From owner-freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Thu May 8 03:36:46 2003 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C702037B401; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:36:46 -0700 (PDT) Received: from hannibal.servitor.co.uk (hannibal.servitor.co.uk [195.188.15.48]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7AA3D43FBF; Thu, 8 May 2003 03:36:41 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from paul@hannibal.servitor.co.uk) Received: from paul by hannibal.servitor.co.uk with local (Exim 4.14) id 19DMjb-0002PS-6n; Wed, 07 May 2003 12:05:15 +0100 Date: Wed, 7 May 2003 12:05:15 +0100 From: Paul Robinson To: Terry Lambert Message-ID: <20030507110515.GH11502@iconoplex.co.uk> References: <20030506121650.K51947@12-234-22-23.pyvrag.nggov.pbz> <3EB8A4AF.B6B02E5B@mindspring.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <3EB8A4AF.B6B02E5B@mindspring.com> Sender: Paul Robinson cc: Doug Barton cc: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Senator Santorum X-BeenThere: freebsd-chat@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Non technical items related to the community List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 08 May 2003 10:36:47 -0000 On f, Terry Lambert wrote: > Actually, the slippery slope, in the limit, is consensual > crimes include crimes where the victim voluntarily ceded > rights which are held to be inalienable, e.g. selling > themselves into slavery willingly in response to a fetish, > and then being resold unwillingly. I'm sorry, I was keeping quiet on this one, but can you give me an example of a real case of somebody selling themselves into slavery and then being resold unwillingly? I know New York can be a bit screwed up at times, but surely it's not *this* deranged? :-) A better description of consensual crimes is, in my opinion, one that states a crime that whilst clearly illegal, the "victim" or participants are completely at ease with the crime - e.g. drug consumption and possession. It's illegal in the UK to smoke dope, but it's now so ill-policed that you could walk into a police station with a bong on the go and you wouldn't get arrested. Not only is the smoker consenting (the smoker is considered to be a victim), but now even the police are... > I think the senator used the inflamatory examples he used > merely to gain support for his side of the argument by > provoking outrage in people who would otherwise support it, > but couldn't fault his logic. The most important part of > his statement was actually "...the right to anything". Without turning this into yet another anti-US flamefest, US senators are well known for believing Americans have the right to do anything they want anyway and don't appear to have a grasp of the differences between rights and privileges, so I don't see where this guy was really coming from. If you and your best friend want to put your genitals up each other's bottoms, what the hell has that got to do with him, me, or anybody else? -- Paul Robinson