1518
1519

What shouldn't be illegal? (self.AskReddit)

Caleb9390 が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]JasonUncensored -9 ポイント-8 ポイント  (47子コメント)

I believe strongly that victimless crimes should not exist. If there is no victim, there is no crime. Period.

You may think that you agree with me, but it turns out, most people don't:

  • Every drug should be 100% legal.

  • Speeding should be 100% legal, unless an accident occurs.

  • Drinking and driving should be 100% legal, unless an accident occurs. (that's where I tend to lose a lot of people)

  • Any sexual relations between consenting adults should be 100% legal.

  • Disposal of pregnancy tissue should be 100% legal.(that's what they call "abortions" in the clinics, folks)

  • Fuckin' for money should be 100% legal.

Let me know what you think! I have yet to find a victimless crime that should, by all rights, be illegal.

[–]Kitthulu 17 ポイント18 ポイント  (19子コメント)

Drinking and driving and speeding are the only ones I really disagree with because of the harm they do to others. The goal is to stop people from doing those things to avoid accidents. Mr. Drunkface could've not killed that bus load of kittens had he been pulled over moments before for speeding, ya know?

[–]NapalmDerp 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

What the fuck

[–]JasonUncensored -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

... I dunno, man. Is it too heavy?

[–]NapalmDerp 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The fuck do you mean "unless an accident occurs?" If an accident occurs you haven't prevented shit. Humans can't predict the fucking future.

[–]JasonUncensored -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I mean "someone other than the perpetrator gets hurt or greatly inconvenienced".

[–]Luepert 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (10子コメント)

There are thousands of victims of drunk driving every year. Also a lot of drugs cause violent behavior which is harmful to others.

[–]JasonUncensored 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (9子コメント)

Indeed! Including alcohol.

Should a drunk driver cause an accident, I believe that the crime should be upgraded from manslaughter to murder, but if a drunk driver completes his journey safely, I don't see that there was any wrongdoing.

[–]Luepert 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

Do you understand that enacting these laws would break these laws?

  1. Enact these laws.

  2. More people drink and drive.

  3. More innocent people die as victims of drunk driving.

  4. Your laws have victims and therefore are not victimless.

[–]JasonUncensored 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Possibly. And there's a chance that Net Neutrality will increase the child pornography trade; we just don't know enough yet.

These aren't my laws, by the way; they're the freedoms that American citizens should have the inalienable right to possess.

I think what you and several other people are misunderstanding is the nature of drinking and driving. Laws aren't stopping people from drinking and driving already; all they do is imprison people who would otherwise have completed their journey safely or add additional fines and inconveniences to people when they do become involved in some sort of accident.

"Drinking and driving" doesn't hurt anybody. "Drinking and driving recklessly," however, might.

[–]Luepert 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Interesting argument for you to bring up. Under these laws only making child pornography would be illegal. The trade of already produced porn would be totally fine.

[–]JasonUncensored -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (5子コメント)

I agree with that, much as it sickens me.

In the same way that "making a rape joke" perpetuates rape culture, viewing child pornography promotes child pornography, but... I don't believe that people who don't actively harm children should be prosecuted for possessing the material.

It's kind of like ivory; it's illegal to make ivory things, and to buy ivory things, but if you have ivory things already, you're not breaking any laws. Yet.

And hoo boy, I think this one's going to go as poorly for me as the drunk driving thing.

[–]Luepert 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

What about the camera man? He's not actively hurting a child. He's just holding a camera. Is that fine?

[–]JasonUncensored 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

He or she would be an accessory to the crime.

[–]Luepert 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Stop sending that link. The word "obviously" has very a different meaning to you than to me. You think people should be allowed to drink and drive, I think it's obvious they should not.

Also when you repeatedly say that only people who actively hurt people should be punished how am I supposed to know that you somehow count being an accessory to a crime as actively hurting people when you don't consider knowingly engaging in activities that are dangerous to others a crime?

[–]miribus 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am no libertarian so I think there are situations where the state needs to protect people from themselves.

[–]Tantric989 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

You lose a lot of people because drunk driving isn't a victimless crime. If you smoke weed on the weekend and have a conversation with your buddy on the merits of ketchup, that's a victimless crime, sure. When you get behind the wheel of the car while drunk, you're wielding a weapon, one that kills over 10,000 people every year. I agree with you that "victimless crimes shouldn't exist" but you're wrong to suggest that drunk driving is a victimless crime. 10,000 a year is over 30 people every day. Doesn't sound victimless to me.

[–]JasonUncensored -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you smoke weed on the weekend and have a conversation with your buddy on the merits of ketchup, that's a victimless crime, sure.

What if you smoke weed on the weekend and then run over a toddler? It's the same shit until there is a victim.

[–]Lame_Gretzky 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

The problem with this though is that unless people die, or are hurt, a crime has not been committed ( for the drunk driving and speeding parts); so...people's lives have to end or be damaged, then it's a crime... I disagree heavily with that. We do not exist in a void. People are often ruined by drunk driving. If the person was stopped for a DWI prior to hitting an innocent person's car it saves a life. I agree with you about a lot of the other stuff, I really do, but I think you are living in a fairy take to think that speeding ( not talking about five over, but ten, twenty, etc) and driving impaired are victimless crimes. No offense meant, really, but that's like saying someone cannot get in trouble until they've hurt someone. That is the flaw in your argument. That's why you "lose people." The old saying is your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. Other than that I'd pretty much be on board.

[–]JasonUncensored 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The old saying is your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins.

I am actually a firm believer in that.

People are often ruined by drunk driving.

I agree; people who have been convicted of drunk driving also have their lives affected brutally. I knew a young man(I know, I know) who was convicted of a DUI when he was 25 years old, and now, fifteen years later, he still can't get a license. He stopped at a police checkpoint and blew exactly at the minimum. I can't imagine not being able to drive a car between the ages of 25 and 40. Can you imagine how different your life would have been?

"Well, maybe that police officer saved someone else's life!" some of you will say. In fact, you said specifically:

If the person was stopped for a DWI prior to hitting an innocent person's car it saves a life.

... Probably not, actually. We'll never know. But that guy(who used to be a neighbor of mine) has had to get by working shitty jobs where he can find someone to help him get to work for the last fifteen years.

... that's like saying someone cannot get in trouble until they've hurt someone. That is the flaw in your argument.

I disagree. It is a point of contention, but not a flaw. There is no logical fallacy in believing the way I do. I genuinely feel that until someone else has been hurt, there has been no wrongdoing. I understand why society doesn't work that way, but I also understand why United States foreign policy has forced our armed forces to stay active in the Middle East for the last, oh, thirty years or so, at least, even though it isn't right.

And listen. Listen. I don't personally drink and drive. I've seen lives ruined because of it. One of my good friends from high school was hit by a drunk driver just a few years back and... it wasn't good. The drunk driver(who didn't have insurance, of course) was killed instantly, and my friend had virtually everything shattered in her left leg.

It is quite possible to wish for freedoms that might actively endanger you, and I know that's hard for some people to handle, but I will never, never, voluntarily trade away freedom for security. Just look at the Patriot Act, which has literally put small-time drug dealers, petty thieves, and even protesters, in jail for the rest of their lives for "terrorism".

I know I kinda went off the rails there, but it's a complex topic.

[–]Moscamst 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Are you literally retarded?

[–]JasonUncensored 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Not to my knowledge, but then, if I were, I suppose I might not be fully aware of that fact.

[–]Prilosac 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Speeding in a right state of mind - maybe. But drinking and driving? Hell no. I know you say there's no crime unless someone gets hurt, but time and time again we've seen the DRASTIC increase in chances of someone being hurt if someone is behind the wheel of a car while not in their proper state of mind. The only situation where I could agree with this is if everyone in an area with a drivers license signed a contract that said "I recognize that not everyone driving will be in the safest state of mind and I could be injured, and I am okay with that". Otherwise, you're intentionally putting people at risk. Uncool.

[–]johnw1988 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

While I agree with the concept of no victimless crime, I don't agree with everything. Speeding and DUI is reckless behavior that can endanger the life of someone else. Abortion also has a victim (although I'm against it, I don't feel that outlawing it is the solution).

[–]bodaciousbananaman 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The reason speeding and drinking and driving are illegal is that they prevent accidents. Why wait until someone dies when, by pulling someone over before an accident, it can be prevented?

[–]carasci 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Speeding should be 100% legal, unless an accident occurs.

Drinking and driving should be 100% legal, unless an accident occurs. (that's where I tend to lose a lot of people)

Two of these things are not like the others. Unlike the rest of the things on your list, these two put non-consenting bystanders at direct risk in a way that forces them to alter their behavior to remain safe. In other words, the "victim" of speeding/DUI is not just someone getting hit, but all the people who have to get out of the way.

However, let's take this through to its logical conclusion: if you were to go the route of "no direct victim, no crime," you would have to abolish effectively all traffic laws and regulations. Drive on the wrong side of the street? Perfectly legal, so long as everyone else is smart enough to get out of your way. Run a red light? Perfectly legal, so long as everyone else stops for you. See the problem? We're no longer in the territory of a "true" victimless crime, because the individual's actions do affect other people by forcing them to take steps to protect themselves. It might be wrong to punish someone for speeding/DUI on a desert road in the middle of nowhere, but the moment someone else has to swerve or brake there is a victim.

For the most extreme possible case (while remaining analogous), should it be 100% legal to sweep a public playground with an M2 Browning so long as all the kids were lucky/smart enough to duck?

[–]mindxdetergent 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

u/JasonUncensored 2016!!