Fortunately the US has a balance against the tyranny of the majority.

I believe it was more than “fortunate”. The Founding Fathers were well versed in the classics, and knew the dangers inherent in many forms of government from antiquity to the Glorious Revolution. We are the beneficiaries of their (I believe, God – given) wisdom and foresight.

Fair enough, but I’m wary of the majority getting to determine what is harmful. I’d be more willing to accept it if it didn’t just take a vote but an actual showing of harm. That is wasn’t just the opinion of a majority that gets to determine what I get to do or not (again) in private.

In many communities the presence of minorities was (is) considered harmful by the majority. In some communities it was an event not that different from a Memorial Day barbecue (bring the kids, it’s a spectator sport) to string folks up. Fortunately the US has a balance against the tyranny of the majority.

Generally I don’t think we’ve actually been too far apart on this, Frank. But assuming that wasn’t a mistype in that last bit I may have to rethink that. The community gets to limit what I do in private, which isn’t something they deem harmful? Then on what basis, for what reason should they have any right to make any limit on it at all?

The direct answer to that question is, “No”. What you are evading is why people disapprove, and who disapproves. You keep saying “neighbor” and “someone else” like it is one person’s opinion, authority, and judgment.

I repeat: “I am not limiting my definition of neighbor to the people who live down the hall, or across the street.”

The community that sets the standard does so after justifications for and opposed are presented, after deliberation, after a vote. If the standard already exists, then the same process will used to determine if the standard should be kept or abandoned. The “Community” can be a town, village, or city; a state; a country; or a regional collection of countries (NATO, the European Union).

The answer to the question: Should the Community have the right to limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home just because it isn’t something they deem harmful to the life and future of the Community?

Of course, the answer to that is yes (and no, it is not “fear and hostility”; it is prudence and foresight).

That covers just about everything in you posting.

As I said, it is not about whether there ought to be “community standards” – there are community standards.

And I’ve not argued against community standards. But they should apply ONLY to public actions that affect the community.

The point you keep moving off of and I don’t think you’ve opined directly on: Should someone else have the right to limit what I can do in the privacy of my own home just because it isn’t something they approve of?

Because if we react to anything new with fear and hostility, we won’t make any progress as a society.

Were it any other way, millions of McCain voters would be taking to the streets to protest Obama’s win, simply because there was, in their estimation, “clear, present, demonstrable harm being done” to the United States.

You say that as though it weren’t already happening.

What kind of a world would be living in if someone had to demonstrate to you “clear and present” harm, before you could be prevented from committing a dangerous act.

And why should any, or all of us, have to wait until you are satisfied that there is clear, present, demonstrable harm before we stop you from doing harm as we see it?

Are we now to live under the “tyranny of Sean Martin”? Shall our standards of behavior be judged by “What Sean Martin Would Do”? Of course not. And while the argument seems to be reductio ad absurdum, it is precisely why we have “representative democracy”. We choose representatives who then pass legislation by consensus.

Were it any other way, millions of McCain voters would be taking to the streets to protest Obama’s win, simply because there was, in their estimation, “clear, present, demonstrable harm being done” to the United States.

As I said, it is not about whether there ought to be “community standards” – there are community standards.

I wouldn’t put it past him to use gasoline and say it’s water.

Which makes AO’s assertion that it’s all the EEEBIL Obama that much more ridiculous.

Count me in too.
Frank & I go back. I’ve known about that stuff for years now, but I never, ever bring it up. It’s just not cool. Sure, in the heat of the moment, it’s tempting, but my morality trumps it. You know, that morality that Frank thinks I lack.

Oh would you fucking just stop it? This case has been going on since 2007.

Shoot, it had been going on since like 2003. Apparently there isn’t a whole lot to do in Western PA.

Oh would you fucking just stop it? This case has been going on since 2007.

I don’t think anything I said confined the idea of “neighbors” strickly to those within spitting distance (so to speak) of home. BUt we’re really getting off into the weeds, here. The point remains that what any consenting adult does in private should be nobody else’s business. As long as what I do has no clear affect on others then there should be no restrictions placed on my doing it. And in the particular case at hand, the prosecution of Zicari and Romano, NOBODY was an unwilling participant and it was a gross miscarriag of justice and asault on personal liberty for this case to be brought at all.

If my neighbors disapprove of my possessing child pornography, and express that disapproval by making it illegal, then I am violating the law, thus earning their disapproval in that way, even if certain of my neighbors have no knowledge of what I do, they are protected by those people who do discover what I have done

You’re specifying child pronography here. Something in which the participants are NOT consenting, are NOT adults, ARE being harmed. There should be laws against it and any who support it (such as by buying it) should be prosecuted. But where all of the participants are consenting adults (as is the case here) then there should be no restirictions or punishments.

As I said before, it is not whether they should — they do.

Huh??? I though we were discussing what people should/shouldn’t be allowed to do. Certainly, being flawed humans, people will disapprove and act on that disapproval to stop what they don’t (for whatever reason) like. But just because they DO that doesn’t mean they should be allowed to.

People do commit murder. Doesn’t mean that just because the vocal members of a community see no problem with stringin’ up folks they don’t like that we should accept that as any sort of allowed “community standard”.

There are also strong indicators that the younger someone is when they are exposed to pornography — as it is commonly defined — the more likely they are to exhibit other pathologies later in life.

Which is why there are laws prohibiting the sale or even giving of pornography to minors. Why should there be laws against giving pornography to consenting adults?

When some poor shmoe is tearing up a losing ticket at the Race Track, or leaving a Casino with barely enough money to get home, what apparent harm is being done to anyone but him?

None that I see. Yeah, the family the poor shmoe supports is going to be in for hard times and that’s unfortunate. And I’ll support the groups that exist to help him kick the habits that are making life harder for him. And PSA’s publicizing the pitfalls of gambling. And legislation which requires race tracks and casinos to post the real odds of winnning. All so the shmoe is informed and is best able to make an informed choice. But I won’t support the idea that we should make gambling illegal because we don’t like the choices he makes.

In many states, if you host a party, in your own home for underage children who while there consume alcohol or drugs, YOU, the parent, can be held responsible for whatever crimes are committed or whatever damage is done, by any children who leave your home intoxicated, or impaired — from broken windows to car accidents to murder.

Which is why, should any such parties be held in my home, there would be a very noticeable adult presence and clear rules. Nobody allowed in who wasn’t on the guest list. Nobody who leaves will be allowed back in. Parents who fail at these do bear a responsibility for the consequences.

But again, you’re involveing children in the discussion and where minors are concerned we do (in most cases appropriately) have rules designed to take care of them under the idea that they are not yet responsible enough to take care of themselves.

Tell me what that has to do with consenting adults engaged in an activity in private?

SDM: However, “Do whatever you wanna that doesn’t hurt someone else.” “Do whatever you wanna in the privacy of your own home.” Yeah, those I do support.

F DiS: First of all, I hope you are not suggesting that either of these is OK.

Yes, I obviously am suggesting that. Again, the standard should be “is there any clear, direct harm being done to anyone else?” I’m not talking about whether becoming a porn star is the only avenue available to a struggling woman or whether the existence and availablity of porn leads to lower opinions of women among the general population or whether listening to heavy metal music drives people to kill or whether right-wing radio hosts are able to incite folks to soot up the Holocaust Museum. The standard should be a clear and immediate danger. It’s why we limit free speech and say you can’t shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater.

But lacking that clear, present, demonstrable harm being done to someone else then I don’t see any justification for putting restrictions on what consenting adults do in private. And this case was an example of people doing just that.

Is there any other way?

Closest I’m guessing we’ll see to an acknowledgment from News Ref that his attack was unfair.

For one, it’s water, not gasoline.

For another, that’s Bill Shultz from RedEye getting drenched. I’m not quite certain he qualifies as “people,” considering what Greg Gutfeld routinely says about him.

After watching that clip, Zython, you’ve convinced me that Beck is a drama queen. Of course, I’d known that long before then, so I didn’t really learn anything new, but it was mildly entertaining. Thanks.

J.

So tell me, what important purpose did slavery, witch burnings, refusing women the right to vote, and gay bashing serve? Tradition for tradition’s sake doesn’t lead to anything good.

Has no one ever noticed that no sooner had the community given up on disapproving of unmarried teenage pregnancy, that there was a hue and cry to approve of abortion for pregnant teen girls, without the approval of their parents?

Because abortion and teen pregnancy didn’t exist until those dirty Liburals(TM) came around. M I RITE?

[please don't bore me with subsequent Supreme Court Rulings -- I am not interested in how nine folks in Washington interpret the US Postal Code]

I’m sorry you hate an integral part of our country.

They protest and march to invent new rights but encourage the trampling of our natural rights.

What “rights” are we “trampling”? The right to kill gay people? The right to throw toxic waste into a river? The right to light people on fire if you lose an electon? I’ll say gun control and get it over with. What now?

In this thread he’s called me “gutless” because, clearly, he thinks that if he could face me his presence would be intimidating.

No, he calls you “gutless” because when pressed about a the consequences of a political position you hold, you bitch and moan about how it’s unfair that you should be expected to see this views out in full.

Read this carefully, News Reference…

You are a serial liar …

You can’t stop lying…

I don’t like liars …

I don’t like you …

I will call you a liar every time you lie about me …

Otherwise, your ridiculous assertions, your entirely fictitious assessment of the American political spectrum, and your wild – eyed inflammatory characterizations of people and events (unless you mean me) will be ignored.

Now, interpret that as you will. I know exactly what I mean.