NationStates Jolt Archive

So NSG, many of us, including yours truly, hold to the idea of separating personal morality from legislation. Meaning that just because we personally think something is wrong, doesn't mean we think it should be against the law.

What do you personally think is morally wrong, but that should remain legal or be legalized? And why?

Deep Fried Twinkies

voting republican. barely.

smoking.

Deep Fried Twinkies

Yes, those are so very very wrong. Yet, they should probably still be legal.

Off the top of my head, abortion, porn, use of hard drugs, and prostitution would fit that category for me I think.

As for why, because I realise they are hugely contentious moral issues where the answers aren't clear, so I can't honestly claim with confidence that my opinion is correct or justify restricting other people's freedom to make up their minds

Political Season.

A time of the year where it's legal to hunt politicians. talk about a herd that needs culling. (jk)

Prostitution, drug usage, gay marriage, and abortion.

What do you personally think is morally wrong, but that should remain legal or be legalized?

Bigotry.

Adultery.

polygamy

disagreeing with me or his imminence straughn...but mostly me

Religion.

Free speech.

Political Season.

A time of the year where it's legal to hunt politicians. talk about a herd that needs culling. (jk)

How's this morally wrong? And hunting, I'd say election time. So who wants to die for the country?

Free speech.

Why is free speech morally wrong?

Why is free speech morally wrong?CERTAIN things that people say, it is very wrong for them to say such things, but the law has to allow them to say them.

Political Season.

A time of the year where it's legal to hunt politicians. talk about a herd that needs culling. (jk)

And a couple of crackers took it upon themselves to try and make it Obama Season during the campaign, don't forget.

And a couple of crackers took it upon themselves to try and make it Obama Season during the campaign, don't forget.

Yeah well at least Palin would make a good wall mount. Not that I advocate mounting her...

CERTAIN things that people say, it is very wrong for them to say such things, but the law has to allow them to say them.

Good point. I thought he was referring to free speech in general, as if the principle was wrong.

Yeah well at least Palin would make a good wall mount. Not that I advocate mounting her...

Ewwwwwwwww...

:eek2:

"DRILL, BABY, DRILL!!"

Yeah well at least Palin would make a good wall mount. Not that I advocate mounting her...

*Shudders*

Yeah.. Who knows what you'd catch?! Moose-Lycanthropy!?

Good point. I thought he was referring to free speech in general, as if the principle was wrong.

Tmutarakhan got what I meant.
I think free speech should be legal, no matter how offensive or stupid it might be on occasions. That's because every instance that tries to define what's ok to say and what isn't is naturally biased. Saying that discriminatory words for truck drivers aren't allowed to be printed isn't that far away from prohibiting criticism of the ruling coalition in public.

Tmutarakhan got what I meant.
I think free speech should be legal, no matter how offensive or stupid it might be on occasions. That's because every instance that tries to define what's ok to say and what isn't is naturally biased. Saying that discriminatory words for truck drivers aren't allowed to be printed isn't that far away from prohibiting criticism of the ruling coalition in public.

So, it's okay if someone says that you dig up recently deceased men and fuck and eat them?

sure...but not if they try and print it...slander is slanderous

So, it's okay if someone says that you dig up recently deceased men and fuck and eat them?

If someone say something like this, he'll be the one deemed an idiot by the rest and especially by me. Plus, I don't normally heed to provocations, comebacks are in order if needed.

sure...but not if they try and print it...slander is slanderous

http://content8.flixster.com/photo/68/87/05/6887050_tml.jpg

"I resent that! Slander is spoken. In print it's Libel. Get your terms right."

If someone say something like this, he'll be the one deemed an idiot by the rest and especially by me. Plus, I don't normally heed to provocations, comebacks are in order if needed.

Why would he be deemed an idiot? How would you even know?

Who says it's a 'he'?


You might be getting turned down for job interview after job interview, never knowing why, and then one day find a sympathetic interviewer who explains to you that your application wasn't even really looked at because of the rumours of your necrophiliac tendencies.

Why would he be deemed an idiot? How would you even know?
He/she would deemed an idiot by me, and (by definition) by the people I hang out with. All else is irrelevant. (Plus, I assume he'd be deemed an idiot by most people in the society I live in)

Who says it's a 'he'?
My apologies. He/she/it.

You might be getting turned down for job interview after job interview, never knowing why, and then one day find a sympathetic interviewer who explains to you that your application wasn't even really looked at because of the rumours of your necrophiliac tendencies.
That's rather unrealistic. The only rumours with real effects are those in the press. That's because only then do politicians and companies start to care about PR. And even then, the rumour has to have some basis to be credible and proof to be taken seriously. Anything else will provide the newspaper or generally the rumour-spreader with negative PR.

Moderators

Yeah well at least Palin would make a good wall mount. Not that I advocate mounting her...Wait is that sexual in nature?

Bestiality, and that's about it. I have pretty loose morals, I guess.

He/she would deemed an idiot by me, and (by definition) by the people I hang out with. All else is irrelevant.


Ah. So it's safe to assume you are still at school, then?


That's rather unrealistic. The only rumours with real effects are those in the press. That's because only then do politicians and companies start to care about PR. And even then, the rumour has to have some basis to be credible and proof to be taken seriously. Anything else will provide the newspaper or generally the rumour-spreader with negative PR.

Not at all. See you try to get a job as a teacher when someone is spreading stories you're a paedophile...

Tmutarakhan got what I meant.
I think free speech should be legal, no matter how offensive or stupid it might be on occasions. That's because every instance that tries to define what's ok to say and what isn't is naturally biased. Saying that discriminatory words for truck drivers aren't allowed to be printed isn't that far away from prohibiting criticism of the ruling coalition in public.

Indeed, once you decide "It's not okay to say this because it's offensive," making that decision for various other things becomes that much easier. Hence why I am against any limits on what people can say, no matter how offensive.

voting republican. barely.

^this^

Religion.

and ^this^

FWIW, I don't think abortion, prostitution, or gay marriage are wrong, so they don't count. Drug usage depends largely on the drug, the nature of the usage, and the societal structure surrounding the usage.

Similarly, there is certainly some speech I object to but would defend as free, but not all speech. Defamation has already been pointed out. There are other well-recognized exceptions.

I think the usage of some drugs is morally wrong. But I still think that they should be legal.

Indeed, once you decide "It's not okay to say this because it's offensive," making that decision for various other things becomes that much easier. Hence why I am against any limits on what people can say, no matter how offensive.

So would you allow illegal advocacy, libel, obscenity, fighting words, speech that disrupts the judicial process, expression that provokes a hostile audience reaction, expression that discloses confidential information, speech that poses a clear and present danger, etc?

Bigotry.

Religion.

Gonna have to echo these

So would you allow illegal advocacy, libel, obscenity, fighting words, speech that disrupts the judicial process, expression that provokes a hostile audience reaction, expression that discloses confidential information, speech that poses a clear and present danger, etc?

Indeed. Absolute free speech lets someone hateful get in my baby boy's face and hurl all kinds of abuse. The real truth would be that anyone who tries, better be prepared to get knocked the fuck out... and I would expect no less of society, in parallel terms.

So would you allow illegal advocacy, libel, obscenity, fighting words, speech that disrupts the judicial process, expression that provokes a hostile audience reaction, expression that discloses confidential information, speech that poses a clear and present danger, etc?

Libel is libel. You can sue for it.

Obscenity? I find lots of things much more obscene than mere words.

"Fighting words"? What is this, the old west?

Not sure what you mean by speech that disrupts the judicial process or the other shit. You'll have to give more specific examples.

Nothing. Things I consider immoral I also think should be illegal.

Tmutarakhan got what I meant.
I think free speech should be legal, no matter how offensive or stupid it might be on occasions. That's because every instance that tries to define what's ok to say and what isn't is naturally biased. Saying that discriminatory words for truck drivers aren't allowed to be printed isn't that far away from prohibiting criticism of the ruling coalition in public.

I'll have you know that while us truck drivers don't read shit like newspapers because we are to busy driving, certain words still hurt be they printed or not. Words like 'fuel tax' or 'DUI'.

Libel is libel. You can sue for it.

My point exactly. You don't really believe such speech as libel should be completely free.

Obscenity? I find lots of things much more obscene than mere words.

Since when is free speech limited to mere words?

Roth v. United States (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=354&invol=476), 354 U.S. 476 (1957):

All ideas having even the slightest redeeming social importance - unorthodox ideas, controversial ideas, even ideas hateful to the prevailing climate of opinion - have the full protection of the guaranties, unless excludable because they encroach upon the limited area of more important interests. But implicit in the history of the First Amendment is the rejection of obscenity as utterly without redeeming social importance. This rejection for that reason is mirrored in the universal judgment that obscenity should be restrained, reflected in the international agreement of over 50 nations, in the obscenity laws of all of the 48 States, and in the 20 obscenity laws enacted by the Congress from 1842 to 1956. This is the same judgment expressed by this Court in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568, 571 -572:

". . . There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which have never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene . . . . It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. . . ." (Emphasis added.)

We hold that obscenity is not within the area of constitutionally protected speech or press.

"Fighting words"? What is this, the old west?

Epithets or personal abuse -- verbal assaults more akin to a punch in the mouth than to constitutionally protected expression of opinion.

Chaplinsky v. State of New Hampshire (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=315&invol=568), 315 U.S. 568 (1942) (emphasis added):

Allowing the broadest scope to the language and purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is well understood that the right of free speech is not absolute at all times and under all circumstances. There are certain well-defined and narrowly limited classes of speech, the prevention and punishment of which has never been thought to raise any Constitutional problem. These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or 'fighting' words--those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace. It has been well observed that such utterances are no essential part of any exposition of ideas, and are of such slight social value as a step to truth that any benefit that may be derived from them is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality. 'Resort to epithets or personal abuse is not in any proper sense communication of information or opinion safeguarded by the Constitution, and its punishment as a criminal act would raise no question under that instrument.' Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 309 , 310 S., 60 S.Ct. 900, 906, 128 A.L.R. 1352.

Not sure what you mean by speech that disrupts the judicial process or the other shit. You'll have to give more specific examples.

Note: many of these categories & examples overlap


Expression that induces unlawful conduct/provokes a hostile audience reaction
--incitement to violate the law
--urging the commission of a crime "kill him!"
--conspiracy to commit a crime
--during a famine, a speaker angrily asserts "to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn-dealer" that "corn dealers are starvers of the poor and should be burned alive," thus inflaming the mob to burn down the corn-dealer's house
--Feiner v. New York (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=340&invol=315), 340 U.S. 315 (1951) (inciting a breach of the peace)


Expression that disrupts the judicial process
--contempt of court
--picketing inside a courthouse
--intimidating jurors or witnesses
--leaking sealed evidence or grand jury proceedings


Expression that discloses confidential information
--disclosure of factual information one has a contractual obligation to keep secret
--broadcasting troop movements, submarine locations, names of CIA agents, etc
--broadcasting the names of rape victims or juvenile offenders


Expression that poses a clear and present danger
--screaming "fire" in a crowded theatre
--imminent danger of riot, disorder, interference with traffic, or any other immediate threat to public safety

Non-essential abortions

Racism/racist speech

Government.

Kidding, kidding.

Nothing. Things I consider immoral I also think should be illegal.

I hope you have a very, very narrow definition of "immoral." :wink:

Religion.

This, with one notable exception.

Seriously, I'd like to legalize anything which, if outlawed, would lead to even greater evils being committed. The first example that comes to mind is defamatory gossip, which would be impossible to outlaw without something totalitarian.

Gay marriage, abortion, idolatry, and fornication.

sure...but not if they try and print it...slander is slanderous

Again, not if they PRINT it. The phrase you're looking for if they PRINT it is "Libel is Libelous".

Edit; Beaten to the punch this time.

Edit 3: Not sure how that double post happened.

So would you allow illegal advocacy, libel, obscenity, fighting words, speech that disrupts the judicial process, expression that provokes a hostile audience reaction, expression that discloses confidential information, speech that poses a clear and present danger, etc?

Taking the bold in order . . .

"Obscenity" is so poorly defined I'm surprised it's still considered a valid legal term. "I know it when I see it" should not be sufficient to prosecute someone.

How hostile are we talking? If it provokes violence, and that either was the intent or could have been foreseen, then no. Hostile reactions such as "get that fucker impeached, now!" . . . Of course that should be legal.

Things that you think are morally wrong, but should be legalBeing an asshole.
Stealing pens, paperclips, thumbtacks and elastic bands from the office (unless it's really by the handful).

So NSG, many of us, including yours truly, hold to the idea of separating personal morality from legislation. Meaning that just because we personally think something is wrong, doesn't mean we think it should be against the law.

What do you personally think is morally wrong, but that should remain legal or be legalized? And why?

Alcohol and abuse, any kind of fundamentalism be it religious or political, cars, FOX News... lots of things, really.

there is nothing that i think is morally wrong that i think should be legal. there is after all damd little that i think is morally wrong. but there's a lot that is damd stupid, both lawful and unlawful, that it often only makes things worse to try and prevent. (by any sort of force)

there is nothing that i think is morally wrong that i think should be legal. there is after all damd little that i think is morally wrong. but there's a lot that is damd stupid, both lawful and unlawful, that it often only makes things worse to try and prevent. (by any sort of force)

Personally, I would find it morally wrong if someone believed that women are inferior to men.
However, I wouldn't want to see legislation designed to stop that person from voicing his/her opinion.

Also, I think that alcohol abuse is highly immoral. It's dangerous and pointless. But I wouldn't want to see it outlawed except for where it is likely to cause harm to others, such as on the road.

So NSG, many of us, including yours truly, hold to the idea of separating personal morality from legislation. Meaning that just because we personally think something is wrong, doesn't mean we think it should be against the law.

What do you personally think is morally wrong, but that should remain legal or be legalized? And why?


Okay, short list-things that SHOULD be legal, but I find personally to be immoral...

Abortion
Drug use.
Polygamy
Gay Marraige
Prostitution
Gambling
Suicide

beliefs aren't immoral, only erronious in being mistaken for knowledge.
alcohaul abuse IS one of those things i was refering to as being extrememly stupid.

(i DO define "morality" VERY narrowly. basically as begining and ending with the avoidance of causing suffering. nothing that does not concern itself primarily with that, has anything to do with what i would consider morality at all)

beliefs aren't immoral, only erronious in being mistaken for knowledge.
alcohaul abuse IS one of those things i was refering to as being extrememly stupid.

I think they can be immoral, espeically when they are discriminating or pure selfish.

Alcohol abuse is stupid, yes, but it does have a moral factor to it as an addiction will affect not just the drinker him/herself, but friends, family and ultimately the entire community.

Sorry, can't help you there, because I don't think anything is immoral...

Sorry, can't help you there, because I don't think anything is immoral...

Really? That's interesting.

you can't really legislate how people feel.

the only thing you can do with the law is try and deny people the opportunity to repeat actions that are perceived as harmful.

how people feel CAN be influenced and does evolve in many ways, it's just that trying to do this by imposing a law all to often tends to have the exact contrary effect.
this is the roll of mythmakers and storytellers. to romantacize ways of looking at things that are bennificial, while avoiding doing so for ways, like illogical prejudices, that are harmful. storytelling can be used to give people a good idea, to get the point accross, like nothing else can, what kind of outcomes they can expect from doing, looking at, valueing different things in different ways.

this was one of the major rolls of story tellers in indiginous cultures. it would be in our own dominant cultures as well, if this wasn't perverted by the so called profit motive, agian perpetuating this keeping of things messed up by continuing to romanatacize and thus perpetuate ways of looking at things that combine statistically to create the incentives that motivate decision makers thus creating conditions we individually encounter.

Really? That's interesting.

Yeah, I always found it an intriguing concept, other peoples' sense of "morality".

Some definitions of "immoral":
- not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior
- not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics

But although I know what the society I live in considers to be "right" or "wrong", I also know that other societies have different views, so I can only study the society I am in, and hope that I don't do anything considered "wrong". I have been known to fail to interpret it correctly.

So "social ethics" don't mean bollocks to me, then how about personal ones?

"ethics":
- a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture
- the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

So what the heck are personal ethics anyway?
Things I like or dislike to be done to me? Of course, those I have.
But things that I do or do not think anyone should do to anyone? Sorry, comes up blank.

So yeah, I'm pretty much at a loss as to what to consider "morally" okay or not.

What do you personally think is morally wrong, but that should remain legal or be legalized?

Prostitution, I guess.

Yeah, I always found it an intriguing concept, other peoples' sense of "morality".

Some definitions of "immoral":
- not in conformity with accepted principles of right and wrong behavior
- not conforming to the patterns of conduct usually accepted or established as consistent with principles of personal and social ethics

But although I know what the society I live in considers to be "right" or "wrong", I also know that other societies have different views, so I can only study the society I am in, and hope that I don't do anything considered "wrong". I have been known to fail to interpret it correctly.

So "social ethics" don't mean bollocks to me, then how about personal ones?

"ethics":
- a system of moral principles: the ethics of a culture
- the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc.

So what the heck are personal ethics anyway?
Things I like or dislike to be done to me? Of course, those I have.
But things that I do or do not think anyone should do to anyone? Sorry, comes up blank.

So yeah, I'm pretty much at a loss as to what to consider "morally" okay or not.

So then, besides the law, what determines what actions you take?

So then, besides the law, what determines what actions you take?

I try to not bother people too much (except on internet forums ;) ), I keep pretty much to myself. I avoid conflict situations, I do not interfere in things other people do, even if they are clearly not allowed by "social ethics".
So my main motive is to never get into a situation where I have to make "moral choices" in a hurry, because I might not be able to leaf through my "moral database" quickly enough.

I do try to "do good" whenever a clear cut situation presents itself, where there can be no doubt whether helping out will be received as something positive. That doesn't occur too often, though...

Suicide. If you want to do away with your life, that's your business. The state shouldn't be able to prosecute you for attempting against yourself.

The abrahamic religions.

I'm all for harm minimisation. If something is going to happen anyway, if it is moral or immoral, legalise it to minimise harm.
How much theft is created to pay the crazily inflated price of drugs? How many people get messed up by getting bad drugs due to it being made by amateur chemists. Legalise it. Many problems gone.

SO here's some things some people consider immoral. Prostitution, abortion, boxing. Yes boxing. Any sport where the intent is to cause the human mind so much pain that it shuts down is a bad thing. I could go on, but I think you see my point.

I also think the term immoral is interesting. It's very easy to judge others actions as immoral. Politician whore themselves out to the lobbyist with the biggest bag of cash, but lie to the electorate that they care about them. At least a prostitute is honest.

Suicide. If you want to do away with your life, that's your business. The state shouldn't be able to prosecute you for attempting against yourself.I agree in principle, however people should still be prosecuted for any reckless endangerment and trauma they may cause in their attempt. Such as blowing up their flat trying to gas themselves, and jumping in front of trains and buses.

Playing the accordion, mime, and putting things like tandoori chicken or chili beef on pizzas.

So then, besides the law, what determines what actions you take?

For me, personally, I have difficulty understanding this concept of "morality" that so many people spout. The absolutes of right and wrong seem so artificial.

I can't even say that the law determines my actions, because in reality it doesn't. I do whatever I want to whomever I want, and assuming that I am not caught while violating my societies quaint moral absolutes, I don't give two shits what is "right" and what is "wrong." It means nothing to me.

I agree in principle, however people should still be prosecuted for any reckless endangerment and trauma they may cause in their attempt. Such as blowing up their flat trying to gas themselves, and jumping in front of trains and buses.

Perhaps regulate the way they want to off themselves to a single shot to the head, hanging themselves or poison through pills or lethal substances. I know I'm sounding horrible by saying this, but you know...:(

Playing the accordion, mime, and putting things like tandoori chicken or chili beef on pizzas.

But can I put a beefy chicken miming an accordeon on my pizza, pleeeeease, can I, can I?

The death penalty.

But can I put a beefy chicken miming an accordeon on my pizza, pleeeeease, can I, can I?

yes but you will be a social outcast :p

yes but you will be a social outcast :p

Then bring on the beefchicordeonmimizza, with extra :D!

The death penalty.
The death penalty morally wrong?No way!

The death penalty morally wrong?No way!Yes way.

The death penalty morally wrong?No way!Considering it's combined with a (unavoidably) fallible court system, double yes way!

The death penalty morally wrong?No way!Not only morally wrong, but shouldn't be legal.

Perhaps regulate the way they want to off themselves to a single shot to the head, hanging themselves or poison through pills or lethal substances.I'd take into consideration the mess and success-rate; after all someone else has to clean up the mess, and a botched suicide job can leave you invalid the rest of your life.
I'd advocate a psychiatrist prescribed suicide pill. After a number of mandatory therapy sessions, if the person is still adamant about dying, (s)he should get the means to go gracefully.

I don't think anything I view as immoral should be made legal. That's not because I wish to enforce my morality via legislation, but rather because I have a narrow view of morality. An immoral act is one that does harm to others without consent. Doing harm to others without their consent should be made illegal.

Likewise, nothing else is immoral, and nothing else should be illegal.

Doing harm to others without their consent should be made illegal.


Harm is a very vague term. If I were to insult someone to the extent that their feelings are hurt, does that constitute harm? Should insults be banned?

Harm is a very vague term.

Yes it is, but that's not the question being asked in the thread. It asked what is there that I consider immoral, which I would still have made legal. My answer is, pretty much nothing.

Now admitted, my concept of morality might be hard to define to another person, but I wasn't asked for my definition of morality.

Harm is a very vague term. If I were to insult someone to the extent that their feelings are hurt, does that constitute harm? Should insults be banned?I wouldn't say that harm is very vague. Sure, it's vague at the borders, but there are plenty of other examples where people would readily agree that it constitutes harm; like beating someone up. And in the areas where it's vague, the vagueness roughly correlates to the extent to which anyone cares.

Same goes for a lot concepts. Doesn't make them any less useful.

Playing the accordion, mime, and putting things like tandoori chicken or chili beef on pizzas.

That sounds like pretty good pizza, actually...

Bears with sharks for arms. Also, pants.

Ah. So it's safe to assume you are still at school, then?
College actually. Was that intended to be an insult? I don't see the relevance.

Not at all. See you try to get a job as a teacher when someone is spreading stories you're a paedophile...
It still seems a long shot to think that spreading stories would render anyone unable to get a job. If anyone took rumours seriously enough to report an innocent person of being a pedophile, the police would be forced to investigate and upon finding nothing, they'd have to close the case - especially if their only lead would be something your sister's best friend's hairstylist's mom heard from a very reliable source on a bus. Rumours might become society's accusers, but the last word lies with law enforcement in such cases.

College actually. Was that intended to be an insult? I don't see the relevance.


Not an insult, no - more a question about who you deal with. If your only contacts (as - at school) are your buddies, and teachers (in this case lecturers), then you're going to be less impressed by the effectiveness of rumour.

If you're actually IN the job market, you're more likely to understand how a concern like that could matter.


It still seems a long shot to think that spreading stories would render anyone unable to get a job. If anyone took rumours seriously enough to report an innocent person of being a pedophile, the police would be forced to investigate and upon finding nothing, they'd have to close the case - especially if their only lead would be something your sister's best friend's hairstylist's mom heard from a very reliable source on a bus. Rumours might become society's accusers, but the last word lies with law enforcement in such cases.

What a crock. We've had people convicted of murder, pretty much on the basis of rumour.

What a crock. We've had people convicted of murder, pretty much on the basis of rumour.
Your criminal justice system appears to differ greatly from ours.

Your criminal justice system appears to differ greatly from ours.

I can't possibly comment. In theory, I imagine, they are the same... and I certainly don't know how closely your justice system practically reflects the theory.

I can't possibly comment. In theory, I imagine, they are the same... and I certainly don't know how closely your justice system practically reflects the theory.
Considering that we have a lot less murders, both generally and per capita, I can understand how it's easier to be convicted without evidence in the US. However, it's nothing less than a sign of corruption and/or malfunction of the system if it disregards the lack of evidence.

Considering that we have a lot less murders, both generally and per capita, I can understand how it's easier to be convicted without evidence in the US. However, it's nothing less than a sign of corruption and/or malfunction of the system if it disregards the lack of evidence.

I wouldn't argue.

Then again, I don't know how rigourously your justice system adheres to it's theoretical underpinnings, either... so, I can't say how well it reflects the values you discuss.

Then again, I don't know how rigourously your justice system adheres to it's theoretical underpinnings, either... so, I can't say how well it reflects the values you discuss.
No system is without flaws and some errors might never be discovered. Still, as you said that there have been convictions based on rumour, I was inclined to believe you had examples at hand. In Switzerland however, if something like this came to light, it'd get massive media coverage to say the least.

We get examples depressingly often. In this (http://www.norfolkfour.com/) case, as in many, coerced confessions are what persuaded the jury, in the absence of any evidence tying defendants to the crime.

We get examples depressingly often. In this (http://www.norfolkfour.com/) case, as in many, coerced confessions are what persuaded the jury, in the absence of any evidence tying defendants to the crime.

Exactly. The Scott Peterson case was the one on top of my head. Circumstance + some people saying he was mean = guilty of (double) homicide.

Arsonry
Burn it all!
The Anarchist Cookbook
Learn better ways to burn it all!

An immoral act is one that does harm to others without consent.

Oddly enough, this is almost precisely my definition of "immoral," and yet I was about to say that there were almost too many things to list that fit the specifications of this thread for me. I suppose the difference must come down to how one defines "harm" - so, for example, I quite unambiguously think cheating on one's spouse is immoral, but should not be illegal, while hitting one's spouse in anger is both immoral and illegal.

Nothing.

Personal issues should not be up to the government. For instance, abortion - how many people does this actually affect. Only women of child bearing age and maybe their significant other.

drugs. I don't want to take them, but it's no skin off my nose if you want to smoke pot or do heroin. That said, you are legally responsible for harm you cause while under the influence.

Adultery.

This was going to be my answer.

Holland.

It still seems a long shot to think that spreading stories would render anyone unable to get a job. If anyone took rumours seriously enough to report an innocent person of being a pedophile, the police would be forced to investigate and upon finding nothing, they'd have to close the case - especially if their only lead would be something your sister's best friend's hairstylist's mom heard from a very reliable source on a bus. Rumours might become society's accusers, but the last word lies with law enforcement in such cases.

You are assuming people are way more rational than they actually are.

How many people didn't vote for Obama because they thought he was a Muslim? Betcha it's a lot.

Smoking, bestiality, holocaust denial, tuxpr0n (SCNR), pedophilic media which was created without children being involved in creating it (like: using a picture of a naked adult in a sexy pose and GIMPing it to look younger or writing about the topic), and maybe Mac OS X...

Holland.

No, the topic is "Things that you think are morally wrong, but should be legal", not "Things that are moronically wrong, but should be shitonbyeveryseagull". :p

Adultery.

^ This.

voting socialist

voting socialist

That's morally wrong?:confused:

The practice of any of the abrahamic faiths, Judiasm, islam, christianity. Introducing children under 14 to any religion. Allowing stupid people to vote. Adultery. Suicide.

Of course there are a lot more things that I have no moral objection to that are unfortunately illegal. Such as:

Personal use of any drugs perscripion, non-perscripiton, or prohibited.
Revenge. (when was the last time you got to beat the crap out of someone who killed a family member or raped your child?)
Treating children that have cancer without chemotherapy. (illegal in the U.S.)
The list goes on and on...

Seriously.... the watching of kiddie porn is disgusting but the cure is worse than the disease. Sure SOME viewers of kiddie porn might molest a kid but the "cure" is worse than the disease..... big brother intrusion into these poor saps' lives. A public outing that destroys families and a chance for the slimy gutter press to get all morallistic when they have 17 year olds with big bazoongas in bikinis on their page 3.
Big brother lives! (I loved "Little Miss Sunshine " because it took aim at that hypocrisy. (And it was funny!)