|
|
Post by Old Viking on Aug 6, 2011 15:50:47 GMT -5
... a four-year sexual relationship together ...
The adverb allows the reader to distinguish this from a four-year sexual relationship by oneself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 6, 2011 15:55:24 GMT -5
... a four-year sexual relationship together ... The adverb allows the reader to distinguish this from a four-year sexual relationship by oneself. Why, I've had a (this part has been edited as it is NSFW, crude, and includes some sideways illusions to things best not mentioned in public). For seven years. |
|
|
|
Post by HarleyThomas1002 on Aug 6, 2011 17:15:47 GMT -5
That's the dirtiest thing I've ever heard!
Do go on.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shano on Aug 6, 2011 17:38:22 GMT -5
Pretty much. Same with a number of other countries, which is why Shadoom's link was rather misleading. How is it misleading (aside from not having the legend that explains the colors)? Green is legal and regulated. Blue is legal, not regulated and obstructed (by different means, usually by prohibition of brothels and advertisement etc). Red is illegal (the act itself and usually the means). Gray is no data available. The point was that the USA is not even blue (aside from Nevada), while quite a number of countries are green. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 6, 2011 18:18:06 GMT -5
I didn't mean that the map itself was misleading -- it was the wording leading up to the link. Granted, he probably didn't do it intentionally, but I think it's a bit unfair to shame the US by saying that prostitution is technically legal in most developed nations, being that many of the countries marked in blue are doing essentially the same thing, albeit through less direct means. If I say, "Prostitution is legal in Canada," without mentioning that virtually all of the activities surrounding it are criminalized, it tends to give people a false impression of how things actually are.
|
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 6, 2011 18:40:30 GMT -5
This isn't what I was saying. There is a common understanding in a society of what constitutes dignified and responsible comportment (whether this causes harm or not would just be an additional argument against it). Incest is widely and vehemently considered to be irresponsible and undignified behavior in our society. It is not a responsible way to act.
|
|
|
|
Post by Passerby on Aug 6, 2011 19:41:42 GMT -5
Are you arguing criminal culpability, severity of charge, or the merits of the prison system itself? D. All of the above? Plus some bemusement at the tendency for courts to punish the people who appear to be the "victims" of the crime for which they are being punished. I spoke my mind on the first two out of those three subjects and you said I was missing the point. This doesn't clarify things at all. What is the point you wish to make? Do you believe Nicola entirely blameless? Pease qualify your view if this is so. I believe I mentioned before that the father was no longer in a position to directly influence her, and that she instigated the second contact. She went looking for him and that was her own call. Further, the arrest can simply be a medium to forcibly send the woman to counselling to break whatever lasting hold he might have. But on the flipside, and this can only be determined once counselling has begun, the daughter may well have *always* been the instigator. It's less common but it happens more than you'd think. Even if this is the messed up case that doesn't automatically make the father the victim either, it would have been his responsibility to reject and set her straight. You asked if there can be a 'victimless' crime with only perpetrators? Yes. You've never heard of two thugs going at it with mutual murderous intent over stupid respect issues? And more to the point this falls in a similar category to self-inflicted wounds. Is it 'punishing' a drug addict or a suicidal individual to take them into custody to prevent them from further harming themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by Jedi Knight on Aug 6, 2011 20:16:01 GMT -5
So, it's legal but it's practically impossible to actually do it legally? Yes. Likewise in Norway, where it's legal to be a prostitute, but not to be a customer. |
|
|
|
Post by dasfuchs on Aug 6, 2011 21:41:55 GMT -5
Reminds me of an old joke.
If two people get divorced in Alabama, are they still referred to as brother and sister?
|
|
murdin
Junior Member
Posts: 71
|
Post by murdin on Aug 7, 2011 4:21:06 GMT -5
This isn't what I was saying. There is a common understanding in a society of what constitutes dignified and responsible comportment (whether this causes harm or not would just be an additional argument against it). Incest is widely and vehemently considered to be irresponsible and undignified behavior in our society. It is not a responsible way to act. Tyranny of the majority is always great fun. Until society evolves and you find yourself on the wrong side of it. Then you cry persecution. I'm curious to know your opinion on subjects like corporal punishment, homosexuality or crossdressing. |
|
|
|
Post by Vypernight on Aug 7, 2011 4:47:03 GMT -5
This is why the crime rate in our country is so high. They're too busy busting people for stupid crap.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Aug 7, 2011 7:35:25 GMT -5
Reminds me of an old joke. If two people get divorced in Alabama, are they still referred to as brother and sister? Only until they're stoned to death by the angry mob.  Divorce is bad, yo. |
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 7, 2011 7:35:32 GMT -5
This isn't what I was saying. There is a common understanding in a society of what constitutes dignified and responsible comportment (whether this causes harm or not would just be an additional argument against it). Incest is widely and vehemently considered to be irresponsible and undignified behavior in our society. It is not a responsible way to act. A lot of things are considered irresponsible and undignified. Once upon a time, homosexuality was looked upon in precisely that light. Now, I'm not necessarily equating incest to homosexuality (there are legitimate concerns involved in incest which need to be investigated) but it seems to me that one should have to demonstrate that society's view of an act is actually justified before insisting that it should be banned, being that society has been wrong in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by cestlefun17 on Aug 7, 2011 8:21:12 GMT -5
When it comes to behavior that one has full control over, I have very little sympathy. I'm not saying that certain minorities don't deserve protection. I'm basically saying that I do not at all subscribe to the notion that "consenting adults should be able to do whatever they want." Tyranny of the majority itself goes against the tenets of American society when it violates the Constitution.
In the United States, we have the 8th Amendment, so corporal punishment is unacceptable and undignified. Banning homosexuality and cross-dressing is antithetical to the 14th and 1st Amendments, respectively. Banning those two things would be undignified in our society that values equal protection and freedom of expression. But I absolutely have no problem with reasonable restrictions on those rights. So while cross-dressing shouldn't be a crime, if a town wanted to make going out in your underwear a misdemeanor I wouldn't have a problem with that.
There's nothing wrong with that and this is done all the time during debate in the legislature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Aug 7, 2011 8:32:09 GMT -5
Do you agree that consenting adults should be allowed to do whatever they want provided that it doesn't cause harm (whether to the individual, the people around him, or society as a whole)?
|
|
