Laws for victimless crimes should not exist. Argue against this

General statements are always wrong. Prove me wrong.

OP is always a faggot. I just proved you wrong.

"Victimless" is very relative concept. Sometimes the victim is not immediately identifiable because the damage caused by the crime is spread among a wide variety of subject, or across all of society.

Of course there may be real victimless crimes, but most examples people quote as "victimless" are not so. It's just that the victim is too diffuse to be identified in an immediate manner.

Council of elders.

I won't argue against it. Depravity is the opiate of the masses.

Yes, it's called "law", much as that is a dirty word these days.

>Yes, it's called "law", much as that is a dirty word these days.

Yes, and I don't argue against law. What I argue against is people like you that see fit to use the law as a bludgeon to impose your morality on others because you're convinced a man in the sky imbued us with souls. Fuck you, you goddamn piece of shit.

Argument: Public Order

So i decide to go arround shooting my pistols to the air, this is against the law because the legislator had reasons and consensus, no harm done.

Now what do you think it would happen if we do not punish this guy when it shoots in the middle of the street instead his home?

How is the justification you use for your morality innately more valid?

>>If you aren't a materialist, then depravity is a sickness,
Not necessarily, there are plenty of new-age or neo-pagan types who don't care about what you or your church consider to be "depraved".

She's a conservative christian, of course she does. They only pay lip service to the idea of human liberty.

>>law
Liberty, even the liberty to do things that your religion doesn't like, is more important then laws.

The bullets have to come down, and they are extremely dangerous when they do.

It's not, that's why I don't bludgeon people over the head with it.

>Liberty, even the liberty to do things that your religion doesn't like, is more important then laws.
No when it is used for spreading spiritual disease, which is just as dangerous as AIDS or cancer.

So you're against law, period? Or do you support certain laws based on liberal morality?

>>No when it is used for spreading spiritual disease,
Prove that "spiritual diseases" exist.

>>which is just as dangerous as AIDS or cancer.
lol, no.

>which is just as dangerous as AIDS or cancer.

I didn't think it was possible for me to hate you more.

Fucking prove it, you goddamn worthless waste of human skin.

I support laws required to keep society functioning and work towards its material betterment, not for satisfying my own moralistic hangups.

>Prove that "spiritual diseases" exist.\
youtube.com/watch?v=LLCOTa6rnlI

Define a victimless crime in such a fashion that it could be written down unto a code of law without it being open to abuse.

Materialist benefit (i.e., more advanced forms of hedonism) are a moral value of yours.

>I won't argue against it. Depravity is the opiate of the masses.
You won't argue against it because you don't understand it. There is no moral difference between my argument and yours. You use words like "society", "epidemic", and "culture" to make it seem like what you're advocating for is something greater than yourself. But at the very root of your argument is an arbitration: you think what you define as 'depravity' is bad. I made a similar arbitration: I think what you define as 'depravity' is fun. In fact, it's great. I want a lot more of it. I don't have to explain why, for the same reason you don't have to explain why. Do you see the problem here?

>>shitty music videos are proof that my made up concept of spiritual disease is real
Wow, such logic, much persuasive.

"Fun" and "bad" are not mutually exclusive. Meth is fun.

No shit

why you tripfag if you are not smart

Take a look at the views and likes. Take a look at the message.

If you do not see that as a disease, there is no where to go, because it is like showing gangrene to someone and them saying, "So what? big deal."

No, they're material betterment. A moralistic hangup would be the fact that I think infidelity is a goddamn shitty thing to be doing, but not something that needs to be stopped by violent force.

We are at our core material creatures, and satisfying those material needs is objectively beneficial if you don't believe in some insane woowoo.

the victim of drug use is

a) employers who have to deal with fried idiot employees who fuck themselves up on drugs

b) the state, which has to police the antics of idiots who fried themselves on drugs.

there are no "victimless" crimes...there are simply whiners who make excuses for their degeneracy and debauchery

There can be common ground on materialist things, there is no common ground I believe the Buddha delivered the highest form of moral truth and you do not

You have a moral hangup on any impediment to advancement of hedonist capacity.

Booze is also fun and can also become very bad, and yet my country gave up on the prohibition of alcohol for some weird reason.

Meth is also used successfully as a medicine, and there are countless recreational users who don't wind up like toothless zombies. What's your point?

>I don't like it on an aesthetic level, ergo we need to use lethal force against people to stop this.

You're a cunt.

Again, I also don't use force to impose this. Do you see the fucking difference yet? You'd establish a theocracy that's quite willing to use violence to stop infidelity, homosexuality, bad music, etc. Which is tantamount to saying you're OK with killing over these things.

Do you mean the Gautama Buddha? If so, do you mean the Buddhagosa's account, or do you mean earlier accounts?

>>Take a look at the views and likes. Take a look at the message.
It's a shitty music video that has a youtube comment section full of morons. The message is just that having lots of money and fucking sluts is good times, which is something people have known for millennia.

That's correct. At the same time, I don't think I'm wrong when I say that what this amounts to is a personal difference inflated to be a societal problem. And this is all assuming, of course, that societal benefit is a good thing at all, which is arguable. But I'll assume that for the moment for convenience sake.

This self same argument can be used for alcohol and yet we have legal booze. What's more, cannabis for example is far less harmful then alcohol yet is policed much more strictly.

There is no "defending" the drug war, because the drug war is indefensible garbage.

But the "crimes" here aren't the drug use itself, but the person going to work fried and causing trouble while fried. A person who sits alone in their room shooting up heroin isn't hurting anyone but themselves. The drug use itself is not inherently with victim.

Are you comparing the social, cultural, familial and religious heritage of alcohol, with meth? Meth does not have a history of thousands of years use at weddings.

>and there are countless recreational users who don't wind up like toothless zombies
That doesn't mean they aren't negatively affected.

>I don't like it on an aesthetic level
You can't comprehend any other values than aesthetics? If so, then your values and ideas of law are equally a matter of aesthetics.

Yes you do. You use force to ensure hedonism is fomented as much as possible, even against civic virtue.

>that's my bitch
>kill these niggas
Oh,yeah, just harmless fun

Do you see society as an organism?

That's pure poetry. You might as well be asking if I see society as a football field. Society is a disconnected group of people living in some general area.

>Purely poetry
So wolfpacks are purely poetry as well?

the same argument could be used for anything, Veeky Forums, porn, 90% of the other shit people go online for, its all adictive and bad for you, so is eating too much, so is sitting too much

the problem is realy a different one

how can a state or other such institution declare they forbid a adult human from taking a supstance into his or hers body, if a human being is free its assumed its free to ingest any supstance it wants

that abusing some supstance might be bad for that individual is a moral question not something that should be sanctioned by law, you dont generaly make laws against people being selfdestructive morons, its not elegal to be anorexic or cut ones arms, its not illegal to fuck around or even eat shit if one wants to, its all fucked up, but not illegal

>Yes you do. You use force

How. Feel free to not answer. Nobody's forcing you.

Describing a wolfpack as an organism is purely poetry

>Society is a disconnected group of people living in some general area.
Maybe if they're all NEETs. Society's a bit more complex than "dudes living in the same valley".

I'm just not really interested in discussing metaphor, that would devolve into semantic discussions fairly quickly. Wolfpack is probably a better way of describing what you're probably talking about. Do you think society ought to function like a wolfpack, or do you think it already does?

>Society is a disconnected group of people

thats seriously not what a society is tho, thats a population

>society is a disconnected group of people
Top fucking lel

>That doesn't mean they aren't negatively affected.

It doesn't mean they are either.

>You can't comprehend any other values than aesthetics? If so, then your values and ideas of law are equally a matter of aesthetics.

No, I'm saying your hangup with it boils down to "that's icky" because you're a fucking child.

>Yes you do. You use force to ensure hedonism is fomented as much as possible, even against civic virtue.

Haha, you're a demented retard. I think society should focus towards its material betterment so that they can pursue the life they see fit. You and your buddies can be as Christian as you want, the Stoics can be as Stoic as they want, the Buddhists as Buddhist as they want, all eschewing hedonism.

You're a cunt.

If you make anything illegal, it is through force. You make all restraints of hedonism illegal through force.

An organism is an organization of life with each part performing a role vital to the others.

Society is an extremely general term in the first place. It could mean a bunch of people in a club or an entire city.

Your worldview yields more questions than answers;

1) When does recreation become depravity?
2) Do laws alone prevent behavior?
3) How do we monitor the depravity of institutions whose job is to enforce the laws?
4) Is there a systematic way to recognize a new form of "depravity" before it is too late and has become epidemic?
5) Should markets pushing depravity onto citizens be held more or less accountable than the citizens willingly engaging in said depravity?

Feel free to answer all or none of these

He's not far off. While people do interact and feel a connection with one another, the fact reminds they are ultimately just isolated individuals that are trapped within the shell of their own senses. The society itself is just an abstraction and a shared fiction.

Peyote is regularly used in Native American religion ceremonies. Peruvians have chewed coca for thousands of years.

Why are peyote and cocaine illegal then? What an injustice!

That's pretty much what I meant, actually.

>If you make anything illegal, it is through force. You make all restraints of hedonism illegal through force.

A restraint to hedonism would inherently have to be a positive action of the government, so you wouldn't be using force to inhibit it, you'd just be not using force.

Also, this is hilarious. A virgin (you admitted it in another thread) on Veeky Forums wants to use force to ensure others live by the same "moral standard" he lives by. You're a living stereotype of the worst sort.

All multicellular organisms are reducible to coordinated collectives of smaller organisms. Why can't collectives of multicellular organisms be said themselves to comprise an organism?

I think society is a much more complex organism

>It doesn't mean they are either.
Of course it does, meth users have to sleep prodigiously when they're off (much more than alcohol), and while their on meth they are paranoid.

>No, I'm saying your hangup with it boils down to "that's icky" because you're a fucking child.
No, it boils down to, "that immoral and leads to the attenuation of any identity higher than individualism"

>You and your buddies can be as Christian as you want, the Stoics can be as Stoic as they want, the Buddhists as Buddhist as they want, all eschewing hedonism.
You aren't eschewing hedonism if you think it must be enshrined at all costs.

The difference is the cells in a body don't function autonomously and share an identity that isn't purely subjective and prone to radical change due to their sentiments (of which they possess none).

>1) When does recreation become depravity?
When it abstracts people from one another except as objects.

>2) Do laws alone prevent behavior?
They sure help

>3) How do we monitor the depravity of institutions whose job is to enforce the laws?
Separation of powers and oversight.

>4) Is there a systematic way to recognize a new form of "depravity" before it is too late and has become epidemic?
No, no more than there is a systematic way to predict a new epidemic long before it happens. You can only nip it in the bud if you are lucky.

>5) Should markets pushing depravity onto citizens be held more or less accountable than the citizens willingly engaging in said depravity?
Similarly accountable.

That it is, which is why it is permitted for them legally, but that's not mainstream culture where it is not permitted.

>if you aren't a hypocrite, then you have no say
smdh

>I think society is a much more complex organism
Well, since you're unwilling to speak outside of metaphor, I'll engage you. How so? As said, society is a pretty general term. Do you think that everyone in a city is connected to eachother?

>No, it boils down to, "that immoral and leads to the attenuation of any identity higher than individualism"

That's a fancy way of saying "it's icky and they do things I don't like."

>You aren't eschewing hedonism if you think it must be enshrined at all costs.

I didn't say it had to be enshrined. Material betterment allows you to pursue whatever you want more effectively, even including non-hedonistic goals. Do you think having a better lumber industry that allows you to print out enough bibles to supply the entire congregation so they can be Christian inhibits their ability to be Christian?

But collectively they the cells do share an identity. Your identity. It all comes together to form your phaneron.

>When it abstracts people from one another except as objects.

When does that happen?

>It's harm for one group of people over here but not harmful to some group over there
Either they're wrong or they aren't, according to your framework. No going in between, degenerate

Cells can certainly change to be harmful. That is what cancer is.

I didn't say you don't have a say. I said you're a stereotype, which you are. You're a bitter, pathetic virgin who wants everyone to be like you.

Which is the other problem here. Since you being a religious fanatic, spiritual sickness would be literally anything that isn't in accord with your faith.

>It's ok for people to harm each other because it's traditional

Yes, but it's not a subjective one. It's one that indeed objectively exists. Whereas something like a societal identity does not exist objectively. Do you think Basque separatists consider themselves to be French or Spanish?

Good answers. Didn't expect that. High Five.

That had literally nothing to do with my point. Are you retarded?

>chastity is bitter and pathetic

When you're so intoxicated and desperate all the time that you only see your family, friends and loved ones as a means to an end, where that end is more substance, and the means are social manipulation, violence, or theft.

Cowabunga!

It is tho

>I'm voluntarily chaste, yet I'm the most prolific poster on a Veeky Forums board.

I'll buy that for a dollar.

>The society itself is just an abstraction
Yes.
>and a shared fiction.
I'm never sure of what to say when people go in this direction. To me, it's a sort of "Yeah, and, so what? Are you going to say something based off this claim, or is it just 2deep4me?" Just because it's artefactual doesn't mean it's any less experienced by the people in the critiqued society.

I mean simply that it's not an organism in any sense. It's agreed upon for convenience, but it's still just a useful abstraction held in the minds of its populace out of utility.

Belief in some, though not all, shared fictions can make them real. If you, for instance,
really believe you should raise your kids to do well, even if it means no personal benefit to you, then you are sustaining the possibility of the shared fiction of society through action. If you however believe it's all a scam, you owe no one shit, and that it's everyone for themselves, then you will not only put yourself closer to others who feel that way (trust through mutual distrust, what I like to think of as Kremling Society), but you will also refrain from supporting anyone who wants to sustain the shared fiction. In this regard, whether society is real is a popularity contest.

Why?

I'm chaste because fornication is immoral as per my faith. We're on different wavelengths here, because you seem to think that no one has any morals if they have the opportunity to do something immoral, and therefore anyone who doesn't do unethical things only doesn't because they can't. Your view is concentrated cynicism.

>>Are you comparing the social, cultural, familial and religious heritage of alcohol, with meth? Meth does not have a history of thousands of years use at weddings.

Meth does have valuable uses though, and it is possible to use it without turning yourself into a toothless zombie, like this guy said.

>>That doesn't mean they aren't negatively affected.

This can be used to ban anything and everything, even your religion.

>Meth does have valuable uses though
99% percent of its use doesn't constitute these uses

>This can be used to ban anything and everything, even your religion.
How would it apply to my religion?

No, I think morals are most commonly used as a means to exalt and reinforce your current way of life, propping your sense of identity up and protecting it from external reality, while simultaneously elevating your above others, by making you "moral" and the people below you "immoral."

I think you're a bitter, lonely dork, who looked for a set of morals that would justify it, and you're attempting to convince others to follow them in the hopes that this will validate your moral system.

Its just an example. If we believe in two diverging forms of absolute truth, we need to base our laws on some sort of common ground. What we can sense with our five senses is the easiest solution because we all have that no matter what religion we are

We can just tax/regulate the hell out of the drug to pay for these inconveniences. It's not 100% perfect though.

What if your chastity is your own form of depravity? Your sense of righteous indignation and pride (a Christian sin) that you get out of rejecting Hedonism overrides the pleasure you would get from expressions of lust, greed, or gluttony.

Perhaps You chose to trade one sin for another.

Okay, well, there's obviously no point in arguing this any further. Thanks for playing.

Trying to rely on the material without the spiritual, or the spiritual without the material, perverts the truth. It's sort of like pic related

But I don't take any sort of pride in my chastity, I don't go around proclaiming it as a badge of honor.

% percent of its use doesn't constitute these uses
wrong, getting high off of it is a valuable use.

>>How would it apply to my religion?
Christianity? Look up some of the "pray away the gay' camps that exist in the US.

Your denomination in general?
You are a frigid, prudish and humorless cunt with little taste for things your church doesn't condone. That's real easy to consider harmful, and real difficult to imagine you being without the orthodox church hijacking your brain.