Making the law

[The Bellman]

The number of people (all, I think, christians) in this thread expressing the very parochial "I think it's naughty, therefore it should be banned" school of thought is truly disturbing. Oh, most of them clothe it with appeals to 'truth' (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context) and the claim that us men are somehow overcome with lust at seeing some particular part of the female body. Of course, these claims are completely demolished by the simple fact that countries all over the world have far lower standards regarding compulsory dress than the US, and also far lower rates of sexual molestation and rape. But hey, never mind logic, right?

Basically, it's - once again - christians decreeing that they, alone, KNOW what's right, and wanting to force the rest of us to act in accordance with their morality.

 

[psychedelicist]

2) Legalize most drugs. Tax drug sales heavily. As was stated in an earlier post, the money saved from the drug war--which we are loosing--and the increased tax revenues would go a long way towards paying off the debt.

Out of curiosity, which ones would be legalized, and which would stay illegal?

9) Increase funding for Space exloration, with the goal of having settlements on Mars within the next 100 years.

I think I saw on discovery channel that Mars would be hard to settle on because the core is too cool. I'm not really sure what problems that might cause, but I'm guessing its not a good thing. Venus is still wide open, though it would take a lot more work to make the planet safe enough to inhabit (estimated hundreds of billions, maybe trillions, of dollars in terraforming alone)

 

[psychedelicist]

just the christian bible only!

Why? What makes the Bible so much better than the Quran or Rg Veda, that it should be the only ones taught im school?

 

[Onemonthman]

Why? What makes the Bible so much better than the Quran or Rg Veda, that it should be the only ones taught im school?

God.

 

[Dirtydeak]

This thing aint working it keeps telling me my post is to short.

 

[Dirtydeak]

#1What of my personal freedom to not want to be exsposed to this. Why is it ok to infringe on my space??

2. Repeal all laws relating to ages of sexual consent. Instead, make it illegal to have sexual contact with a child (ie., pre-pubescent).
I believe the age of consent concept is inherently flawed. The idea that a person overnight becomes 'legal' is ridiculous. Similarly, the idea that a person below a certain age cannot give informed consent is ludicrous. The fact is that some adolescents are sufficiently mature and developed to give such consent and have sex. Obviously, some are not - but they are not compelled to do so.

The law already states that sex with a minor is illegal. An age has to be astablished as a referance point between child, and adult. My daughter, who is now only nine, has began to develop breasts, and is already on the very verge of puberty. She will become pubescent either around or shortly after her tenth birthday. She still dose not understand why she has to take a bath every night. Yet she is old enough for sex? Absurd!

3. Repeal all laws concerning spouses. Abolish marriage as a state-recognised institution. Instead, create a state-maintained list of next-of-kin whereby persons could register who they want to be considered their next-of-kin for all purposes. Treat people in relationships as single people for tax purposes.
I find the state-recognised marriage concept to be archaic and of little use. Removing it entirely would prevent further discrimination against homosexuals and put everyone on an equal footing. Of course, nothing in this legislation would prevent marriage; it would merely stop state recognition of such.

We already voted on that... thank God.

4. Repeal all laws regarding male responsibility for offspring. Create a state-registered 'agreement to parent' whereby n people (of any gender) can register to be parents of a child (before or after its birth). These parents are individually responsible for the child financially and legally until it comes of age. This agreement cannot be rescinded without consent of all parents on the agreement. In the absence of such an agreement, the mother is responsible for the child financially and legally until it comes of age; the father is responsible for half the medical expenses incurred by the pregnancy/abortion/birth only.
This is an attempt to create a more reasoned framework for parental responsibility. Currently, a man can be held responsible for a child he doesn't want without having any say in the matter. He has no authority as to whether the child is born or aborted, kept or adopted - yet he can be held responsible for the consequences of a decision in which he had no part. This law recognises the fact that it is women, and women only, who have the right to determine whether or not they will bear a child and what will happen to it once born. Accordingly, since they have the sole authority, they have the sole responsibility as well. Of course, if an agreement such as that described above is in place, then the responsibility is shared, and it is agreements like this that I would see being signed in the majority of cases - ie., for 'wanted' children of couples.

Agreed. Except the abortion part.

5. Pass laws to make arson, murder, sexual contact with a child, kidnapping and rape punishable by painless execution.
Not a popular one, no doubt. However, I believe there are people without whom society is better off.

What do you define as 'child'. My almost 10yr old daughter is fair game? Sick!

6. Repeal all laws concerning controlled/illicit/illegal substances. Instead, make consumption of all drugs legal and managed by the state in the same fashion as alcohol is managed now.
The idea that the government (or anyone else) can tell a person they are not allowed to consume a certain substance is abhorrent to me. People have the moral right to take whatever drugs they want (just to let you know, I don't take drugs or drink).

Im guessing you voted independet, right?

7. Repeal all laws regarding tax exemption. Make all organisations, of whatever purpose and nature, liable for tax.
Sorta speaks for itself. If an organisation can't pay its own way, then let it die.

Whatever....

8. Make sexual education mandatory for all children via the state education system. Such education is to be aimed at an appropriate level given the age of the children, but is to impart the basics before puberty. This education will discuss the biological and physical aspects of sex, including contraceptive options (including abstinence).
I believe one of the leading causes of teen pregnancy, STD rates, etc., is lack of knowledge. Some part of this is caused by such things as abstinence only programs, parents who don't want their children to have sex education, and so forth. In my opinion, not teaching them the facts is actively harmful, and the government is justified in ignoring parents' wishes that they not be taught such, for their own sake.

Thats the problem... too many people want to teach my girls stuuf I dont.

No doubt I'll think of some more after I post this, but these will do for a start........

[/QUOTE]

 

[The Bellman]

#1What of my personal freedom to not want to be exsposed to this. Why is it ok to infringe on my space??

Who said anyone's going to infringe upon your space? You always have freedom not to be exposed to something; don't look at it. In just the same way, I have the freedom not to be exposed to black people, or women in authority, or anything else I have a dislike to - I just don't look. I don't expect those black people and women to arrange their lives to suit my dislike.

The law already states that sex with a minor is illegal. An age has to be astablished as a referance point between child, and adult. My daughter, who is now only nine, has began to develop breasts, and is already on the very verge of puberty. She will become pubescent either around or shortly after her tenth birthday. She still dose not understand why she has to take a bath every night. Yet she is old enough for sex? Absurd!

No, an age doesn't have to be established as a reference point between child and adult. We (our legal systems) do it because it's a nice and easily definable point. However, it's certainly not the only way.

You're daughter's not old enough for sex? Good, then she doesn't have to have it. What's the problem?

We already voted on that... thank God.

Yup. So what? This thread is about what posters would change the law to be. If you want to discuss the advisability of some of these changes people would make, go for it. But saying 'we voted on that' is pretty pointless.

What do you define as 'child'. My almost 10yr old daughter is fair game? Sick!

What, you don't think sex with children should be illegal? I assume that's not what you mean, so I don't know what you do mean.

Im guessing you voted independet, right?

I don't know what that means. I'm not American.

Whatever...

Well, that's certainly hard to refute.

Thats the problem... too many people want to teach my girls stuuf I dont.

For children's safety, there are many things they should be taught whether their parents want them to be taught it or not.

 

[Dirtydeak]

[

QUOTE=The Bellman]Who said anyone's going to infringe upon your space? You always have freedom not to be exposed to something; don't look at it. In just the same way, I have the freedom not to be exposed to black people, or women in authority, or anything else I have a dislike to - I just don't look. I don't expect those black people and women to arrange their lives to suit my dislike.

Racism and bigotry have nothing to do with some one being butt naked in public. besides that, I shouldnt have to go anywhere. Let them go somewhere. I represent the majority of people, let the minority go play somwhere else. In such a tolerant world, I can only hope you tolerate my intolerance.

No, an age doesn't have to be established as a reference point between child and adult. We (our legal systems) do it because it's a nice and easily definable point. However, it's certainly not the only way.

How then do we difine the age of consent? If grass grows?..... Thats just sick!

You're daughter's not old enough for sex? Good, then she doesn't have to have it. What's the problem?

No my daughter is not old enough to have sex. Do you believe she is? The problem is that some people might think she is old enough!

What, you don't think sex with children should be illegal? I assume that's not what you mean, so I don't know what you do mean

.

Yes, Yes, Yes... no one under age 18 is legal.

For children's safety, there are many things they should be taught whether their parents want them to be taught it or not.

Agreed.... Creationism should be taught in every class and nation, and Jesus Christ as lord.

 

[The Bellman]

Racism and bigotry have nothing to do with some one being butt naked in public. besides that, I shouldnt have to go anywhere. Let them go somewhere. I represent the majority of people, let the minority go play somwhere else. In such a tolerant world, I can only hope you tolerate my intolerance.

No, I don't, any more than I tolerate the intolerance of people who don't want to see blacks. If you don't like seeing naked people, that's YOUR problem, not theirs.

How then do we difine the age of consent? If grass grows?..... Thats just sick!

We pick an arbitrary age. I've already given what I think that age should be - rather than a specific number of years, it should be based on the physical condition of the person involved. In my opinion that makes far more sense than saying 'X years'.

No my daughter is not old enough to have sex. Do you believe she is? The problem is that some people might think she is old enough!

Good, if your daughter isn't old enough to have sex, then she doesn't have to. What's the problem?

News for you, dude...some people think she's already old enough. That won't change no matter what gets legislated. The idea of changing the age of consent is to allow HER to decide when SHE thinks she's old enough.

Yes, Yes, Yes... no one under age 18 is legal.

In my opinion that's simply ludicrous. Why not make it 25?

Agreed.... Creationism should be taught in every class and nation, and Jesus Christ as lord.

I have moral problems with imposing a particular religious belief on all.

 

[repentandbelieve]

The number of people (all, I think, christians) in this thread expressing the very parochial "I think it's naughty, therefore it should be banned" school of thought is truly disturbing. Oh, most of them clothe it with appeals to 'truth' (whatever that is supposed to mean in this context) and the claim that us men are somehow overcome with lust at seeing some particular part of the female body. Of course, these claims are completely demolished by the simple fact that countries all over the world have far lower standards regarding compulsory dress than the US, and also far lower rates of sexual molestation and rape. But hey, never mind logic, right?

Basically, it's - once again - christians decreeing that they, alone, KNOW what's right, and wanting to force the rest of us to act in accordance with their morality.

I don't think it's so much a matter of Christians wanting to force others to act in accordance to their standard of morality. I think that for the most part Christians would just like to live apart from an atmosphere of "worldliness".
The struggle Christians have is that they want to live godly, but thet world is ungodly. Christianity is endangered when it mingles with worldliness and it takes a tremendous amount of moral power for them to resist it's influence.

 

[Archivist]

Out of curiosity, which ones would be legalized, and which would stay illegal?

I think I saw on discovery channel that Mars would be hard to settle on because the core is too cool. I'm not really sure what problems that might cause, but I'm guessing its not a good thing. Venus is still wide open, though it would take a lot more work to make the planet safe enough to inhabit (estimated hundreds of billions, maybe trillions, of dollars in terraforming alone)

Your first question dealt with drugs. My answer is that I would leave the determination up to the experts. Marijuana certainly should be legalized but I would think that LSD should not be. As I said, this is a matter for the experts. Right now, unfortunately, decisions are being made for political reasons which is why marijuana cannot even be used for legitimate medical purposes.

As to space exploration, my understanding was that Mars could be settled using domed cities, but there was question as to whether the planet could be teraformed. Perhaps you have read different information.

 

[psychedelicist]

[
Racism and bigotry have nothing to do with some one being butt naked in public. besides that, I shouldnt have to go anywhere. Let them go somewhere. I represent the majority of people, let the minority go play somwhere else. In such a tolerant world, I can only hope you tolerate my intolerance

Atheists are still the majority (slightly) in America right now. So you know what, you guys offend me, so go somewhere else. I represent the majority of people, let the minority go play somewhere else.

Whose fault is it that I am intolerant of christians, mine or the christians? Should I have to deal with it or should the christians? The same goes for nudity.

(Just so everyone knows I am not prejudiced towards christians and they don't offend me, just trying to make a point)

 

[psychedelicist]

Your first question dealt with drugs. My answer is that I would leave the determination up to the experts. Marijuana certainly should be legalized but I would think that LSD should not be. As I said, this is a matter for the experts. Right now, unfortunately, decisions are being made for political reasons which is why marijuana cannot even be used for legitimate medical purposes.

Who are the experts exactly? Our government cannot be obviously, since you seem to agree that the current drug laws are not good, so it must be people who know the most about LSD, correct? A. Hoffman invented LSD, he would certainly be an expert and I know from his writings that he would want it legalized. Timothy Leary studied it for most of his life, and he has said that he would liek it not only to be legalized, but everyone should have a daily dose of it.

I used to think pretty much how you think about it. I realized that there can be no definitive line drawn between safe and unsafe without some supreme entity, because everyone will always have differing opinions, even the experts.

 

[Onesiphorus]

Atheists are still the majority (slightly) in America right now.

Total adult Christians in the U.S. = 159,506,000
Total adult Atheist in the U.S. = 29,481,000

U.S. Census Bureau (2001 Data)

 

[psychedelicist]

Well crud. Well, just replace that with any minority you may belong in, then go hide in a cave because the majority is offended by your minority. You still get the picture, why his arguement can't hold up.

 

[Archivist]

Who are the experts exactly? Our government cannot be obviously, since you seem to agree that the current drug laws are not good, so it must be people who know the most about LSD, correct? A. Hoffman invented LSD, he would certainly be an expert and I know from his writings that he would want it legalized. Timothy Leary studied it for most of his life, and he has said that he would liek it not only to be legalized, but everyone should have a daily dose of it.

I used to think pretty much how you think about it. I realized that there can be no definitive line drawn between safe and unsafe without some supreme entity, because everyone will always have differing opinions, even the experts.

You forget that the "government" is not a single entity. There is a difference between the politicians who set policy and the doctors and scientific experts at NIH who make recommendations. I refer to the latter, not the former.

 

[The Bellman]

Yes, psychedelist was wrong in his figures, but he's right in his principle. The fact that a majority finds a minority (or their behaviour) 'offensive' is not sufficient grounds for that majority to ban that minority.

 

[psychedelicist]

You forget that the "government" is not a single entity. There is a difference between the politicians who set policy and the doctors and scientific experts at NIH who make recommendations. I refer to the latter, not the former.

But that's the problem; we really do not know to an extensive degree the effects of most "dangerous" drugs on the brain, and as such you will have many scientists who believe said chemical should remain illegal, while many think it is not harmful and should be made legal. What do you do then?

 

[Archivist]

But that's the problem; we really do not know to an extensive degree the effects of most "dangerous" drugs on the brain, and as such you will have many scientists who believe said chemical should remain illegal, while many think it is not harmful and should be made legal. What do you do then?

I let the experts figure it out.

 

[psychedelicist]

that still doesn't answer the question of who is the experts. Albert Hoffman is the LSD expert, John Lilly the Ketamine expert, Dennis McKenna the DMT expert. All of them would want said drugs to be legalized. Other experts on the same drugs would say that they would definitely want these drugs to remain illegal. Which experts do you listen to?