Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 28, 2024, 4:11 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
#21
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
(June 11, 2015 at 7:23 pm)Dystopia Wrote:
Quote:Well, because we differ in our opinions about what people can do with their own bodies, we probably won't come to an agreement on this, but I'll address your points:

I support bodily autonomy and self-determination - I just don't think it is an absolute right (none is)

I do, though.  Like I said, we're probably going to have to agree to disagree on some of these points.



Quote:
Quote:1. the right to live and physical well-being are both individuals' choices, IMO.  I think assisted suicide should be legal, for example. 
You don't understand my point - The right to live and physical well being are inalienable rights, meaning no one can harm you or take your rights away. The right to live means, above all else, that you have the right to circulate without being murdered and the right to physical well being means people can't beat you for fun or use your body for scientific experimentations (just a couple of examples). Assisted suicide isn't a problem because, with consent, some rights can be restricted by yourself.

I understand your point, but I think physical autonomy is an inalienable right. That some laws violate them doesn't make it right, IMO.  

Quote:
Quote:2. I think the idea of banning smoking altogether is ridiculous.  
Great, but many people disagree.

And I disagree with them.

Quote:
Quote:3. if a consenting adult of sound mind consents to slavery, I have no problem with it.
I entirely disagree. If you support human rights, then you must know human rights' theory is based on the principle of inviolability  and inalienability - Meaning that you have personhood, rights and you can't lose them. Consenting into slavery and becoming a slave means, by definition, losing your rights and becoming property of someone else, you have the same legal status as a chair or a desk.

Not losing your rights, rather giving them up, which I think should be someone, of consenting age and sound mind, should have the right to do.

Quote:So, if you support this, does it mean it's ok for me to have a slave, rape them, beat them and use them for labour as I please? Your quest for individual autonomy is familiar, but it has contradictions - Namely that you think human rights are important but also don't mind people losing them. That's not going to work.

Again, it's not losing a right if someone is choosing to do it. It's an important distinction.

Quote:I see no problem with weed both from an individualist and collectivist standpoint.


As for seatbelts and helmets laws - When I think of those laws I don't really think about the terrifying burden of wearing them, but of the children and families who lose relatives because they were distracted and didn't wear it...

But we deal with heartache and death every day. The "what about the children" types of arguments don't really sit with me.


Quote:Not to mention it's a great way to grab some state-funding that is necessary to run public services.

So are laws that call for fines for violating said rules.


Quote:A fine is a healthy reminder to wear your seatbelt - My dad only wore them because he was afraid of being fined - And it worked. When you drive you are using your vehicle but roads and public spaces are usually the government's property - If the government provides a space for you to drive it is only fair to abide by the road's rules - Namely how to drive, park, brake, turn, wear the seatbelt, etc.

How to drive, parking, braking, etc. are important laws to protect the rights of other motorists; wearing a seatbelt isn't, IMO.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Reply
#22
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
(June 11, 2015 at 6:30 pm)Dystopia Wrote:
(June 11, 2015 at 6:28 pm)rexbeccarox Wrote: I agree with pretty much everything you said except for the part I bolded. How is limiting what people can do with their own bodies anything but a human rights violation?
To be fair, this is only true if (1) You accept human rights exist and find a way to prove there is an objective sect of values (2) If you follow a liberal/libertarian principle of self-determination because there are people like me who see some behaviours as so self-destructive that society should put an end to it - I don't think this is the case for weed though
(emphasis is mine)

If self determination is at all important to you, self destruction must be protected. What else is it if not the absolute culmination of self determination. As long as I do not harm others, where is the harm to society if I engage in behavior detrimental to myself?
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply
#23
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
(June 11, 2015 at 7:44 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
(June 11, 2015 at 6:30 pm)Dystopia Wrote: To be fair, this is only true if (1) You accept human rights exist and find a way to prove there is an objective sect of values (2) If you follow a liberal/libertarian principle of self-determination because there are people like me who see some behaviours as so self-destructive that society should put an end to it - I don't think this is the case for weed though
(emphasis is mine)

If self determination is at all important to you, self destruction must be protected. What else is it if not the absolute culmination of self determination. As long as I do not harm others, where is the harm to society if I engage in behavior detrimental to myself?

How do you define harm? Because I could find arguments to make things you've never thought were harmful as harmful. And harmful to whom? To which class of people? Is it merely physical harm that counts? What about psychological damage?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#24
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
(June 11, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Dystopia Wrote:
(June 11, 2015 at 7:44 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: (emphasis is mine)

If self determination is at all important to you, self destruction must be protected. What else is it if not the absolute culmination of self determination. As long as I do not harm others, where is the harm to society if I engage in behavior detrimental to myself?

How do you define harm? Because I could find arguments to make things you've never thought were harmful as harmful. And harmful to whom? To which class of people? Is it merely physical harm that counts? What about psychological damage?

I'll go with material harm since that's easiest to prove in a court of law.

We've had this argument before re. assisted suicide and the right to die, so I don't expect to agree with you. Smile
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply
#25
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
Sure....it's so seldom that we ever repeal a stupid law.  Should be cause for celebration and amnesty.
Reply
#26
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
Quote:I understand your point, but I think physical autonomy is an inalienable right. That some laws violate them doesn't make it right, IMO.  
If it's inalienable why do you support people giving it away then? That's a contradiction. Either it's inalienable or not. You can't have it both ways. Inalienable means you can't give it away, and some rights are inalienable by definition. assisted suicide is not giving away a right, it's merely consenting on someone terminating your life with your approval and decent justification.

Quote:Not losing your rights, rather giving them up, which I think should be someone, of consenting age and sound mind, should have the right to do.
Restricting rights is a necessity in any society. We all restrict our own rights everyday for many reasons, and it's how it works. But losing rights, specially the most important rights, is unthinkable and inhumane. Giving up is the same as losing, it's just different words for the same thing. If rights are inalienable, why can I give them away? If they aren't, why can't the state take them all away?

Quote:Again, it's not losing a right if someone is choosing to do it. It's an important distinction.
Except that choices are influenced by many variables and sometimes coerced. THere is no free choice. THe point of rights being inalienable is that you can't lose them, even if you truly want it. It's the reason why you can't become a slave - Because you are a human, and the UDHR says you always have dignity and forbids slavery. BTW, if you support human rights, why do you oppose the article that says slavery is banned and condemned? How do you manage to support human rights (mostly based on dignity, well being, happiness, fulfilment, etc.) and also be ok with something like slavery? Are you really ok with the fact some people stop being people and can be treated worse than animals? Do you really think this is ok? And don't you think it would lead to the strongest enslaving and coercing the weakest, like it has happened many times?


Quote:But we deal with heartache and death every day. The "what about the children" types of arguments don't really sit with me.
OK, that was a bad argument. Essentially, I believe that the state, since it exists, has duty with all of us and needs to provide important services and protect citizens when necessary. That's why many people support public healthcare, education, etc etc - I also believe the state has a duty to protect us physically and not allow outsiders to threaten our security - Security is a human right, IMO - That's why every state has an army. Following this reasoning, I think obligating people to wear seatbelts is completely normal and a form of decreasing the chances of death. I don't see anything wrong with it. Only a libertarian (hardcore one) would think it is oppressive to be forced to wear a seatbelt when it comes incorporated with the vehicle (helmets cost money, but bikes aren't a first choice for many people). I know you'll disagree, but I think it is a reasonable law - It's not oppressive to plug in your seatbelt, that's an exaggeration. There's many cases when the state protects citizens, either by forcing you to abstain from X (such as forbidding entry into a place infected by hazardous chemicals) or forcing you to adopt a behaviour to protect yourself or others (for example, parents have a special legal duty of protection with children so if you do something stupid like, i.e. seeing your child drowning and wilfully allowing them to drown without trying anything, you can be prosecuted by negligent murder) 

Quote:So are laws that call for fines for violating said rules.
My point - The state needs money. Let's not be naive, cops are told to purposefully search for vehicles wrongly parked and people without seatbelts. Money matters.

Quote:How to drive, parking, braking, etc. are important laws to protect the rights of other motorists; wearing a seatbelt isn't, IMO.
If I crash and my body is projected upfront, I hit another person and kill them isn't that pretty much violating the rights of other motorists? Because it is frequent in high speed accidents and it hurts people b sides the driver. Really? Why can't I simply park in the middle of the road? I'm not hurting anyone else, it's people's fault they don't turn around. And it's possible to be a skilful driver and drive well without brakes 
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#27
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
(June 11, 2015 at 7:52 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
(June 11, 2015 at 7:46 pm)Dystopia Wrote: How do you define harm? Because I could find arguments to make things you've never thought were harmful as harmful. And harmful to whom? To which class of people? Is it merely physical harm that counts? What about psychological damage?

I'll go with material harm since that's easiest to prove in a court of law.

We've had this argument before re. assisted suicide and the right to die, so I don't expect to agree with you. Smile

Almost a year ago - I'm much more liberal with assisted suicide now (and euthanasia) but it isn't about that - I'm just asking you how do you define "material" harm? Let me ask a troubling question - Should an individual be allowed to keep, download and watch child porn as long as they don't sell or participate in it (assuming a priori that child porn is always illegal to film)?
Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you

Reply
#28
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
(June 11, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Dystopia Wrote:
(June 11, 2015 at 7:52 pm)SnakeOilWarrior Wrote: I'll go with material harm since that's easiest to prove in a court of law.

We've had this argument before re. assisted suicide and the right to die, so I don't expect to agree with you. Smile

Almost a year ago - I'm much more liberal with assisted suicide now (and euthanasia) but it isn't about that
It is very much is about self determination which is the argument I used then.

(June 11, 2015 at 8:03 pm)Dystopia Wrote: I'm just asking you how do you define "material" harm? Let me ask a troubling question - Should an individual be allowed to keep, download and watch child porn as long as they don't sell or participate in it (assuming a priori that child porn is always illegal to film)?

To define, this best describes what I consider material harm: Harm means any injury, loss or damage. It can also be any material or tangible detriment. (source)

By viewing and keeping child pornography, they are participating in something that has a demonstrable material harm to the children involved, unless you're arguing that no material harm is done to the children (who can't even legally consent) in the child porn (i hate to use the term) industry. You think I wouldn't have a problem with that?
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply
#29
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
(June 11, 2015 at 8:01 pm)Dystopia Wrote:



I've given you all of my opinions on this; you're rehashing what we've already discussed, and your last point was bordering on insulting. How many times has an un-seatbelted driver killed another motorist?  If you can give me good statistics on that, I'll change my stance. Also, simply parking in the road does cause accidents, and, no.  Most people can't drive skillfully without brakes; that's a really poor analogy.

Like I've said many times: we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one.
Nolite te bastardes carborundorum.
Reply
#30
RE: Should Prisoners be set Free When Their "Crime" Becomes Legal?
To answer the original point of the thread, yes, I believe people should be released when a criminal law is overturned. By the very act (except for the rare, odd circumstance), the state is admitting they were wrong to make it illegal in the first place and by extension, wrong to prosecute anyone for it.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Should public transportation be free? Fake Messiah 41 2577 July 26, 2022 at 3:54 pm
Last Post: The Architect Of Fate
  Should I stay or should I go? POLITICAL op/ed Brian37 53 6716 August 26, 2021 at 11:43 am
Last Post: Fake Messiah
  Are religions that preach inequality for women and gays, traitors to their country? Greatest I am 129 4701 February 8, 2021 at 9:26 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  Let’s take their guns BrokenQuill92 141 9036 November 22, 2020 at 4:28 pm
Last Post: The Grand Nudger
  Incest should be legal because homosexuality is Rein83 52 5557 August 6, 2019 at 5:54 pm
Last Post: viocjit
  Two Old Pros - Doing Their Thing Minimalist 8 940 November 28, 2018 at 3:48 pm
Last Post: BrianSoddingBoru4
  Palestinian rock throwing, but isnt that against their religion? Kimbi 1 495 September 4, 2018 at 1:52 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  FOX Being Dragged Down By Their Anchor Minimalist 10 1564 August 23, 2018 at 3:38 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Fools And Their Money! Minimalist 10 997 May 18, 2018 at 3:35 pm
Last Post: Tiberius
  Finally Fox [Faux] News is being called out for their shit NuclearEnergy 3 1429 December 16, 2017 at 12:11 am
Last Post: vulcanlogician



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)