hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 16, 2014 12:42:33 GMT -5
I don't know if some of you realise how deeply offensive those pictures are to some of us. I am actually having a physical reaction to the offense. And I don't feel really strongly about these things. He needs consequences. In Canada "up to 2 years" is served in jail, not prison. I think he should have a suspended sentance and the next stunt gets him jail time. If I'm deeply offended by a woman posting on a message board that doesn't mean you should do jail time for it. I know you're not in the U.S., but I think in general a lot of countries (thinking specifically of the U.S. though) are far too concerned with what offends people, and not nearly enough concerned about what is actually harmful to others. For example, it sounds as if the sentencing for this action, and Adrian Peterson abusing his child, are similar (using this example purely because I remember them saying the max sentence was 2 years). IMO they aren't remotely the same level of harm.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 16, 2014 12:54:07 GMT -5
I fully agree laws attempt to legislate morality, because morality is simply a definition of "good" and "bad". Nobody who creates a law is likely to say "I think this is terrible, let's force people to do it". Arguing it legislates civility I think misses the mark when you see how many laws have nothing to do with civility and are simply an attempt to legislate to good vs bad (or are a straight up money grab like seat belt laws, tons of other traffic laws like speeding). I think the recognition that laws attempt to legislate morality is altogether useless though, you can make some convoluted morality argument about anything...whether morality was the driver of the law or not. I don't think you can make the same statement for laws being driven by civility (even though I think the argument is useless for morality, I think that useless argument can still be made).
For example...being drunk in public. There's no real civility issue here because the law is not about being drunk and uncivil to others. You could be alone and breaking the law. Same with lots of laws about soft drugs, it's about morality (however misguided that morality is) rather than civility.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 16, 2014 12:56:10 GMT -5
I fully agree laws attempt to legislate morality, because morality is simply a definition of "good" and "bad". Nobody who creates a law is likely to say "I think this is terrible, let's force people to do it". Arguing it legislates civility I think misses the mark when you see how many laws have nothing to do with civility and are simply an attempt to legislate to good vs bad (or are a straight up money grab like seat belt laws, tons of other traffic laws like speeding). I think the recognition that laws attempt to legislate morality is altogether useless though, you can make some convoluted morality argument about anything...whether morality was the driver of the law or not. I don't think you can make the same statement for laws being driven by civility (even though I think the argument is useless for morality, I think that useless argument can still be made). For example...being drunk in public. There's no real civility issue here because the law is not about being drunk and uncivil to others. You could be alone and breaking the law. Same with lots of laws about soft drugs, it's about morality (however misguided that morality is) rather than civility. Did you happen to notice the "most laws" in my post, hoops? Some laws do endeavor to legislate morality. That hasn't been denied.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2014 12:56:25 GMT -5
I fully agree laws attempt to legislate morality, because morality is simply a definition of "good" and "bad". is it?
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 16, 2014 12:58:36 GMT -5
I fully agree laws attempt to legislate morality, because morality is simply a definition of "good" and "bad". Nobody who creates a law is likely to say "I think this is terrible, let's force people to do it". Arguing it legislates civility I think misses the mark when you see how many laws have nothing to do with civility and are simply an attempt to legislate to good vs bad (or are a straight up money grab like seat belt laws, tons of other traffic laws like speeding). I think the recognition that laws attempt to legislate morality is altogether useless though, you can make some convoluted morality argument about anything...whether morality was the driver of the law or not. I don't think you can make the same statement for laws being driven by civility (even though I think the argument is useless for morality, I think that useless argument can still be made). For example...being drunk in public. There's no real civility issue here because the law is not about being drunk and uncivil to others. You could be alone and breaking the law. Same with lots of laws about soft drugs, it's about morality (however misguided that morality is) rather than civility. Did you happen to notice the "most laws" in my post, hoops? Some laws do endeavor to legislate morality. That hasn't been denied. Right, but what I'm saying is that I think for any law, you can come up with some convoluted reasoning about how it's based on morality. You can argue morality about pretty much everything, so you will always be able to find some random moral argument.
|
|
hoops902
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 22, 2010 13:21:29 GMT -5
Posts: 11,978
|
Post by hoops902 on Sept 16, 2014 12:59:45 GMT -5
I fully agree laws attempt to legislate morality, because morality is simply a definition of "good" and "bad". is it? Yes
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 16, 2014 13:00:23 GMT -5
Did you happen to notice the "most laws" in my post, hoops? Some laws do endeavor to legislate morality. That hasn't been denied. Right, but what I'm saying is that I think for any law, you can come up with some convoluted reasoning about how it's based on morality. You can argue morality about pretty much everything, so you will always be able to find some random moral argument. LOL! I get you, hoops. I'm not much into mucking about in convoluted reasoning. I tend to take the easy way and go with what I see.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2014 13:06:31 GMT -5
Did you happen to notice the "most laws" in my post, hoops? Some laws do endeavor to legislate morality. That hasn't been denied. Right, but what I'm saying is that I think for any law, you can come up with some convoluted reasoning about how it's based on morality. You can argue morality about pretty much everything, so you will always be able to find some random moral argument. that is precisely why i abandoned the argument, earlier. stuff that i call "reason" and "justice" and "liberty", someone else will call "morality". in some people's minds there is no difference between any of those things. this is actually a really complex area of discussion. not well geared for practical, mainstream conversation.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2014 13:07:24 GMT -5
is it? Yes i was always told it was a way of judging RIGHT from WRONG.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:09:05 GMT -5
Is being drunk in public illegal? Or is drunk and disorderly?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2014 13:10:07 GMT -5
Is being drunk in public illegal? Or is drunk and disorderly? just standing there is illegal in some places.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:12:13 GMT -5
How would they know?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:13:48 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:19:28 GMT -5
Lol. I would suggest that vomit causes harm to public property... Ie. I can't see how just 'being drunk' is criminal. I assume most 'visible signs' include harm or threat of harm..
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 13:47:25 GMT -5
Illinois is interesting and how I think it should be, we actually had a cop give us a ride home a couple times walking home from the bar several years ago. "In Illinois, public intoxication is viewed as a medical or social ill, but not a crime. In fact, Illinois prohibits any county or municipality from adopting or enforcing any law that includes being intoxicated as the sole basis of the offense" www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/illinois-public-intoxication-laws.htm
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 16, 2014 14:07:40 GMT -5
Doesn't it bother anyone that the organization is not wanting to press charges nor made a complaint?
Or that the only reason this kid got charged is because apparently the DA's office trawls Facebook looking for potential crimes? Or worse the DA was looking for a specific type of crime to make a name for himself with or score points with the conservative groups he has been reaching out to since this happened?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2014 14:53:14 GMT -5
Lol. I would suggest that vomit causes harm to public property... Ie. I can't see how just 'being drunk' is criminal. I assume most 'visible signs' include harm or threat of harm.. it reduces property value. and we all know that property value is more important than human liberty.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2014 14:54:25 GMT -5
Doesn't it bother anyone that the organization is not wanting to press charges nor made a complaint?
Or that the only reason this kid got charged is because apparently the DA's office trawls Facebook looking for potential crimes? Or worse the DA was looking for a specific type of crime to make a name for himself with or score points with the conservative groups he has been reaching out to since this happened? oh, i can think of things worse than that.....think teenage boys.....think trolling.....let your imagination take you the rest of the way.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,129
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2014 14:55:33 GMT -5
i noticed you don't have an avatar.
|
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Sept 16, 2014 14:56:43 GMT -5
Doesn't it bother anyone that the organization is not wanting to press charges nor made a complaint?
Or that the only reason this kid got charged is because apparently the DA's office trawls Facebook looking for potential crimes? Or worse the DA was looking for a specific type of crime to make a name for himself with or score points with the conservative groups he has been reaching out to since this happened? It's very possible, IMO, a "concerned citizen" saw the pic and reported it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 16, 2014 15:03:08 GMT -5
Election season vote pandering. Happens all the time. Hopefully it backfires in this particular case. No way you'll ever convince me that kid deserves two years in jail for a stupid joke. The married DA had sex in his office with a woman not his wife and retained his position. I don't see this derailing him.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 16:13:32 GMT -5
The DA is an idiot.
According to an article I read people saw it on FB, some made threats against him and some reported it.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 37,476
|
Post by billisonboard on Sept 16, 2014 16:27:50 GMT -5
The DA is an idiot. According to an article I read people saw it on FB, some made threats against him and some reported it. Wonder how many who made threats have been charged?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 16:31:02 GMT -5
The DA is an idiot. According to an article I read people saw it on FB, some made threats against him and some reported it. Wonder how many who made threats have been charged? They should be. But the DA is an idiot. Question - isn't Community Service a criminal punishment? Wouldn't the range of punishments for this offense range from Community Service up to 2 years in jail?
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 16, 2014 16:39:43 GMT -5
Wonder how many who made threats have been charged? They should be. But the DA is an idiot. Question - isn't Community Service a criminal punishment? Wouldn't the range of punishments for this offense range from Community Service up to 2 years in jail? Yes. Probation is an option too (be good the next # years and your record will be expunged).
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Sept 16, 2014 18:10:23 GMT -5
Doesn't it bother anyone that the organization is not wanting to press charges nor made a complaint?
Or that the only reason this kid got charged is because apparently the DA's office trawls Facebook looking for potential crimes? Or worse the DA was looking for a specific type of crime to make a name for himself with or score points with the conservative groups he has been reaching out to since this happened? It's very possible, IMO, a "concerned citizen" saw the pic and reported it. I don't buy that for a second. A 'concerned citizen' would have reported the crime to the local PD. In this case the DA ordered the local PD to make an arrest based on their 'investigation'. I think- based on how it is being handled- this DA is probably guilty of malicious prosecution- he went out of his way to use an old statute and get his name out there as a conservative hero. So far IMO his ass deserves jail more than the kid.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 18:49:14 GMT -5
They should be. But the DA is an idiot. Question - isn't Community Service a criminal punishment? Wouldn't the range of punishments for this offense range from Community Service up to 2 years in jail? Yes. Probation is an option too (be good the next # years and your record will be expunged). And the judge would impose sentencing. So most likely the kid would get probation.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,495
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 16, 2014 19:08:31 GMT -5
Yes. Probation is an option too (be good the next # years and your record will be expunged). And the judge would impose sentencing. So most likely the kid would get probation. If it even goes before a judge, probably. My guess it won't even go that far.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 19:13:41 GMT -5
1. Aj response: Sure you do... Because our government is expressly forbidden from establishment of religion. If the law suggest that only certain objects from certain religions are sacred, they are by extension establishing religion. So defining what is and is not a sacred object is paramount. 2. To me: ... I'm against all law which might regulate morality. Law needs to concern itself with protection of property and person from harm. ... And being offended is not harm. 1. Government recognises religions, it doesn't create them. It recognises them by allowing certain tax privileges.
2. Then you are against all law. Because it ALL legislates morality.
Just laws (not "only laws", but, laws that are "by their nature, defenders of Justice") don't legislate morality. They legislate the interactions of people and protect people. I posted a diagram on another thread somewhere, and it fits here too... so I'll re-post it:
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 2, 2024 1:57:35 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2014 19:28:47 GMT -5
1. Government recognises religions, it doesn't create them. It recognises them by allowing certain tax privileges.
2. Then you are against all law. Because it ALL legislates morality.
Just laws (not "only laws", but, laws that are "by their nature, defenders of Justice") don't legislate morality. They legislate the interactions of people and protect people. I posted a diagram on another thread somewhere, and it fits here too... so I'll re-post it: You might not agree with the morality that guides certain laws, but that doesn't mean there is a morality at work. Actually the fact that you don't agree with it shows what I mean by morality being legislated.
|
|