If the bottom line is illegality ... (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Noah -> If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 6:30:13 PM)

In the "Legally Illegal" thread a question was posed by Mercnbeth. I respect these guys, enjoy their posts and have learned from them so I hope no one mistakes this for any sort of teasing at their expense. That isn't what I'm doing.

Below I have included the text from that thread's original post with a few words strategically changed. Please let me explain why.

Regarding illegal immigration, some posters have proclaimed what they would do if the shoe were on the other foot. That is to say if they wanted to emmigrate to another country. In fact I doubt that most of us here can deeply empathize with people from such a wildly different culture and economic/political condition but for now let's let that be.

Instead of asking "What would you do if the shoe were on the other foot?" I'm posting what appears below to point out that the shoe is indeed on the other foot, for Americans, anyway. The shoe of publically proclaiming illegal activity, anyway, as some of the immigrations protesters have done.

In any American jurisdiction I have reasonably credible information about, much of WIITWD here is illegal. In most places hitting, binding, caging, cutting, burning someone can get you arrested even if you act with that person's consent. Slavery is illegal in all jurisdictions. Simple anal sex is still illegal in some as is homosexual activity if my information is still correct--though I am far from an expert regarding the law and will be grateful to anyone who can provide more solid information. I expect that the text of many posts which appear in this forum could presumably be ruled pornographic in some jurisdictions.

And yet here we all are.

Has each of us checked the relevant laws in out own jurisdictions? If so do we scrupulously avoid any activity prohibitted by statute?

I mean I suppose that might be somebody's kink but I have seen it listed on anyone's profile yet.

If, as Mercnbeth said in regard to immigration, the bottom line is that someone is doing something illegal, well isn't just about anyone here complaining about illegal immigrants on the basis presented in Mercnbeth's post, actually saying: "Whoever breaks the law should be dealt with swiftly and surely--except me and others who break the same laws I do"?

That was a question, not an assertion. If Mercnbeth or anyone else sees this differently I'll be very pleased to consider those opinions.

And here's the reworded version of the OP to that other thread.


Someone help me with this please? Confusion is raining in my pragmatic brain.

If you are in the country performing illegal acts of sex and violence how can you openly and VERY publicly post to message boards? How can the police that are being paid by citizen's taxes, protect versus verify, and if someone posting here is acting illegally, collect them and take them to jail?

How can ANY person, especially the young "unmentionables", grow to respect any law with this example? The people may be reasonable adults citizens enjoying their personal notion of the "American Dream", but the bottom line is they are performing ILLEGAL acts.


Thanks for considering this idea and for any comments you'd like to share.



marieToo -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 6:59:05 PM)

 


We will always find ways to justify our own behavoirs.  Jay walking, if I am correct is against the law.  Yet someone would do it thinking "Oh big deal, so Im crossing outside a cross walk, its not like Im dealing cocaine or commiting tax evasion".   Yet if a motorist should accidentlly kill that jay-walking pedestrian, he could be held accountable to the crime of  involuntary manslaughter.  Suddenly the illegal act, or crime, of jay walking just became a far worse nightmare than anyone could have imagined;  one man dead, another living with guilt, and possible imprisonment. 

We break laws every single day of our lives. Parking in the wrong spot can be illegal and punishable by fine. Going beyond the speed limit is illegal.  Yet some would argue that its "different" than another illegal act and that it doesnt compare to illegal immigration or murder. .  Off the top of my head, I cant come up with a complete opinion of absolutism,  only an observation and a thought or two.


We will always make our own crimes "ok" in our heads for one reason or another,  and someone else's crimes "not ok", when it crosses our own principles.   And I dont mean just questions of legality.   Ya know, like saying lying is wrong, but it was ok this time because I did it so I wouldnt hurt your feelings.  Is lying wrong or is it not?   With enough creativity anyone could justify just about anything.

I do believe there is a hypocrite living inside of every single one of us.  And the only thing that will make that untrue, is admitting it.  






Noah -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 8:31:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

We will always find ways to justify our own behavoirs.  Jay walking, if I am correct is against the law.  Yet someone would do it thinking "Oh big deal, so Im crossing outside a cross walk, its not like Im dealing cocaine or commiting tax evasion".   Yet if a motorist should accidentlly kill that jay-walking pedestrian, he could be held accountable to the crime of  involuntary manslaughter.  Suddenly the illegal act, or crime, of jay walking just became a far worse nightmare than anyone could have imagined;  one man dead, another living with guilt, and possible imprisonment. 

We break laws every single day of our lives. Parking in the wrong spot can be illegal and punishable by fine. Going beyond the speed limit is illegal.  Yet some would argue that its "different" than another illegal act and that it doesnt compare to illegal immigration or murder. .  Off the top of my head, I cant come up with a complete opinion of absolutism,  only an observation and a thought or two.


We will always make our own crimes "ok" in our heads for one reason or another,  and someone else's crimes "not ok", when it crosses our own principles.   And I dont mean just questions of legality.   Ya know, like saying lying is wrong, but it was ok this time because I did it so I wouldnt hurt your feelings.  Is lying wrong or is it not?   With enough creativity anyone could justify just about anything.

I do believe there is a hypocrite living inside of every single one of us.  And the only thing that will make that untrue, is admitting it.  



Thanks marie.

I'm not so sure about your belief that a hypocrite lives inside each of us but I sure enjoyed your paradoxical presentation of the notion.

I won't make the claim for myself but I know and deeply value a number of people I have known intimately for years who have never shown me the least evidence of being hypocritical. Is this conclusive proof against your claim? No. But I hope my intimate knowledge of these people--as representatives of the range of human possibility--can weigh in against a broad claim like the one you've offerred.

Now if all you mean by your comment is that we are all capable of hypocrisy, just as we may be capable of heroism or, say, juggling, well sure.

I'd agree with those you mention who would argue that parking illegally is different from murder, although I wouldn't disagree with those who said the two crimes were the same in one very limited sense: the self evident fact of illegality. And I'm guessing that you'd agree with us too.

I don't think it necessarily hypocritical to hold that one crime is okay and another crime is not. I took you to be inferring this but maybe I read you wrong. For instance I think that some of the laws which forbid elements of WIITWD are bad laws and so I observe them in the breach while still believing in the rule of law (strongly but not absolutely) and believing in the rightness of most laws of which I am aware.

I would point to the Civil Rights movement in the US for examples of good people saying in effect that they believe in the rule of law but that certain laws are wrong and should be changed, and saying so with "illegal" actions and not just words. I'm not concluding that you'd disagree here. I'm just not sure how far your attribution of hypocriticalness was meant to extend.

In regard to the topic of this thread I guess I feel, roughly, that illegality should never be the bottom line. And I try to use words like never conservatively, judiciously even. Legality is a poor end in itself, in my view. I think--as I presume most people do--that legality should serve justice and when it doesn't then the law can be morally and unhypocritically challenged. One way to challenge a bad law is to break it.

I was hoping to contribute with this thread to the overall debate on the subject of illegal immigration. It seems to me that illegality isn't a very productive bottom line, that we should look below that line with notions of justice in mind in regard to immigration as well as in other matters.

With those notions in mind one can presumably support or oppose the sort of immigration which happens to be illegal right now, and the current legislative and executive stance toward it.

I'm interested to hear more about a range of ideas from whomever might want to talk about what is seen as right or wrong about current immigraation and immigration policy.

Frankly I don't feel well enough informed about the matter to justify any definitive opinions pro or con for myself. i've read some very worthwhile comments on these boards coming at this issue on other levels. Now I'd like to see it addressed at a level of what's basically right or wrong about what these newcomers are doing, and about the government's response,

Aside from the illegality--which one can see as not being the be-all and end-all of the matter--under what sort of view does one person see the immigration (or the government policy) in question as right or wrong?





Estring -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 8:47:27 PM)

Illegal immigration is a huge negative to our society and our way of life. We have just had our 10th ER hospital close down here in the Los Angeles area because of the effect of illegal immigration. I don't see how BDSM really has any real impact on this society positive or negative. Most people don't think about us. Most people don't care what we do in private. 
As for being illegal. I don't consider what my slave and I do in our private life to be illegal. Slavery is illegal in the US, but come on, this lifestyle does not have real slavery. When someone in BDSM crosses the line into illegal behavior, they are arrested. That is more than we do to illegal immigrants at this point. 



LotusSong -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 9:04:36 PM)

What I think about regarding your question in this thread is "How is what is being done effecting the greater population as a whole."

Does WIITWD require the following from the citizenry or federal government:

Do we need special services to do WIITWD from the tax paying community?

Does WIITWD inhibit our performace of our jobs?

Does WIITWD require an interpreter or special classes?

Does WIITWD require government programs?

I believe America has gotten to the point were the very first thing that determines illegality is: What does it cost the community and government as a whole.  Actually, if Dubya could figure out how to make a buck off of us.. we'd be a protected national treasure.

Great thought provoking post :)  



mnottertail -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 9:23:28 PM)

My simple answer is a quote by Myron Floren (no relation to the Kants):

I don't give a fuck about Lawrence Welk; I yust play the accordian.


The wet-backs I am aware of  have never drawn a dime of social welfare, pay cash, make it. 


I actually had an uncle who was a state senator in florida (Bobby) and another uncle who was the National Sales Manager for Goodyear tire company, they lived close to each other but were born in minnesota, they came back for a family reunion..........naw, fuck it, i aint going into a great bunch of detail,   Bobby will be referred to  as BS (Bobby Senator) and Floyd as FU (Floyd Unimpressed)

BS: So I am very proud of a bill I have intoduced into the state legislature that would require tires on cars in the state of Florida to have yadda yadda yadda tread and pass inspection every yadda yadda yadda because you see all these poor cubans on the side of the road holding up traffic....yadda yadda yadda
FU: (calmly) You know Bobby, I remember when my Dad Carl owned the gas station in Glenwood, MN and your Dad  Oscar, his brother, used to let you charge used tires and you never paid a dime, and were never going to, but your dad sent you to college,you didn't have a pot to piss in, and you were ....yadda yadda yadda......and then we all went into the war, and they used to steal tires off of old cars in the woods to get by..............yadda yadda yadda, and if you had to yadda yadda yadda to drive your car downtown, get a job, upkeep and so on, you would have been a pauper, seems to me, Bobby, that you forgot where you came from and how tough it is for a boy from Thief River Falls to make it and you ...............

Get the picture?



Noah -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 9:25:00 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Estring

Illegal immigration is a huge negative to our society and our way of life. We have just had our 10th ER hospital close down here in the Los Angeles area because of the effect of illegal immigration. I don't see how BDSM really has any real impact on this society positive or negative. Most people don't think about us. Most people don't care what we do in private. 
As for being illegal. I don't consider what my slave and I do in our private life to be illegal. Slavery is illegal in the US, but come on, this lifestyle does not have real slavery. When someone in BDSM crosses the line into illegal behavior, they are arrested. That is more than we do to illegal immigrants at this point. 


Thanks Estring

So I take it that your personal opposition to this immigration is based primarily on what you see as a negative financial effect on our economy. That is certainly a view that makes sense.

I don't know enough about economics to know whether the negative financial effects of this immigration outweigh the positive ones, and there must be some pretty big positive ones if thousands of employers are choosing to hire these people, and other people like you and I are buying products and service offerrred by some of those employers.

Then again maybe all that is based on short term only or even false reasoning about what is truly most economical and if they saw the whole picture those employers would have reason to stop employing illegals altogether.

In the end, if can be seen that the net effect is strongly negative then that has to be a big consideration in immigration policy, I agree with you in that.

As for the hospitals, I wonder if those closures aren't caused by a range of issues ranging from management policies of the big hospital corporations; insurance industry considerations; the obscene salaries of doctors; tort law considerations and other factors as well as the influx and presence of illegals. In favor of your argument it can surely be pointed out that this is a large number of closures happening in a place with a relatively large proportion of illegals so there may be a proveable connection.

I wonder if on a per-capita basis, more ER treatment facilities are closing down in areas with high ilegal populations than in areas with far fewer illegals. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that this is true, I just don't know.

As for the principle (or is it principal?) of letting economic effect determine public policy, well economic effect surely can't be ignored, can it? And yet we choose to have many policies which could be replaced with cheaper alternatives. We choose to allows certain sorts of refugees to enter this country regardless of their probably economic contribution but rather based on their personal political situation in their home country. This is probably uneconomical but yet when properly handled a good policy.

Then again we have chosen a pre-emptive war costing billions per month when several cheaper options existed.

I think it is fair to say that as a society we may and in fact do choose the less economical policy sometimes, and do so rightly, but that economic factors do and should weigh heavily in our decisions about policy.

Thanks for taking my question seriously and offerring a thoughtful response.



Noah -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 10:07:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: LotusSong

What I think about regarding your question in this thread is "How is what is being done effecting the greater population as a whole."

Does WIITWD require the following from the citizenry or federal government:

Do we need special services to do WIITWD from the tax paying community?

Does WIITWD inhibit our performace of our jobs?

Does WIITWD require an interpreter or special classes?

Does WIITWD require government programs?

I believe America has gotten to the point were the very first thing that determines illegality is: What does it cost the community and government as a whole.  Actually, if Dubya could figure out how to make a buck off of us.. we'd be a protected national treasure.

Great thought provoking post :)  


Thanks LotusSong

I hope it was clear that I wasn't trying to equate illegal BDSM with illegal immigration. Rather I was pointing out that if one's opposition to that immigrations had as it's bottom line the illegality itself then it leaves one in a tricky situation if he is complaining about illegality, let's say a civil offense like the immigration stuff, while busy with activities that could get him charged with misdemeanors or felonies.

By the way, I don't want to read too much into Mercnbeth's useage of the expression "bottom line". I saw him/her/them as seeing that as a bottom line for one view of the issue at a certain level, so to speak. I took the post to be inspired to an extent by consideration of the mission of law enforcement forces in regard to thes immigrants. For the cops and prosecutors, obviously, the simple legality/illegality issue is closer to the bottom line than for the rest of us. I would still hold that Law Enforcement makes judgements every hour of every day about what law to enforce now, so to speak, and other considerations often trump mere illegality even for them, and rightly so.

Anyway I suspect that Mercnbeths overall view of the issue is more nuanced than that. I hope I didn't give a contrary impression in my first post.

But some people do promote that "if it is illegal it is bad and you shouldn't do it" approach, though, even some potentially felonious BDSMers.

As to your points:
quote:

Do we need special services to do WIITWD from the tax paying community?


Yes I believe that WIITWD puts a drain on the public treasury. I'd be greatly surprised if no medicare, medicaid or hospital pro bono monies were ever expended to deal with BDSM related injuries or illnesses. I expect that a good deal of court time is spent each year on issues arising from BDSM activity, and not just prosecuting daddydoms for spanking suddenly disenchanted daughtersubs, though that too. Disability issues, lawsuits, divorces and a bunch of other sorts of things might be societal (financial) costs of BDSM. And don't even get me started on the vast sums spent every year on kinky congressional junkets.

That said, I don't imagine for a second that the issue you mean to point to and the one I just raised are of comparable size. And on that subject, how do we account for the savings to the public purse from BDSM? How many people are not in counseling at government expense because of a BDSM epiphany? Well not too many I suppose, but fair is fair; I'll bet there are a few.

quote:

Does WIITWD inhibit our performace of our jobs?


Absolutely and positively it does. Before you consider BDSM-injury-related absence from work, consider the zillions of man-hours spent IMing from the cubicle to exercise one end or the other of a Power Exchange. Consider the reduced productivity of the receptionist coming back from lunch with the pepper-coated thingamijig up her whatchamacallit. And the badillions of man hour's spent posting to kinky web forums on company computers.

Give me just a penny for every nasty office click and I'll keep you in nylons and mink till kingdom come.

And by the way it isn't the illegals laying tile roofs in the searing New Mexico sun that are doing that clicking, either, I'll warrant.

quote:

Does WIITWD require an interpreter or special classes?


Well like a lot of illegals I've never attended a special class but I get the impression that that there is a sizable industry which exists to fill a perceived need for such seminars.

Need for interpreters? A few of the women who have tried to chat me up definitely needed one, as I did while trying to communicate with them. Maybe I can write a grant ...

And then of course there's Jamesthehumanrug.

quote:

Does WIITWD require government programs?


No. I don't think so. But if somebody showed me a shubari brochure that he got from that office in Pueblo Colorado I think I'd only be a little bit surprised.



quote:

I believe America has gotten to the point were the very first thing that determines illegality is: What does it cost the community and government as a whole.  Actually, if Dubya could figure out how to make a buck off of us.. we'd be a protected national treasure.


I'm not so sure America has gotten to that point you cite but it does sometimes seem as though we're circling that drain, and that plenty of people (present company excluded) would gladly forsake consideration of justice for the sake of economy, and a very tilted economy at that. At the same time I read about great effort expended to redress certain old wrongs of our criminal justice system and plenty of other sorts of instances of people still fighting the good fight.

Thanks again for posting.



marieToo -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 10:09:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: marieToo

We will always find ways to justify our own behavoirs.  Jay walking, if I am correct is against the law.  Yet someone would do it thinking "Oh big deal, so Im crossing outside a cross walk, its not like Im dealing cocaine or commiting tax evasion".   Yet if a motorist should accidentlly kill that jay-walking pedestrian, he could be held accountable to the crime of  involuntary manslaughter.  Suddenly the illegal act, or crime, of jay walking just became a far worse nightmare than anyone could have imagined;  one man dead, another living with guilt, and possible imprisonment. 

We break laws every single day of our lives. Parking in the wrong spot can be illegal and punishable by fine. Going beyond the speed limit is illegal.  Yet some would argue that its "different" than another illegal act and that it doesnt compare to illegal immigration or murder. .  Off the top of my head, I cant come up with a complete opinion of absolutism,  only an observation and a thought or two.


We will always make our own crimes "ok" in our heads for one reason or another,  and someone else's crimes "not ok", when it crosses our own principles.   And I dont mean just questions of legality.   Ya know, like saying lying is wrong, but it was ok this time because I did it so I wouldnt hurt your feelings.  Is lying wrong or is it not?   With enough creativity anyone could justify just about anything.

I do believe there is a hypocrite living inside of every single one of us.  And the only thing that will make that untrue, is admitting it.  



Thanks marie.

quote:

I'm not so sure about your belief that a hypocrite lives inside each of us but I sure enjoyed your paradoxical presentation of the notion.


Im not so sure you know what paradoxical means.

quote:

I won't make the claim for myself but I know and deeply value a number of people I have known intimately for years who have never shown me the least evidence of being hypocritical. Is this conclusive proof against your claim? No. But I hope my intimate knowledge of these people--as representatives of the range of human possibility--can weigh in against a broad claim like the one you've offerred.


Im not saying we live our lives out as hypocrites, Im say thiat at one time or another in one way or another if you really think about it, someone that you know has at least been guilty of being a hypocrite. We are all guilty of being such at one point or another.  Maybe it was in kindergarten when you got pissed off that little Johnny punched for getting the swing before you did.  If you punched him for punching you, then you believe punching someone is wrong.  Yet you punched him back. Hypocrisy.  You believe stealing is wrong but you stole a loaf of bread to feed your family.  Hypocrisy.  You dont like being mocked for being bald, but at some point have mocked another for being fat.  Hyprocrisy.  These are examples when I use the word "you" of course.  I dont mean you, personally.  I see hypocrisy every single day all around me in all dealings, with all people.  The example Ive given are simple, but they should suffice for most intelligent people who may happen upon this post.  Our laws are hypocritical.  We dont dare kick a dog or use it sexually;  its animal abuse. But we slaughter animals legally in this country everyday. Hypocrisy.  I think most would agree that running a red light is wrong, yet if you were rushing a hurt child to a hospital, you might look both ways and then run that light yourself.  I could go on  and on with examples.  But I think it would be a safe bet that we are all guilty (at some time) of critisizing something in another person, that we have done ourselves.  Thats hypocrisy.  And yes, I do believe there is a hypocrite living inside of everyone.  And I doubt that you and these people of which you speak have never been guilty of at least one moment of hypocrisy. 

quote:

I'd agree with those you mention who would argue that parking illegally is different from murder, although I wouldn't disagree with those who said the two crimes were the same in one very limited sense: the self evident fact of illegality. And I'm guessing that you'd agree with us too.


Id agree that different crimes are different crimes.  My point was that a crime that may seem minor in nature, could very well result to something very very major.  ie the jay walker example.

quote:

I don't think it necessarily hypocritical to hold that one crime is okay and another crime is not. I took you to be inferring this but maybe I read you wrong.


If you'll notice in my post.  My hypocrisy statement stood in a paragraph by itself as a general thought on human nature.  I wasnt necessarily applying to the crime beliefs and I do believe I even pointed that out..  Though Im sure I could site plenty of examples where this would apply, even in such an obscure and convoluted argument as the one youve presented. 


quote:

For instance I think that some of the laws which forbid elements of WIITWD are bad laws and so I observe them in the breach while still believing in the rule of law (strongly but not absolutely) and believing in the rightness of most laws of which I am aware


In other words you believe in the 'rule of law' in general and the "rightness" of "most" laws. Yet you live in breach of your own conviction when you break the laws that you dont agree with.  This, is hypocrisy.  "Gee most of the time I believe in the rule of law, until it comes to the ones I want to break".   Youre actually debating  your own original argument, or so it would seem.  

quote:

I would point to the Civil Rights movement in the US for examples of good people saying in effect that they believe in the rule of law but that certain laws are wrong and should be changed, and saying so with "illegal" actions and not just words. I'm not concluding that you'd disagree here.


Are you asking if Id agree?  


quote:

 I'm just not sure how far your attribution of hypocriticalness was meant to extend.
 

That doesnt surprise me. :) 

It was a  general statement that my belief is that there is a hypocrite...or at least has been a hypcrite, or will be a hypocrite at some point about some issue at one time or another in our lives.  Except of course for yourself and these other exceptional people that you associate with.

quote:

. One way to challenge a bad law is to break it.


Break it in front of  a cop, Noah.  Me?  I think I'll keep my anal sex behind closed doors.

As for the immigrants, they break the law  every day.  So maybe your point is valid on some really broad and sweeping level.  But I still cant see where your point is or if you even have one. Im not being a smart ass, believe it or not.  I just cant nail down your position and Im guessing thats because it changes constantly. 

quote:

I was hoping to contribute with this thread to the overall debate on the subject of illegal immigration. It seems to me that illegality isn't a very productive bottom line, that we should look below that line with notions of justice in mind in regard to immigration as well as in other matters.


Yah, I tried to take it to a more human level, instead of focusing on the immigration thing.  That ones been beaten to death a million times.  And frankly I really didnt pick up on your focus of the responses to be about immigrants but more of a discussion of principle.  Guess I misunderstood.

I dont know enough about the immigration laws nor am I personally inclined to debate it.  I have in the past, but  Its just not a topic I enjoy.  But Im sure there will be plenty of intellingent discourse coming on that level.  Apparently I missed the point or something




Noah -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 10:34:49 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

My simple answer is a quote by Myron Floren (no relation to the Kants):

Oh but we're all God's children.

quote:

I don't give a fuck about Lawrence Welk; I yust play the accordian.


Forget all about that polka shit and learn how to play guitar.
Or at least squeeze out some Zydeco.


quote:

The wet-backs I am aware of  have never drawn a dime of social welfare, pay cash, make it. 


Well I just haven't met them but this makes a lot of sense to me. Filling out forms in some government office is not my idea of flying under the radar. It is easy to believe that along with the numerous benefit recipients there are a ton of these guys. And I hear we let them enlist and fight and still don't grant them citizenship.


quote:

I actually had an uncle who was a state senator in florida (Bobby) and another uncle who was the National Sales Manager for Goodyear tire company, they lived close to each other but were born in minnesota, they came back for a family reunion..........naw, fuck it, i aint going into a great bunch of detail,   Bobby will be referred to  as BS (Bobby Senator) and Floyd as FU (Floyd Unimpressed)

BS: So I am very proud of a bill I have intoduced into the state legislature that would require tires on cars in the state of Florida to have yadda yadda yadda tread and pass inspection every yadda yadda yadda because you see all these poor cubans on the side of the road holding up traffic....yadda yadda yadda
FU: (calmly) You know Bobby, I remember when my Dad Carl owned the gas station in Glenwood, MN and your Dad  Oscar, his brother, used to let you charge used tires and you never paid a dime, and were never going to, but your dad sent you to college,you didn't have a pot to piss in, and you were ....yadda yadda yadda......and then we all went into the war, and they used to steal tires off of old cars in the woods to get by..............yadda yadda yadda, and if you had to yadda yadda yadda to drive your car downtown, get a job, upkeep and so on, you would have been a pauper, seems to me, Bobby, that you forgot where you came from and how tough it is for a boy from Thief River Falls to make it and you ...............

Get the picture?


Please see our vice president in charge of hypocrisy, marie.

Thanks, Myron.



NeedToUseYou -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 10:36:23 PM)

The difference for me as others have stated, is that illegal immigration has a negative tangible effect on large segments of the population be that employment, wages, competition between companies, border security, hospital care, etc... BDSM or illegal sex acts in general only effect those participating in them, to little if any long term negative effect.
I assure you if evey time someone got fucked in the ass, it cost taxpayers money there would be outrage as well.




mnottertail -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 10:41:44 PM)

I have been found out, I am not a Kant.  I think it is popular to spread the word, read or written in some magazine and hobbling 4 year to 4 year like some dog and reapeating the current dogma.  

America really in the scheme of things is a young upstart, and we are gonna be a non-starter if this asswipe view holds.

ron(fuk it noah, I am sure I am preaching to the choir)

.




marieToo -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/6/2006 11:10:36 PM)

quote:

NOAH

Please see our vice president in charge of hypocrisy, marie


And if Im not at my desk, please see God, my superior, to get his approval before posting your beliefs....He likes to be called Knowah. 



LadyEllen -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/7/2006 3:37:42 AM)

I think the first problem of western society is that we make two different types of laws;

1) laws which prohibit one person from harming another or his interests - which no one would disagree with?
2) laws which prohibit acts which according to the Church (in the widest sense) are immoral - which is ridiculous in a pluralistic society as we have now, where it is simply no one else's business what goes on between consenting adults.

Then, perhaps peculiarly for bdsm, it is not possible to disentangle type 1 from type 2. If we threw away type 2, the laws which largely prohibit consensual acts between adults which affect no one else, then bdsm would still be caught by type 1, in that its illegal to assault, falsely imprison etc

Illegal immigration though, falls only into type 1, if it falls anywhere, and that must be because it harms the entire society. If it did not harm the society, then there would be no reason to forbid it, police it or even call it illegal immigration. However we must be careful not to identify asylum seekers and legal immigrants with illegals.

I guess we have to be thankful for the fact that serious crime is so prevalent, in that it keeps the authorities (mainly) concentrated on other things than what goes on between consenting adults. However, illegality does not come in shades - it is as illegal to kill one as it is to kill twenty, and it is as illegal to beat someone up in the street as it is to thrash them at their desire. It is just a good thing that we as a society have the maturity to have shades of seriousness in terms of punishment.
E




meatcleaver -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/7/2006 4:32:44 AM)

Where there is sex there is hypocrisy. We like to think we are above the animals and we are but only in rationalizing and justifying our hypocrisy.



peterK50 -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/7/2006 6:03:49 AM)

People....this...is...a...smokescreen. While you are debating whether to give an illegal alien a bandaid people are being tortured in your name, the CIA has secret prisons in your name, the Gov't is killing people in Iraq in your name. The people in Washington are popping champagne corks knowing that people are talking about immigration because they know they will do NOTHING. Put it in the DO NOTHING pile along with voting, rights, campaign finance reform, lobbying rules etc. They'll get up on their hind legs & make windy speeches about law & order & being tough on crime while the real criminals are paying them bribes, except they aren't bribes because they wrote the law. Keep your eye on the ball people, don't be distracted.



Mercnbeth -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/7/2006 6:34:06 AM)

quote:

mnottertail: The wet-backs I am aware of  have never drawn a dime of social welfare, pay cash, make it

If they use a public facility, illegal aliens, are benefiting without payment. I take it you are excluding children from consideration because if they are born here they are citizens. Reports from border control indicate that women in labor cross the border just for the resources available to their "US citizen" children. The child "anchors" the mother in the US and is an express lane for US citizenship. Just exploiting the law, not breaking it, but a drain on social services and tax money. However if the laws were enforced and the borders protected, they and the illegal alien parents wouldn't be here. Paying "cash" and getting paid in cash in and of itself indicates illegal activity and a tax drain because sales tax, employer tax, income tax, and social security isn't paid. Pointing to the biggest cause and what should be the point of any enforcement action - people and industries who employ illegal aliens.

quote:

Noah: In any American jurisdiction I have reasonably credible information about, much of WIITWD here is illegal. In most places hitting, binding, caging, cutting, burning someone can get you arrested even if you act with that person's consent. Slavery is illegal in all jurisdictions. Simple anal sex is still illegal in some as is homosexual activity if my information is still correct--though I am far from an expert regarding the law and will be grateful to anyone who can provide more solid information. I expect that the text of many posts which appear in this forum could presumably be ruled pornographic in some jurisdictions


Noah, appreciate your slant on this. If I were attending a club or private function that caused the police to raid the place and I was arrested I'd be prepared to pay the penalty. I don't know specifically what I'm doing that is against the law in CA but I'd stand behind my actions and pay the fine, or serve the penalty. As others have pointed out, my "lifestyle" illegal activities are "sins", based upon the puritanical morality that permeates US civil law. It doesn't cost anyone a dime. You can't compare the cost of  BDSM injuries to the closing of hospitals due to the lack of payment by illegal aliens. US citizens pay taxes and pay into SS, and if they don't have health coverage, get their wages garnished if they don't pay their medical bills. Illegal aliens working for cash, can't be touched.

The hypocrisy of the amnesty movement is it's a smoke screen. The people it directly effects are victims. If you read the thread you based this one upon, the focus isn't on the exploited workers its directed to the employers. And the fact they've been sold this bill of goods by people who want to continue to exploit them. The money being made is by the company and people who can hire someone to do a $20/hour at $1.30/hour. It's directed to the US worker who landscapes or does construction or a mechanic. Illegal aliens hurt the lower/middle class. They put downward pressure on wages. They cause the minimum wage to be what it is. My illegal 'lifestyle' actions have no impact.

The individuals who are illegal aliens are pawns. Currently they are election pawns. Notice, because there was such a backlash across political lines the focus now is on enforcement. But again, most of it misdirected at the illegals. There is no focus on eliminating the reason they come, the employers. This problem can be solved in a day, without need of any new laws. Enforce the laws and put the cost of deportation on the employers.

Once we take care of this, then we can start a national task force to address the illegal actions of the BDSM community and it's "negative" impact on the economy. Based upon how much it costs for a simple black leather flogger I would like to know who's making the big money on that too!

Then once that problem is solved.



caitlyn -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/7/2006 7:12:01 AM)

Having participated in this debate once before, it seems that a compromise solution needs to be reached, based on what's good for the country.
 
It's clear that some states are suffering because of illegal workers. Others make a huge profit on them. It would seem to be unwise to damage one group to help the other ... perhaps not unwise, but at least an indication of a second rate decision.
 
In an offline discussion not long ago, an opinion ws expressed that we could allow cross-border workers currently living in the United States, on a state by state basis, with a strict limitation that crossing a state line would lead to deportation. We could then allow each state to set the terms on how easy they make it for people to legally enter the country, again, with a limitation on crossing a state line.
 
This would seem to at least be worth discussion.



juliaoceania -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/7/2006 7:33:03 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Noah

Has each of us checked the relevant laws in out own jurisdictions? If so do we scrupulously avoid any activity prohibitted by statute?
My Daddy has checked the laws and a person cannot consent to their own assault in California, meaning if he leaves marks on me from hitting me he has broken the law. I think that is crap of course. No I do not avoid this activity, but I guess technically I am not the one breaking the law am i? (had to point that out,...smiles)


quote:

If, as Mercnbeth said in regard to immigration, the bottom line is that someone is doing something illegal, well isn't just about anyone here complaining about illegal immigrants on the basis presented in Mercnbeth's post, actually saying: "Whoever breaks the law should be dealt with swiftly and surely--except me and others who break the same laws I do"?
You know I am not a Christian per se, but Jesus told a parable about the "good Samaritan" it discussed the fact that if rules get in the way of doing what is right then that is wrong. Also, Thoreau refused to pay taxes because laws were immoral in his eyes, so if a law is immoral we should not obey that law... Civil Disobedience (I have lived up to that in this life..smiles)

As far as an example for my child? How could I not help someone with less than me on my doorstep? How could I turn my back and be cold to those who suffer. How could I allow corporations to exploit those with nothing by stealing the sweat of their brow? Laws are not always kind, not always just, and not always ethical or moral....just my thoughts






LadyEllen -> RE: If the bottom line is illegality ... (9/7/2006 7:43:00 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: juliaoceania

[
My Daddy has checked the laws and a person cannot consent to their own assault in California, meaning if he leaves marks on me from hitting me he has broken the law. I think that is crap of course. No I do not avoid this activity, but I guess technically I am not the one breaking the law am i? (had to point that out,...smiles)


You know, its a while since I did law now, but I am sure it IS an offence in the UK to commission an offence (ie get someone else to do it), which would mean that even if someone begged to be whipped and got it, they could be arrested and charged with commissioning as much as the person who did the whipping. Might be worth checking out the law on commissioning an offence, which is not the same as consenting to an offence......
E 



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875