|
Soleron said: - - 1 I disagree that the act of having sex alone commits you to supporting any resulting child. For either sex. - - 2 This is unfortunate, yes, but not something to be solved with a Responsibility Hammer. I think enacting laws to make society look like you want is worse than the alternative. e.g. we should ban alcohol because some people might drink-drive Now, I agree it's consistent to hold those views. I just don't believe you get a desirable society with such bans. [Jay's text] That's not a problem for the government to solve. - - 3. I disagree with your premise that undesirable behaviour would measurably decrease. AND I disagree that, even if it DOESdecrease, that's not a good reason to do it. I think the government effectively punishing sex is worse than the societal consequences of them not. - - 4 Again, I don't think that would happen, and I think if it did happen it's not for the government to reduce via laws anyway. I'm confused as to why you think using the law as a blunt instrument to create the society you want is an ethical, good or practical idea. Your thought process: - Here's what society is now I understand that. But this is the kind of logic used to take away all kinds of freedoms, and ultimately even you don't get what you want. I think people should be given the choice to make the wrong choice. I have a question for you. Can you point to any examples of, social freedoms having been increased, there being runaway negative consequences for the country that did it? ("extremely worse"/"extreme increase") |
1. I knew you would disagree with me. But I was hoping you would answer my question regarding when people should be held accountable for their actions. I argue that people should be held accountable for the consequences of their actions if, while performing the action, they were aware of the possibility of those consequences. You do not agree with this. So I want to know when you think people should be held accountable for their actions, as well as well this interpretation is superior to mine.
2. The difference between my idea and your examples is the fact that my ideas are not preventing choice; the laws you listed prevents choice. I agree that people should have the choice to have as much unprotected sex as they want. I stress the enforcement of accountability for the consequences of those choices (because of point 1). For example, getting drunk should not be illegal; however, getting drunk doesn’t suddenly mean people should not be held accountable for their actions.
3. Actually, I would say a vast majority of men who don’t have (unprotected) sex do so because of pregnancies – and the responsibilities it brings – and STDs. Therefore, I argue that by removing a significant deterrent of unprotected sex (responsibilities from pregnancies), then there would be an increase in that activity. Do you not agree with this?
Further, I don’t believe your drug-use example applies. But it’s not necessary to elaborate on unless you disagree with the above paragraph.
Note that in this point, I am not arguing why responsibility should be enforced (I do that in point 1). This section of my post is simply an argument against your assertion that “unlimited consensual sex without legal consequences” is a “principle worth building our society on.” Again, this does not serve as support for my argument of responsibility, but is simply a refutation to the end of your previous post.
4. The rest of your post seems to hinge upon a misinterpretation of my point. You are stating that people should have social freedoms and choice, but this is something I never argued against. People should be able to have as much as unprotected sex as they want. I don’t have a problem with that. However, those same people should have to accept responsibility for their choice to have unprotected sex. This is not about punishing them or even preventing unprotected sex. It’s about enforcing accountability when the parties involved where aware of the implications of their actions, as noted in point 1.
