Decentralized social network Mastodon says it cannot comply with age verification laws, like in Mississippi and elsewhere, and says it's up to individual server owners to decide.
Never heard about people killed in crash caused by drunken driver ? Or pedestrians hit by cars driven by drunked drivers ?
Excessive alcoholism is known to cause harm. Should we make being an alcoholic illegal? Wouldn’t that make it harder for alcoholicsnto try to get help, for fear of being arrested instead of getting help, much like what happens to drug addicts?
No, we should just have laws try to avoid consequences for others
Are you an alcoholic ? Ok, we will help you to be ok but at the same time we try to avoid you drive while drunk. It not seems too unreasonable
People get hurt constantly while fishing, too. Should we make fishing illegal?
Point is: how probable is that someone fishing hurts someone else ? How much damage you can do ?
Again, the point is not to make something illegal because you can hurt yourself, it is about trying to have law that try to prevent you hurt someone else while doing something.
If fishing can hurt others, maybe we should have a law that, while not forbidding to fish, protect the others from what you are doing. I would imagine that you would not like to swim in the sea while someone is fishing with bombs (illegal) 2 meters away from you, don’t you ?
The problem is where do we draw the line. You want to draw it at some possibility of harm to others. I want to draw it at actual harm to others.
Fine as long as you accept the consequences. I just don’t agree with you.
Which of these is more or less likely to wind up being stretched over time?
Both, because you just need to redefine what “harm” means. And some people is good to do it.
True, but there is an history of cases about it where the probabilty became certainty.
I do not want people in jail for doing something that is probably a crime.
Me eighter but at the same time I would like to prevent some behaviors that could be dangerous to others.
I know it could be a slippery slope but honestly it would not console me to know that the drunken driver where punished *after *he hit me, I would prefer if he would be stopped *before *being able to hit me.
Every so-called crime that has no jail time shouldn’t be a crime. Fees are just another way of enforcing class warfare.
But fines works only if they are proportional to your wealth, else they are a punishment only for the poor.
We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.
Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.
Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.
Now, if say, your insurance agency decides that you are a risk due to your alcoholism, and either drops you, or increases your premiums that’s not a problem. There’s no criminal punishment happening, and if it’s in the contract you signed, that’s expected.
But, you should only criminally punish someone after they’ve hurt another person. Not when they engage in risky behaviors.
Never heard about people killed in crash caused by drunken driver ? Or pedestrians hit by cars driven by drunked drivers ?
No, we should just have laws try to avoid consequences for others Are you an alcoholic ? Ok, we will help you to be ok but at the same time we try to avoid you drive while drunk. It not seems too unreasonable
Point is: how probable is that someone fishing hurts someone else ? How much damage you can do ?
Again, the point is not to make something illegal because you can hurt yourself, it is about trying to have law that try to prevent you hurt someone else while doing something.
If fishing can hurt others, maybe we should have a law that, while not forbidding to fish, protect the others from what you are doing. I would imagine that you would not like to swim in the sea while someone is fishing with bombs (illegal) 2 meters away from you, don’t you ?
Fine as long as you accept the consequences. I just don’t agree with you.
Both, because you just need to redefine what “harm” means. And some people is good to do it.
Probability is not certainty.
I do not want people in jail for doing something that is probably a crime.
Every so-called crime that has no jail time shouldn’t be a crime. Fees are just another way of enforcing class warfare.
True, but there is an history of cases about it where the probabilty became certainty.
Me eighter but at the same time I would like to prevent some behaviors that could be dangerous to others.
I know it could be a slippery slope but honestly it would not console me to know that the drunken driver where punished *after *he hit me, I would prefer if he would be stopped *before *being able to hit me.
But fines works only if they are proportional to your wealth, else they are a punishment only for the poor.
We agree on the last part. But my feeling is that if a crime isn’t “bad” enough to require actual jail time then it probably shouldn’t be a crime at all.
Speeding, DUI, and other risky behaviors should be punished if, and ONLY if, an actual incident occurs. Because then there is actually a victim, and not just some nebulous might-have-been.
Hurt someone while drinking and driving? That’s no accident, that’s an intentional attack. Kill someone? Again, not an accident, but premeditated murder.
Now, if say, your insurance agency decides that you are a risk due to your alcoholism, and either drops you, or increases your premiums that’s not a problem. There’s no criminal punishment happening, and if it’s in the contract you signed, that’s expected.
But, you should only criminally punish someone after they’ve hurt another person. Not when they engage in risky behaviors.