- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
Why bother having laws and sentences then? If we didn't have the laws would the incidence of child-adult sex remain the same, increase or decrease?
Does the threat of imposition of sanction act as a deterrent?
...after you keyed her car and wiped your ass with her handbags, right?
Why bother having laws and sentences then? If we didn't have the laws would the incidence of child-adult sex remain the same, increase or decrease?
Does the threat of imposition of sanction act as a deterrent?
You can link to the constitution in a lot of cases, for example weed, online poker just to mention two examples that goes on freedoms, that I assume you are hinting at?
The marriage. Basically they witness the willing signatures of the husband/wife. Or, witness the ceremony if there was one. But all the state wants is the signatures of the officiate (basically a notary - in fact, can be just a notary in some states), the husband and wife, and the witnesses all attesting to the fact that the husband/wife wish to be married.Witnesses to what? Officiating what?
No, no ceremony required "for the most part". Especially not in the state that I can perform marriages. And even if there is some requirement for some words to be spoken, it would simply be "do you take him/her to be your husband/wife?" Already mentioned this.On this, for the most part, you would be wrong. There might be a required form, but there's a requirement for a ceremony. See my questions immediately above.
But not required.I never said they were -- but in most ceremonies, including civil ones, they're usually done.
If someone made sacrifices for someone else, that was THEIR choice.On this fine point I don't disagree, however marriage is more than just companionship. It usually involves the parties making personal and financial sacrifices for the benefit of their union. A wife who abandons her schooling or career in order to move to another location can point to specific sacrifices she made based on the promises made involving their marriage. She can therefore also point to specific damages that resulted from the violation of the marital contract in that she wouldn't have made those sacrifices if she were not married.
Yes, I have been. I got over it.Have you ever been cheated on? Me neither.. There is no way that you can know how you would react.. Perhaps you would be one of the people who tied a knot around your neck and died because of it..
...after you keyed her car and wiped your ass with her handbags, right?
With pedophilia, there is a victim. It's not so much retribution as it is isolating them from society for society's safety.
Cheaters aren't a danger to society.
Thanks for your answer but it wasn't an answer to my question. Someone upthread posited that the introduction of judgment and punishment would be enough to modify the behavior of some spouses who were on the verge of committing adultery. Someone else, possibly you, said that such laws would have no effect.
I imagine that there exist borderline pedophiles who don't even interact with children in order to avoid creating temptation which could be acted upon BECAUSE they don't want to face the risk of punishment. However, if we removed that risk of punishment, then I imagine that some of these borderline pedophiles would indeed move to act on their impulses.
Do you disagree? Why would human decision making be different with respect to adultery than any other area where consequences have to be weighed before action is taken?
What I'm hinting at is we do not criminalize things because they hurt other people's feelings, nor do we criminalize things simply because we find them distasteful. That is, for lack of a better word, dumb.
You can imagine that they exist. That doesn't make it so. People who commit compulsive crimes don't think that they will get caught or don't even consider the consequences. That's what makes it a compulsion.
Tell me, how many people who cheat plan on getting caught? How many criminals plan on getting caught?
Murder is also part of human nature, same as sex and indirectly cheating. That would not justify murder as legal, nor general violence, which can also be compulsive behavior and natural to humans.
You can imagine that they exist. That doesn't make it so. People who commit compulsive crimes don't think that they will get caught or don't even consider the consequences. That's what makes it a compulsion.
Murderers are locked away to protect society. Society needs no protection from cheaters.
Yes it does actually need protection from such a horrible act, which is now rather a norm than a rarity.
I cant think of any other thing in our society today that is ahead of on a list of things that should be criminalize, than adultery, and I can think a lot of things that is less justifiably illegal than adultery.
Are you really staking out the position that compulsion is a binary state, rather than one of degree? Secondly, that people don't modify behavior in response to threats?
Really? There are alcoholics and non-alcoholics and alcoholics all go on total benders and there is no degree of moderation in alcoholism, so that some alcoholics go on benders only on the weekend, or after work, or on special occasions while other alcoholics refrain from getting drunk by attending programs or avoiding temptation. These folks don't exist. If you're an alcoholic then you're on a permanent bender and the degree to which alcohol affects you is uniform for every alcoholic.
Really? You can't think of any other thing worse than someone cheating on someone else? Seriously?
.
Yes it does actually need protection from such a horrible act, which is now rather a norm than a rarity.
I cant think of any other thing in our society today that is ahead of on a list of things that should be criminalize, than adultery, and I can think a lot of things that is less justifiably illegal than adultery.
You ignored the fact that people don't plan on getting caught. They think the consequences don't apply to them.
Just because something hurts a person's feelings does not mean we can criminalize it. I don't know how to make it any clearer.
What about using drugs then? Why should that be illegal?
Re-read my thread, that was NOT what I said at all.
You're responding to sample bias. Idiot criminals who get caught declare that they thought they'd never get caught. The prospective criminals who refrain from criminal action because they are aware of the consequences and the risk of getting caught are outside of your sample.
Look at what happens with looting during war. The incidence of looting increases during civil disturbance because the some of the folks on the margin, who refrained from theft during normal times now engage in theft because the odds of punishment have changed.
There are bookkeepers who dream of embezzling but don't because they don't want to get caught. Create a circumstance where the risk of getting caught is diminished and some of those bookkeepers will cross the line and embezzle. There are men who would drug a woman and have sex with her but refrain because they don't want to pay the price if they are caught. Guarantee them that they won't get caught and some fraction of those men will cross over and take advantage of that woman.
(snipped)
GREAT IDEA! Let's make cursing punishable by death, that will certainly cut down on foulness in today's society.
I understand your sample bias point. But you ignored Tucker's point that the current outcomes of getting caught are worse than jail.
Do you have proof that these men exist that would rape if they could get away with it?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?