|
On October 01 2013 00:28 Rassy wrote:
It does harm people if they see it, you are just in denial.
Just because you dont mind seeing a guy masturbate in public does not mean this goes for everyone.
The majority of people find seeing a guy masurbate in anny situation other then a private sexual encounter disgusting.
Am not even gonna read this thread annymore, this is beyond crazy lol.
Well, what about public puking?
Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public?
Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself?
None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then?
|
i think it should not be allowed, but it also shouldnt incur a sexual assault charge, that is equally stupid.
Well, what about public puking?
Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public?
Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself?
None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then?
peeing is illegal, so is pooping.
The rest is uncontrollable and is being done involuntarily.
I am sure if you accidentlly jizz in your pants, noone will arrest you.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:29 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:25 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus? I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that. The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it.
See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination?
|
On October 01 2013 00:35 Kreb wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:28 Rassy wrote:
It does harm people if they see it, you are just in denial.
Just because you dont mind seeing a guy masturbate in public does not mean this goes for everyone.
The majority of people find seeing a guy masurbate in anny situation other then a private sexual encounter disgusting.
Am not even gonna read this thread annymore, this is beyond crazy lol.
Well, what about public puking? Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public? Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself? None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then?
Those are not things that you can necessarily control.
|
Masturbating and having sex in semi public places is legal as long as you dont get caught , dont leave a mess and other people dont see it, it realy is as simple as that.
You are now comparing 2 different things.the situation where noone else sees it to the situation where other people see it. These are 2 completely different things.
|
On October 01 2013 00:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:27 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:22 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ? In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing. Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance. It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system. I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
Why is the intention so important?
For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:35 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:27 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:22 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ? In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing. Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance. It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system. I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal.
It's that it will be nearly impossible to prove harassment outside of extreme cases, making that section essentially null.
|
United States43968 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:36 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:29 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:25 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus? I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that. The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it. See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination?
You understand that staring at someone while doing it means it is illegal, right? That is in no way impacted by this ruling. If I understand you correctly you're saying that while this ruling doesn't allow X you don't want the ruling anyway because you want the law to be as broad as possible, even if it bans things where no harm is done, because it makes convicting people easier. Is that right?
|
On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things.
I think I agree with you. You're okay if it happens in butt fuck nowhere where people are hardly ever present (forest, plains, etc.), but aren't okay with it happening in populated areas. I'm okay with it being this way, but I can see it being hard to enforce unless you specifically deem spots to be okay to masturbate at publicly.
|
It doesnt ban things where no harm is done, since if no harm is done noone sees it, you are not caught and you wont get punished
Thats the beauty of the law, it only effects the situations where you get caught.
So kwark: dont get caught and you will be fine.
|
On October 01 2013 00:36 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:29 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:25 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus? I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that. The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it. See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination?
Its real easy. First prove he was masterbating in the subway car. Then have witnesses (like the girl) say he stared at her. 99,99999 pct likelyhood they will be more trustworthy = conviction.
We have nailed a guy dryhumping teenagers on the bus in my hometown several times, is it any different?
|
United States43968 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:38 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:35 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:27 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:22 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ? In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing. Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance. It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system. I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal. It's that it will be nearly impossible to prove harassment outside of extreme cases, making that section essentially null.
Then have the burden of proof be on the guy jacking off. If he took reasonable steps to not involve anyone else then he's in the clear. There will always be shades of grey with any law but we have an entire legal system dedicated to dealing with this shit and working out how grey is too grey. This isn't some new unsolvable problem that needs addressing, this is what the legal system does. Painting everything black is not a reasonable solution to the shades of grey problem.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:39 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:36 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:29 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:25 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. Using children is too much of an extreme. What about just masturbating on the lift or a bus? I know a couple (now married) who used to do all sorts of sex stuff on buses and never once got caught. Nobody was harmed and I'm not sure why we need a law against doing stuff like that. The same principle of reasonable assumption applies. If a guy picks a crowded lift as a place to jack it I'd be happy concluding that he wanted to jack off with all these people around him, that he was non-consensually involving them in it. See, this actually happens on the NYC subway. And the creeps are usually staring intently at a young girl in the car. How do you stop that guy given how immense the burden of proof would be, and okay the other guy just using his imagination? You understand that staring at someone while doing it means it is illegal, right? That is in no way impacted by this ruling. If I understand you correctly you're saying that while this ruling doesn't allow X you don't want the ruling anyway because you want the law to be as broad as possible, even if it bans things where no harm is done, because it makes convicting people easier. Is that right?
Yes. The societal cost is increased rates of harassment due to the difficulty of proving a mental act, while enabling the physical act.
|
On October 01 2013 00:36 Djzapz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:35 Kreb wrote:On October 01 2013 00:28 Rassy wrote:
It does harm people if they see it, you are just in denial.
Just because you dont mind seeing a guy masturbate in public does not mean this goes for everyone.
The majority of people find seeing a guy masurbate in anny situation other then a private sexual encounter disgusting.
Am not even gonna read this thread annymore, this is beyond crazy lol.
Well, what about public puking? Children (or...... adults) peeing or shitting themselves in public? Sneezing and accidentally getting half a litre of snot all over yourself? None of that disgusting? So all should be illegal then? Those are not things that you can necessarily control.
True. But thats kind of what makes it ok. That when someone pukes you kinda "know" they didnt want to. So you dont interpret it as the guy puking tried to disgust you even if he did. I think thats kind of what the article meant by "not targetting the masturbation towards anyone". It wasnt meant to be disgusting, or possibly even shown, for anyone around. Im not sure what to think of it really but I can definitely see how they reasoned when they didnt convict him.
|
United States22883 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:42 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:38 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:35 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:27 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:22 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ? In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing. Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance. It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system. I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal. It's that it will be nearly impossible to prove harassment outside of extreme cases, making that section essentially null. Then have the burden of proof be on the guy jacking off. If he took reasonable steps to not involve anyone else then he's in the clear. There will always be shades of grey with any law but we have an entire legal system dedicated to dealing with this shit and working out how grey is too grey. This isn't some new unsolvable problem that needs addressing, this is what the legal system does. Painting everything black is not a reasonable solution to the shades of grey problem.
It is when it's a super fucking minor benefit. Even the rules on TL are designed with this in mind. You can't make every case a discretionary one. Sometimes exceptions get cut down because of the grand scheme of things.
|
On October 01 2013 00:15 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:09 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:03 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2013 23:59 TheRealArtemis wrote:On September 30 2013 23:55 KwarK wrote:On September 30 2013 23:51 FFW_Rude wrote:
If you see a guy through his window masterbating, this is voyeurism and you can be charged.
If a guy masterbate in the street and "forces you" (in a sens) to watch, it's public nudity and it's charged.
So basicly if i understand right, people are talking about removing the charging for people that masturbate in the street ? If you're doing it because you get off on people watching you it's still illegal because you're involving them. If you're just doing your own thing, not involving anyone, not harming anyone, who the fuck cares. Now I'm reasonably sure everyone deciding to do it on a street would be the first category but also that most people masturbating or fucking their girlfriends outside are the second category. There is no reason to make a blanket law against the acts themselves when you can distinguish between them. Because you can still walk in on them. Like I said in a previous post. Im just to accept having to watch people masturbate in nature while im running or walking my dog? or simply taking a stroll? They're forced to accept you walking your dog. That bizarre inter-species master slave relationship is way weirder than a guy touching his dick. Hell, bonobos masturbate but they don't keep pets. The difference is they're not trying to ban you walking your dog. If i replace the "walking the dog" by "talking a walk on myself" is that still apply ? I want to understand why you support this so vehemently. I think i'm missing something. Maybe i don't understand you very well  I don't understand why walking a dog in a forest is fine, walking alone in a forest is fine, having a picnic in a forest is fine, dressing up as a clown in a forest is fine but jacking it in a forest needs to be illegal because someone might see. Someone might see all of these things and yet they're not banned. It's only if you impart some hugely negative value judgement on masturbation that it makes any kind of sense and I just don't agree that it's especially harmful. Non-consensual sexual involvement should absolutely be illegal but it is so that's not the issue. People seem to be saying that just passively seeing it is so awful it must be illegal and I just don't see why. Freedom should be limited on the basis of harm.
No, freedom shouldn't be limited on the basis of harm. Freedom should be limited to the respect on other people and the fact of living together in a peaceful society. The problem is that you're putting masturbation on the same level as dressing as a clown or walking the dog, which is absolutely not the same. The first one is a fact of clothes, that harms no one. The second one is absolutely normal and disturbs no one. Masturbating behind a tree is not disturbing too, that's true. But there is an ethic that is to not show it to people, because it's something that is only for you and no one else. Imagine if one of your parents, or one of your children would see you ? The problem is that they don't try to see you, you are in fault because you aren't in a private zone. Masturbating is something socially disturbing if it's shown to someone, and it must stay like that. I have nothing against masturbation as long as people don't suddenly consider masturbation as something absolutely normal that can be done anywhere.
|
TLADT24920 Posts
this is quite the law. I can understand the reasoning behind it but I disagree with it still. Sweden and their odd laws lol
|
United States43968 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:38 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:35 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:27 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:22 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ? In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing. Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance. It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system. I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal. Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
Maybe they should stop watching things that offend them so much if the guy is just doing his own thing and not involving them in any way. A lot of people have serious phobias about dogs but they don't try to ban dog walking in public parks because they understand the difference between their issue and a legal issue.
|
On October 01 2013 00:38 Paljas wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:35 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:27 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:22 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ? In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing. Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance. It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system. I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal. Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen.
Because it's different to be disgusted than to be harassed.
Anyways, it is also illegal on many countries to have sex on public spaces, and as far i know, masturbation is having sex with yourself. Maybe i am too close minded to understand how it was ok because it was masturbation but it is not ok to fuck with my girlfriend on the beach (or maybe on sweden i can do both).
|
TLADT24920 Posts
On October 01 2013 00:44 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 01 2013 00:38 Paljas wrote:On October 01 2013 00:35 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:27 Jibba wrote:On October 01 2013 00:26 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:22 FFW_Rude wrote:On October 01 2013 00:19 KwarK wrote:On October 01 2013 00:15 Jibba wrote:
If someone were to sexually assault someone/harass them through masturbation, how would you prove it? What level of proof would you require to stop sick fucks from treading the line? If a guy picked in front of a school to do it I'd be happy concluding his intention was probably to be seen by the children. If he picked behind a tree in the middle of nowhere I'd be happy concluding that it was not. We have a legal system to decide these things. But what if the guy is not IN FRONT of the school and is against the wall that board the school and get off by hearing the voices of children... They were arrest of that kind of guy... How do you prove what they are doing if you have no law to this ? In cases where he's obviously involving other people it's still illegal. Are you arguing that we should outlaw a bunch of stuff that doesn't harm anyone so that way it's easier to prosecute people who do stuff that is illegal because they'll have broken a really broad law? That seems a shitty way to legislate. Might as well ban breathing so any time you have a murder suspect you can't convict you can get them on breathing. Yes, because the benefit of public masturbation doesn't outweigh the difficulty and cost of the harassment that ensues. We're not talking fundamental rights or basic sustenance. It's the same way we make rules that don't necessarily apply very well on an individual basis, but exist due to how things function in the entire system. I don't get this harassment thing and how it isn't already covered by the "not directed at anyone" aspect of the ruling. If you're picking a specific person to masturbate in front of because you want them to see it then that's illegal. I don't see how this ruling in any way allows harassment, it's simply that the act itself isn't criminal, rather how you do it might make it criminal. Why is the intention so important? For the people watching it, there is no significant difference between a guy just doing his own thing or a guy wanting it to be seen. Maybe they should stop watching things that offend them so much if the guy is just doing his own thing and not involving them in any way. A lot of people have serious phobias about dogs but they don't try to ban dog walking in public parks because they understand the difference between their issue and a legal issue.
I haven't read a lot of posts in this thread but you can't seriously compare dog walking to masturbation. They are way too different to do that so I don't think the comparison holds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
