drugs and prostitution

[ERICOPOLY]

Just curious how you all would apply your thinking on this subject to the topic of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in sports?

 

The NFL can throw a person out of the league if they want. 

 

I would be irritated if the police then put him in prison too.

 

 

 

[rkbabang]

Just curious how you all would apply your thinking on this subject to the topic of steroids and other performance enhancing drugs in sports?

 

It is up to each league (as they are private organizations) what their policy on them is and whether or not to test.  Personally, I'd love to see what humans can do using all of the performance enhancing technology available.  Maybe there is a market for a competing baseball league in which anything goes?  Or maybe not.

 

But to echo what Ericopoly just said above, sending armed men to kidnap and imprison people for it is ridiculous.

 

[ERICOPOLY]

There was a prostitution sting in the local area where the police reported that prostitution is not a victimless crime because of the human trafficking.

 

Uh huh... which is a result of it being illegal.

 

So you start off without any victims.  Then you make it illegal which create victims where none existed before, and then you reason that enforcing the law is the best policy to save the victims.

 

It's tragic this circle of logic.

[Guest]

What gives us pause, Eric?

 

Is it the fear of getting into trouble with the Mrs?

 

What if, there was no way she would find out? And, it's the most attractive dental hygienist (or let's just say dentist, you sexist - just messing with ya) you'd ever seen?

 

What would give me pause is not the legality, nor getting into trouble with my spouse. It's violating my wife's trust and my conscience - even if she never found out.

 

Indeed, marriage is fairly new invention in the life of us primates. We are violating our evolutionary instincts of procreation by being married (unless the marriage is open, obviously).

 

The trouble with the Mrs is one example.  Your guilt is another.  These are examples that keep us monogamous without needing police intervention.

 

However, I can't say being married is a violation of our instincts.  There are examples of monogamy throughout the animal kingdom, even amongst primates.  Same for polyamory.

 

So are you being driven by your instincts or your morals?  It might just be convenient that you can be morally superior whilst merely acting within your instincts.  However, there is sexual variation amongst species as well.  Another person may be acting within his instincts and yet have multiple partners at once.  He is not acting outside of his idea of moral behavior.

 

We are social animals with social instincts.  Typically, if you feel bad about something it's because your actions were harmful to another -- this is going to happen if you are programmed to cooperate with others within a social unit.

 

Problems arise when some of us are programmed with monogamous instincts, some with polyamorous, and some with homosexual.  We are going to get at each other's throats as to what is "moral" or not.  That's because of the lack of understanding how we are different.

 

Eric, you can use the same argument for theft. Madoff was acting on his instincts - greed. Some people may have the polyamorous instinct and some may have the theft instinct. Some may have the monogamous instinct and the charity instinct. None of these are more moral or immoral than the other - all simply instincts.

 

There was a victim in Madoff's crime. 

 

It's like complaining that your dentist is committing a crime for not doing your dental work for free.  So you should imprison him.  However, if he cleans your teeth for free it's not a crime.

 

You wanted your teeth cleaned -- you are not a victim of the dentist.

 

Now, if you want to get off, how are you a victim of the prostitute?

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim?

 

Human trafficking would still occur even if this stuff were legal.

[ERICOPOLY]

What gives us pause, Eric?

 

Is it the fear of getting into trouble with the Mrs?

 

What if, there was no way she would find out? And, it's the most attractive dental hygienist (or let's just say dentist, you sexist - just messing with ya) you'd ever seen?

 

What would give me pause is not the legality, nor getting into trouble with my spouse. It's violating my wife's trust and my conscience - even if she never found out.

 

Indeed, marriage is fairly new invention in the life of us primates. We are violating our evolutionary instincts of procreation by being married (unless the marriage is open, obviously).

 

The trouble with the Mrs is one example.  Your guilt is another.  These are examples that keep us monogamous without needing police intervention.

 

However, I can't say being married is a violation of our instincts.  There are examples of monogamy throughout the animal kingdom, even amongst primates.  Same for polyamory.

 

So are you being driven by your instincts or your morals?  It might just be convenient that you can be morally superior whilst merely acting within your instincts.  However, there is sexual variation amongst species as well.  Another person may be acting within his instincts and yet have multiple partners at once.  He is not acting outside of his idea of moral behavior.

 

We are social animals with social instincts.  Typically, if you feel bad about something it's because your actions were harmful to another -- this is going to happen if you are programmed to cooperate with others within a social unit.

 

Problems arise when some of us are programmed with monogamous instincts, some with polyamorous, and some with homosexual.  We are going to get at each other's throats as to what is "moral" or not.  That's because of the lack of understanding how we are different.

 

Eric, you can use the same argument for theft. Madoff was acting on his instincts - greed. Some people may have the polyamorous instinct and some may have the theft instinct. Some may have the monogamous instinct and the charity instinct. None of these are more moral or immoral than the other - all simply instincts.

 

There was a victim in Madoff's crime. 

 

It's like complaining that your dentist is committing a crime for not doing your dental work for free.  So you should imprison him.  However, if he cleans your teeth for free it's not a crime.

 

You wanted your teeth cleaned -- you are not a victim of the dentist.

 

Now, if you want to get off, how are you a victim of the prostitute?

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim?

 

First, the law isn't there to protect marriage.  They lock up unwedded people all the same.  You can legalize prostitution for unwedded persons if that's your chief complaint.

 

Next, what is the legal remedy for infidelity?  Prison? 

 

[ERICOPOLY]

It would certainly be interesting if the police kicked in your door after surveillance footage caught you with your hand up your secretary's skirt.

 

After all, your wife is a victim of infidelity and the police must enforce marriage vows.

[rkbabang]

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim?

 

Human trafficking would still occur even if this stuff were legal.

 

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim of force/violence/aggression, no.  We don't (and shouldn't) lock people up for cheating on their wives.

 

As far as human trafficking goes.  Car sales are legal and stolen car trafficking occurs.  Selling cars is engaging in peaceful free-market commerce, trafficking in stolen cars is not. 

 

Prostitution is simply engaging in peaceful free-market commerce.  Kidnapping and selling human beings against their will is not.

 

In both cases the peaceful free-market activity (voluntary commerce between consenting adults) should be legal, the theft and/or violence should not.

[ERICOPOLY]

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim?

 

Human trafficking would still occur even if this stuff were legal.

 

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim of force/violence/aggression, no.  We don't (and shouldn't) lock people up for cheating on their wives.

 

As far as human trafficking goes.  Car sales are legal and stolen car trafficking occurs.  Selling cars is engaging in peaceful free-market commerce, trafficking in stolen cars is not. 

 

Prostitution is simply engaging in peaceful free-market commerce.  Kidnapping and selling human beings against their will is not.

 

In both cases the peaceful free-market activity (voluntary commerce between consenting adults) should be legal, the theft and/or violence should not.

 

Are there any examples of human trafficking where the service is legal?

 

Like what if you kidnapped a psychologist and forced her to see clients, pocketing her fee for yourself?  Things like that just don't happen with legal services AFAIK.

[rkbabang]

What really should be illegal and unacceptable in any civilized society is using force (either as an individual or a group, such as a government) to stop peaceful people from doing something simply because you find it distasteful.

 

[rkbabang]

 

Are there any examples of human trafficking where the service is legal?

 

Like what if you kidnapped a psychologist and forced her to see clients, pocketing her fee for yourself?  Things like that just don't happen with legal services AFAIK.

 

Not that I know of, but it is possible.  There will always be trafficking in stolen goods, people not excepted.  It can't be stopped 100%.  Certainly the illegality of prostitution makes the problem much worse than it otherwise would be.

 

[Guest]

What gives us pause, Eric?

 

Is it the fear of getting into trouble with the Mrs?

 

What if, there was no way she would find out? And, it's the most attractive dental hygienist (or let's just say dentist, you sexist - just messing with ya) you'd ever seen?

 

What would give me pause is not the legality, nor getting into trouble with my spouse. It's violating my wife's trust and my conscience - even if she never found out.

 

Indeed, marriage is fairly new invention in the life of us primates. We are violating our evolutionary instincts of procreation by being married (unless the marriage is open, obviously).

 

The trouble with the Mrs is one example.  Your guilt is another.  These are examples that keep us monogamous without needing police intervention.

 

However, I can't say being married is a violation of our instincts.  There are examples of monogamy throughout the animal kingdom, even amongst primates.  Same for polyamory.

 

So are you being driven by your instincts or your morals?  It might just be convenient that you can be morally superior whilst merely acting within your instincts.  However, there is sexual variation amongst species as well.  Another person may be acting within his instincts and yet have multiple partners at once.  He is not acting outside of his idea of moral behavior.

 

We are social animals with social instincts.  Typically, if you feel bad about something it's because your actions were harmful to another -- this is going to happen if you are programmed to cooperate with others within a social unit.

 

Problems arise when some of us are programmed with monogamous instincts, some with polyamorous, and some with homosexual.  We are going to get at each other's throats as to what is "moral" or not.  That's because of the lack of understanding how we are different.

 

Eric, you can use the same argument for theft. Madoff was acting on his instincts - greed. Some people may have the polyamorous instinct and some may have the theft instinct. Some may have the monogamous instinct and the charity instinct. None of these are more moral or immoral than the other - all simply instincts.

 

There was a victim in Madoff's crime. 

 

It's like complaining that your dentist is committing a crime for not doing your dental work for free.  So you should imprison him.  However, if he cleans your teeth for free it's not a crime.

 

You wanted your teeth cleaned -- you are not a victim of the dentist.

 

Now, if you want to get off, how are you a victim of the prostitute?

 

Your wife wouldn't be a victim?

 

First, the law isn't there to protect marriage.  They lock up unwedded people all the same.  You can legalize prostitution for unwedded persons if that's your chief complaint.

 

Next, what is the legal remedy for infidelity?  Prison?

 

You wanted to know a victim. I provided one. ;)

[Liberty]

You wanted to know a victim. I provided one. ;)

 

If you eat badly and don't exercise, you potentially rob your wife of precious years of your life. We need to implement a paternalistic totalitarian fascist state to make you eat your veggies, take the stairs, and brush your teeth...

[ERICOPOLY]

You wanted to know a victim. I provided one. ;)

 

If you eat badly and don't exercise, you potentially rob your wife of precious years of your life. We need to implement a paternalistic totalitarian fascist state to make you eat your veggies, take the stairs, and brush your teeth...

 

Stoning for leaving the toilet seat up.

[Guest]

hahaha

 

Hey, if the Mrs is good with that, who am I to object?  ;D

[rkbabang]

hahaha

 

Hey, if the Mrs is good with that, who am I to object?  ;D

 

 

The problem with democracy is that the tastes and preferences of the majority are forced upon the minority with guns.

 

(and they think it is funny)

 

[Guest]

hahaha

 

Hey, if the Mrs is good with that, who am I to object?  ;D

 

 

The problem with democracy is that the tastes and preferences of the majority are forced upon the minority with guns.

 

(and they think it is funny)

 

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

[ERICOPOLY]

hahaha

 

Hey, if the Mrs is good with that, who am I to object?  ;D

 

 

The problem with democracy is that the tastes and preferences of the majority are forced upon the minority with guns.

 

(and they think it is funny)

 

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

Isn't infidelity merely the emergence of a stronger woman, who can better compete for the man's attention?

[rkbabang]

hahaha

 

Hey, if the Mrs is good with that, who am I to object?  ;D

 

 

The problem with democracy is that the tastes and preferences of the majority are forced upon the minority with guns.

 

(and they think it is funny)

 

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

 

The point of civilization is for human beings to try to live together unlike animals.  Progress is being made, albeit rather slowly.

 

 

[yadayada]

If you want to solve all this, don't let those stay at home soccer moms who start sentences with 'as a mother I think...' vote. Hint very little thinking went on if they say that.

 

Better yet, Only let people vote who pay a certain amount of taxes (like at least 5k$ or so). This will weed out a lot of complete dead beats and very emotional people who lack perspective. All these very expensive and stupid regulations are the direct result of political correctness run amok. And what causes that? Feminism. Because don't you dare say that maybe not everyone is equal. Even if that directly contradicts Darwin.

 

Obviously we should not go back to the 19th century in that regard, but sometimes I think feminism kind of went out of control. Back in the day when I was in school you were retarded if you could not keep up and scored low on an iq test. And usually the teacher would be so nice to tell you that. So you would not waste so much fking time learning math. Nowadays the school needs to lower it's standards. Because everyone is equal!!! AND MY LITTLE TIMMY IS NOT STUPID HE IS JUST GIFTED IN SOME SPECIAL UNIQUE YET UNDISCOVERED WAY

 

[writser]

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

Please stop with all the evolutionary references.

 

I respect your views on social issues and I agree with most of them. If you don't like people going to hookers, fine, but don't try to rationalize things by fitting them in your self-constructed moral framework, where, if you don't believe in your specific god and your specific values then it's ok to murder your boss, cheat on your wife and inject your baby daughter with heroin. Your line of reasoning on morality is outdated, egocentric and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as several people tried to explain to you in previous threads on similar issues.

 

Besides that, your constant references are a very childish way to end any productive discussion. "You don't agree with me? You must be a barbarian living in the animal kingdom ... ". Right. Some people have a more nuanced view of what's right and what's wrong. They try not to listen to their gut feelings (like those in the animal kingdom ;)).

[Guest]

hahaha

 

Hey, if the Mrs is good with that, who am I to object?  ;D

 

 

The problem with democracy is that the tastes and preferences of the majority are forced upon the minority with guns.

 

(and they think it is funny)

 

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

 

The point of civilization is for human beings to try to live together unlike animals.  Progress is being made, albeit rather slowly.

 

Not really. There is no "point."

[rkbabang]

The point of civilization is for human beings to try to live together unlike animals.  Progress is being made, albeit rather slowly.

Not really. There is no "point."

 

I think there is, as do many people.  For those who think there isn't, suicide is a viable option.  I also think you should be able to pay someone to assist you or do it for you.

 

[Guest]

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

Please stop with all the evolutionary references.

 

I respect your views on social issues and I agree with most of them. If you don't like people going to hookers, fine, but don't try to rationalize things by fitting them in your self-constructed moral framework, where, if you don't believe in your specific god and your specific values then it's ok to murder your boss, cheat on your wife and inject your baby daughter with heroin. Your line of reasoning on morality is outdated, egocentric and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as several people tried to explain to you in previous threads on similar issues.

 

Besides that, your constant references are a very childish way to end any productive discussion. "You don't agree with me? You must be a barbarian living in the animal kingdom ... ". Right. Some people have a more nuanced view of what's right and what's wrong. They try not to listen to their gut feelings (like those in the animal kingdom ;)).

 

writser, that's the thing. I've thought about this a lot and I think Eric will agree. There is no "true" right and wrong. All of our brains are wired in a certain way and we don't control the original wiring. Our evolutionary instincts are just that. Some people are wired to steal others are wired to sacrifice their lives for a stranger. Neither is better or worse. They are simply different.

 

The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral. Actions are simply that: actions. We can glam it up and say "well if it causes harm, it's bad." That's arbitrary though. We can say we "reason" and that's why we do certain things. Indeed, even that is arbitrary. One person may "reason" almost anything.

 

I have no problem with anyone who is a deist, theist, agnostic or atheist. I do find it a little puzzling when they aren't logically consistent though. That goes even when a Christian is for the death penalty or an atheist grumbling about social rights.  If life is valuable, then even a person on death row has value. If we really are just stardust, don't expect people to get up in arms about people dying in a foreign country.

[Guest]

The point of civilization is for human beings to try to live together unlike animals.  Progress is being made, albeit rather slowly.

Not really. There is no "point."

 

I think there is, as do many people.  For those who think there isn't, suicide is a viable option.  I also think you should be able to pay someone to assist you or do it for you.

 

What's the point then? Just because someone "thinks" something is true, doesn't make it so.

[ERICOPOLY]

I don't see how that's a problem. That's how it is throughout the animal kingdom - the strongest survive.

 

Please stop with all the evolutionary references.

 

I respect your views on social issues and I agree with most of them. If you don't like people going to hookers, fine, but don't try to rationalize things by fitting them in your self-constructed moral framework, where, if you don't believe in your specific god and your specific values then it's ok to murder your boss, cheat on your wife and inject your baby daughter with heroin. Your line of reasoning on morality is outdated, egocentric and doesn't stand up to scrutiny, as several people tried to explain to you in previous threads on similar issues.

 

Besides that, your constant references are a very childish way to end any productive discussion. "You don't agree with me? You must be a barbarian living in the animal kingdom ... ". Right. Some people have a more nuanced view of what's right and what's wrong. They try not to listen to their gut feelings (like those in the animal kingdom ;)).

 

writser, that's the thing. I've thought about this a lot and I think Eric will agree. There is no "true" right and wrong. All of our brains are wired in a certain way and we don't control the original wiring. Our evolutionary instincts are just that. Some people are wired to steal others are wired to sacrifice their lives for a stranger. Neither is better or worse. They are simply different.

 

The bottom line is this: if there is no deity, there is nothing that is moral or immoral. Actions are simply that: actions. We can glam it up and say "well if it causes harm, it's bad." That's arbitrary though. We can say we "reason" and that's why we do certain things. Indeed, even that is arbitrary. One person may "reason" almost anything.

 

I have no problem with anyone who is a deist, theist, agnostic or atheist. I do find it a little puzzling when they aren't logically consistent though. That goes even when a Christian is for the death penalty or an atheist grumbling about social rights.  If life is valuable, then even a person on death row has value. If we really are just stardust, don't expect people to get up in arms about people dying in a foreign country.

 

Morals aside, legislators could take a hypocratic oath to "do no harm".

 

Policies that lead to an increase of human trafficking of sex slaves could be seen as doing harm.