then they wouldn't be let into the show without an adult. if they have no adult supervision, no entry.
That’s fine, while I don’t know you it seems like you are going to go with the pro life candidate unless they are very extreme. As an example, I shared my family situation and I think you said something like that situation should be an exception. While I appreciate the sentiment there is no abortion law, existing or proposed as far as I know that would allow for such an exception. So while you personally may be more flexible, it seems likely based upon what you have posted that you will support a candidate that will try to significantly limit my families ability to address such situations.
Okay. “Thou shalt not kill and thou shalt not steal” are the only commandments that are actual laws according to the King James version.
Everyone that says it's not a bad thing for your children to see these mentally ill men dressed as woman storytelling in front of children, or any adult that actually endorses it as "harmless" is a sick... perverted groomer.
I'm pointing out the faulty logic, not comparing it to murder or slavery. Some of you guys really like to deliberately miss the point.
There was no faulty logic nor was there any point to miss. You were just trying to move the discussion to a place you feel you might be able to hold your own. You failed.
Comparing the evolution of norms over thousands of years (maybe 150 years in the case of slavery in the Southern US) with recent legislative changes is still a stretch.
Republicans do nothing, they have no agenda. They do something and they’re authoritarians. They can’t win with you, so they shouldn’t try.
No one is trying to win anything. You can’t just keep crying freedom when your goal is is to oppress different groups. Just look what’s happening to DuhSantis in the courts. Like Trump he keeps losing.
To play devil’s advocate here, don’t we have laws that promote cultural morality/ethics which are supported by secular folks and not exclusively religious? Or you’re saying we do have such laws but that we shouldn’t? Even most secular liberals are not looking to legalize full public nudity, for example. But the prohibition against public nudity in my view is different than laws banning murder, theft, perjury, or even traffic laws where the safety and property rights of others are more directly implicated. Not sure what the libertarian position is on it, but I think it would be challenging to justify government criminalization of public nudity without reliance on social mores.
Good points. My guess is the dividing line is when you infringe on other people’s rights. Let’s take your public nudity example. Public nudity is legal but only in certain places. For instance if you go to a nude beach you shouldn’t be surprised nor offended by seeing nude people. The same goes for nudist communities. Once you travel outside those venues then your nudity would be infringing on the rights of those not wishing to see it. Let’s take it a step further. Let’s say politicians decide they’re going to make it legal all over. Would a rational thinking person believe this would be an appropriate course of action by the politicians?
I’m all for public nudity if the women are hot. Would make my Riverwalk strolls and Sail pavilion pit stops that much more pleasurable. Down here it’s a smoke show.
One of the laws that would seem to be largely based in non-religious morality, and is interesting in this context because Florida law specifically says you can lose your liquor license for violating it, is the prohibition on bars hosting “dwarf tossing” events. Thought that was interesting both in the context of this morality discussion, and in the context of some of the comments about how even if this was somehow improper revoking liquor licenses over it is too extreme.
