Any crime where there is no victim. I.E. doing or selling drugs, prostitution, collecting rain water, you know those type of things.

Are you serious? Are you [BLEEP] serious?! Selling drugs and prostitution are not victimless crimes? Tell that to the woman who is being prostituted in a human trafficking ring, or to the kid whose dad is a meth addict because I'm 1000% sure they are not aware that these are victimless crimes. In fact, they're not victims at all, they asked for it! They need to toughen up and embrace the suck of their reality. 

I'm not one to name call, but you are truly a moron if you believe these are victimless crimes.

If she is forced then it's a crime and she is a victim, if she is not forced it is not a crime, but in either case it is not the sex act that is the crime. A person using drugs is not a crime, although things they do to obtain them or that they do after they've used them could be crime if that causes damage to another person. In either case it is a crime against a person's autonomy to tell them that they cannot do something with their own body.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Are you serious? Are you [BLEEP] serious?! Selling drugs and prostitution are not victimless crimes? Tell that to the woman who is being prostituted in a human trafficking ring, or to the kid whose dad is a meth addict because I'm 1000% sure they are not aware that these are victimless crimes. In fact, they're not victims at all, they asked for it! They need to toughen up and embrace the suck of their reality. 

I'm not one to name call, but you are truly a moron if you believe these are victimless crimes.

If she is forced then it's a crime and she is a victim, if she is not forced it is not a crime, but in either case it is not the sex act that is the crime. A person using drugs is not a crime, although things they do to obtain them or that they do after they've used them could be crime if that causes damage to another person. In either case it is a crime against a person's autonomy to tell them that they cannot do something with their own body.

I am glad there is at least one person on this board who gets it.

---

If she is forced then it's a crime and she is a victim, if she is not forced it is not a crime, but in either case it is not the sex act that is the crime. A person using drugs is not a crime, although things they do to obtain them or that they do after they've used them could be crime if that causes damage to another person. In either case it is a crime against a person's autonomy to tell them that they cannot do something with their own body.

I am glad there is at least one person on this board who gets it.

I understand what you are saying, but under your extreme libertarian philosophy, it would not be illegal for a person to build a nuclear weapon, as long as they did not set it off.  I can't go along with that.  Same deal with drunk driving.  You say as long as a person does not harm anyone, it should be okay to drive drunk.  You're completely ignoring public safety.  It's just not practical to say, "As long as someone doesn't get harmed, whatever you do should not be illegal."

---

I am glad there is at least one person on this board who gets it.

I understand what you are saying, but under your extreme libertarian philosophy, it would not be illegal for a person to build a nuclear weapon, as long as they did not set it off.  I can't go along with that.  Same deal with drunk driving.  You say as long as a person does not harm anyone, it should be okay to drive drunk.  You're completely ignoring public safety.  It's just not practical to say, as long as someone doesn't get harmed, whatever you do should not be illegal.

If you drive drunk and you hurt no one in the process, then by pure definition, you have done no harm, therefore there can be no crime. And don't get me started when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

---

I am glad there is at least one person on this board who gets it.

I understand what you are saying, but under your extreme libertarian philosophy, it would not be illegal for a person to build a nuclear weapon, as long as they did not set it off.  I can't go along with that.  Same deal with drunk driving.  You say as long as a person does not harm anyone, it should be okay to drive drunk.  You're completely ignoring public safety.  It's just not practical to say, "As long as someone doesn't get harmed, whatever you do should not be illegal."

It's not moral to say "You cannot because someone might get hurt."

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I understand what you are saying, but under your extreme libertarian philosophy, it would not be illegal for a person to build a nuclear weapon, as long as they did not set it off.  I can't go along with that.  Same deal with drunk driving.  You say as long as a person does not harm anyone, it should be okay to drive drunk.  You're completely ignoring public safety.  It's just not practical to say, "As long as someone doesn't get harmed, whatever you do should not be illegal."

It's not moral to say "You cannot because someone might get hurt."

So you think it would be okay for your next door neighbor to have a nuclear weapon as long as he doesn't set it off.  And you think it's okay for people to drive drunk as long as they don't hit anybody.

In fact, your philosophy would give you the right to pull out a gun and shoot at me as long as you don't hit me.  No victim, therefore no crime.  Right?

I guess you could go down to a Jaguar game with a pistol and fire wildly into the stands, and as long as you don't hit anyone, you don't think there should be an arrest.  Because there's no victim.  

You see where this leads?

---

Here's the thing: When we jail people for drug offenses, we aren't addressing any issues.  That family still loses a mother or father and still has their life ruined.

I have a great many addicts in my family.  My cousin and uncle have both done time and lose their kids due to heroin and meth, and they just do more heroin and meth.  My older sister spent over a decade addicted to meth, but got clean because she worked her [BLEEP] off and didn't want to lose her kid.

The point is, you can't legally mandate that people don't mess up their lives.  You go on and on about victimless crimes, but drugs are illegal and people...still do them.  At the very least, weed should 100% be legal as it's substantially less dangerous than alcohol.  It's ludicrous that people are serving jail time for it.

Jail time for first time offenses is not what they need. They need to get clean, get some job training or the necessary support for whatever it is they were lacking that put them in that position in the first place. Second offenses, maybe more support and likely some jail time. Third offense, you're going to jail period. 

People definitely can't always see where their choices lead them. Logic says we says should be able to but not everyone is raised in an environment where logic exists. Or even common sense. 

Our individual choices have a far greater impact than what we can think, see or hear. I used to think what I did affected no one but myself. Time, experience and age has shown me that is just not true.

---

I understand what you are saying, but under your extreme libertarian philosophy, it would not be illegal for a person to build a nuclear weapon, as long as they did not set it off.  I can't go along with that.  Same deal with drunk driving.  You say as long as a person does not harm anyone, it should be okay to drive drunk.  You're completely ignoring public safety.  It's just not practical to say, as long as someone doesn't get harmed, whatever you do should not be illegal.

If you drive drunk and you hurt no one in the process, then by pure definition, you have done no harm, therefore there can be no crime. And don't get me started when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Please do everyone a favor and get sterilized before you breed.  Seriously.  I'll bet that you are a college graduate.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

It's not moral to say "You cannot because someone might get hurt."

So you think it would be okay for your next door neighbor to have a nuclear weapon as long as he doesn't set it off.  And you think it's okay for people to drive drunk as long as they don't hit anybody.

In fact, your philosophy would give you the right to pull out a gun and shoot at me as long as you don't hit me.  No victim, therefore no crime.  Right?

I guess you could go down to a Jaguar game with a pistol and fire wildly into the stands, and as long as you don't hit anyone, you don't think there should be an arrest.  Because there's no victim.  

You see where this leads?

You trust the federal government with nuclear weapons, why does it matter if they live next to you? Quite frankly, I trust your neighbor more than the federal government. As far a drinking and driving, it isn't a crime because there is no victim. Not sure how many times I have to say that before you get it. You too need to refer to the diagram I posted for help on figuring all this out. If you pull a gun and shot it at someone, it would definitely be a crime. The intent was to shoot someone which is a crime against a person, you just happen to be a bad shot.

---

It's not moral to say "You cannot because someone might get hurt."

So you think it would be okay for your next door neighbor to have a nuclear weapon as long as he doesn't set it off.  And you think it's okay for people to drive drunk as long as they don't hit anybody.

In fact, your philosophy would give you the right to pull out a gun and shoot at me as long as you don't hit me.  No victim, therefore no crime.  Right?

I guess you could go down to a Jaguar game with a pistol and fire wildly into the stands, and as long as you don't hit anyone, you don't think there should be an arrest.  Because there's no victim.  

You see where this leads?

To absurd logical fallacies? Yes, clearly.

---

If you drive drunk and you hurt no one in the process, then by pure definition, you have done no harm, therefore there can be no crime. And don't get me started when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Please do everyone a favor and get sterilized before you breed.  Seriously.  I'll bet that you are a college graduate.

Just because you can't argue the point is no call for insults.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So you think it would be okay for your next door neighbor to have a nuclear weapon as long as he doesn't set it off.  And you think it's okay for people to drive drunk as long as they don't hit anybody.

In fact, your philosophy would give you the right to pull out a gun and shoot at me as long as you don't hit me.  No victim, therefore no crime.  Right?

I guess you could go down to a Jaguar game with a pistol and fire wildly into the stands, and as long as you don't hit anyone, you don't think there should be an arrest.  Because there's no victim.  

You see where this leads?

You trust the federal government with nuclear weapons, why does it matter if they live next to you? Quite frankly, I trust your neighbor more than the federal government. As far a drinking and driving, it isn't a crime because there is no victim. Not sure how many times I have to say that before you get it. You too need to refer to the diagram I posted for help on figuring all this out. If you pull a gun and shot it at someone, it would definitely be a crime. The intent was to shoot someone which is a crime against a person, you just happen to be a bad shot.

How can you prove that the intent was to shoot someone?  What if I pulled a gun and shot it towards someone but intentionally aimed over their head or towards the ground near them in order to scare them?  Is that a crime?  You are out of your mind.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

You trust the federal government with nuclear weapons, why does it matter if they live next to you? Quite frankly, I trust your neighbor more than the federal government. As far a drinking and driving, it isn't a crime because there is no victim. Not sure how many times I have to say that before you get it. You too need to refer to the diagram I posted for help on figuring all this out. If you pull a gun and shot it at someone, it would definitely be a crime. The intent was to shoot someone which is a crime against a person, you just happen to be a bad shot.

How can you prove that the intent was to shoot someone?  What if I pulled a gun and shot it towards someone but intentionally aimed over their head or towards the ground near them in order to scare them?  Is that a crime?  You are out of your mind.

Intent is proven in the court of law all the time. Lol.

---

If you drive drunk and you hurt no one in the process, then by pure definition, you have done no harm, therefore there can be no crime. And don't get me started when it comes to the 2nd Amendment.

Please do everyone a favor and get sterilized before you breed.  Seriously.  I'll bet that you are a college graduate.

You forgot to use the cross out feature for college and put “indoctrination center” graduate.

---

How can you prove that the intent was to shoot someone?  What if I pulled a gun and shot it towards someone but intentionally aimed over their head or towards the ground near them in order to scare them?  Is that a crime?  You are out of your mind.

Intent is proven in the court of law all the time. Lol.

You said that "If you pull a gun and shot it at someone, it would definitely be a crime".  Just because one person shot towards somebody else there is no victim, so how can it be a crime?

You said that it was a crime and justified because "the intent was to shoot someone".  How do you get people in court to prove "intent" without an arrest?  If there was not "victim" (ie. nobody was harmed) then by your logic there was never any crime committed.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Please do everyone a favor and get sterilized before you breed.  Seriously.  I'll bet that you are a college graduate.

You forgot to use the cross out feature for college and put “indoctrination center” graduate.

Yeah, I'm feeling kind of lazy this afternoon.

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Intent is proven in the court of law all the time. Lol.

You said that "If you pull a gun and shot it at someone, it would definitely be a crime".  Just because one person shot towards somebody else there is no victim, so how can it be a crime?

You said that it was a crime and justified because "the intent was to shoot someone".  How do you get people in court to prove "intent" without an arrest?  If there was not "victim" (ie. nobody was harmed) then by your logic there was never any crime committed.

If I pull out a gun and put it to my head is it a crime? Am I victim or perpetrator? If I shoot myself in the foot is it battery? If I say I'm going to shoot myself is it assault? If I shoot myself in the head and die is it murder?

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

You said that "If you pull a gun and shot it at someone, it would definitely be a crime".  Just because one person shot towards somebody else there is no victim, so how can it be a crime?

You said that it was a crime and justified because "the intent was to shoot someone".  How do you get people in court to prove "intent" without an arrest?  If there was not "victim" (ie. nobody was harmed) then by your logic there was never any crime committed.

If I pull out a gun and put it to my head is it a crime? Am I victim or perpetrator? If I shoot myself in the foot is it battery? If I say I'm going to shoot myself is it assault? If I shoot myself in the head and die is it murder?

It was a matter of time before this got brought up.  I was going to chime in but had so much fun watching people debate Dimsom.  

I can see, or not see on the news, “we’ve got a jumper!”  But no one cares.  There’s no victim.  Unless he does jump.  But he didn’t jump at the time, so we let it go, oh [BLEEP]; he jumped. Let’s save the victim or the murderer?

---

Really?  A drug addict with no job that resorts to stealing to pay for the drugs is he involved in a victimless crime?

Would you say the same thing about an alcoholic? You guys keep trying to tie the two things together. Stealing for a fix is far different than taking a drug or drinking a drink. No matter your DoC.

You did not answer the question.  Answer mine and then I’ll answer yours.

---

Original Season Ticket Holder - Retired  1995 - 2020


At some point you just have to let go of what you thought should happen and live in what is happening.
 

Would you say the same thing about an alcoholic? You guys keep trying to tie the two things together. Stealing for a fix is far different than taking a drug or drinking a drink. No matter your DoC.

You did not answer the question.  Answer mine and then I’ll answer yours.

Stealing is a crime, being a drug addict is not.

---

If I pull out a gun and put it to my head is it a crime? Am I victim or perpetrator? If I shoot myself in the foot is it battery? If I say I'm going to shoot myself is it assault? If I shoot myself in the head and die is it murder?

It was a matter of time before this got brought up.  I was going to chime in but had so much fun watching people debate Dimsom.  

I can see, or not see on the news, “we’ve got a jumper!”  But no one cares.  There’s no victim.  Unless he does jump.  But he didn’t jump at the time, so we let it go, oh [BLEEP]; he jumped. Let’s save the victim or the murderer?

Clearly in this case, and the one I brought up, there is no crime. Someone who is going to jump off a building needs mental health care not to be imprisoned, and that's the same with anyone who chooses self harm. But you also can't save everyone because many people of sound mind simply want out of life. It's the same with assisted suicide, if the person chooses to die who are we to stop them, but we should draw the line when it isn't really that person's choice. But it seems some of these people would be locking up Stage 4 cancer patients if they failed to end their lives. I think the clearest similar situation is gambling. I don't think anyone here thinks we should arrest people for playing poker, but it's against the law in many places even while the State endorses gambling on sports, animal racing, intra- and interstate lotteries, and casinos. And deity forbid you should sell beer or whisky off your porch without a license. Heck in NYC we had a race riot over a guy getting killed by the cops for "selling loose cigarettes", because that's really something that the State should criminalize, right? Nah, why be free when it's better to have a Police State where the government gets to tell everyone what they can and can't do with their own bodies because some of them might do things with which others disagree. Stealing for drugs should be no different that stealing for rent or stealing for a vacation or stealing for pocket money. Stealing is stealing no matter the reason why. Forcing people in to prostitution should be a crime the same as forcing people to be a nanny, a seamstress, or a gardener. Forced labor is forced labor no matter the labor. Neglecting your kids should be crime no matter the reason why you did it. But doing drugs or being a prostitute in and of themselves are only crimes because somebody somewhere thought they had the right to tell other people that they do not have the right to their own bodies, and that, well, that is just not right.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato