb
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
conspiracy is the ACT of entering into a contract to commit a crime you loving dumbass
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
I would let the OP "hit" me in the "head" with a "shovel" if you catch my drift
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
there is no line. its a slowing morphing conglomerate of archaic rules
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
LegoPirateNinja posted:conspiracy is the ACT of entering into a contract to commit a crime you loving dumbass I'm pretty sure most bronies are taking plenty of action into their own hands if you know what I mean.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
If it were a crime your mom's rotten uterus would be serving 20 years to life.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
I don't think we should be legislating morality.Commie NedFlanders posted:What's the deal with obscenity laws? Pretty much you're not allowed to just inflict that poo poo on others because then you're infringing on them when go around waving your dick or whatever bc no one wants to see that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:26
|
|
|
But what if the horse is loving you, OP?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Things don't get illegal because morality they get illegal because of cost benefit analyses on how it's gonna affect how much money they have.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
Let people do whatever they want, even if it harms othres imo
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:28
|
|
|
SHISHKABOB posted:Things don't get illegal because morality they get illegal because of cost benefit analyses on how it's gonna affect how much money they have. Woah. This actually makes a lot of sense.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:Is being a brony something we can eventually jail people for? Yes, but because the illegality should be based on the unbearableness of the actor rather than the nature of the act. Put another way: it makes more sense to just jail people for being a brony than to focus on specific acts.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
most things are illegal because they harm someone, and while bronys area testament of our cultural failings, its not really hurting anybody
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:most things are illegal because they harm someone, and while bronys area testament of our cultural failings, its not really hurting anybody It's hurting the bronies. They are still technically human.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:35
|
|
|
Wrong, bronies are a danger to themselves and a net negative to everyone around them and anyone who might be influenced to become a brony. A brony is a disease and should be quarantined or incinerated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Moridin920 posted:I don't think we should be legislating morality. Im pretty sure people possibly could create and privately keep "works of art" that are so offensive and repugnant they would be deemed criminally obscene Haven't there have been a whole bunch of books and art exhibits that were banned in the US or their makers threatened with criminal charges
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:37
|
|
|
well Windows 98, in this day and age the question doesn't hinge just on norms created by the moral attitudes of individuals, there is a large institutional component that is subject to substantial inertia, this sometimes being a good thing and other times bad
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Son of Rodney posted:most things are illegal because they harm someone, and while bronys area testament of our cultural failings, its not really hurting anybody They incite and incentivize people to commit violence against other bronys
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
Windows 98 posted:Woah. This actually makes a lot of sense. It's why stupid laws like http://www.dumblaws.com/laws/united-states/pennsylvania look at this poo poo. Theses things stay in as legislature because no one is losing money over it and no one would be getting money from having it removed. No one pays attention to stuff like that, so we don't waste time on effecting change.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Im pretty sure people possibly could create and privately keep "works of art" that are so offensive and repugnant they would be deemed criminally obscene yeah but I don't think that's actually illegal until you start trying to display them in public places where no one wants it. Offensive and repugnant "works of art" (ie porn) is all over the place.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Probably shouldn't gently caress horses.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Probably shouldn't gently caress horses. What if I'm a horse?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:50
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:Probably shouldn't gently caress horses. I was going to question your use of "probably", but then I started wondering if it was inherently morally "wrong" to gently caress a horse or not. OP made me think
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
are centaurs fair game? asking for a friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Again, it is fruitless to focus on the act of loving the horse. It is the state of being a person who would gently caress a horse that is wrong.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:53
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Again, it is fruitless to focus on the act of loving the horse. It is the state of being a person who would gently caress a horse that is wrong. that makes sense and I like the way you articulated it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
Based on Goldman Sachs net worth I'd say the line is drawn at burning babies for fuel. Anything else is perfectly legal and probably eligible for a tax credit.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Because you get people arguing over whether there is any actual harm to the horse or whether the horse consented or whether consent is even a relevant concept for horses and all this dumb poo poo when all you really need to know is like "Hey, this guy fucks horses".
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:03
|
|
|
But what if he's a horse??
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:08
|
|
|
Well, then he needs to stick to loving human women, because mares do not have the language capability with which to consent.
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Well, then he needs to stick to loving human women, because mares do not have the language capability with which to consent. Monkies can do sign language so...
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 19, 2024 13:31 |
|
|
Maoist Pussy posted:Well, then he needs to stick to loving human women, because mares do not have the language capability with which to consent. How do you know, are you a horse?
|
|
#
?
Oct 15, 2015 17:12
|
|